Max Seats Vs Max Pax on a PPL

[flyingpom]

So I'm well aware of the 6 person limit ( inc Pilot ) in relation to one of the privileges granted to a PPL holder ( as defined in the CAR's ).

Now I've been told that it's both a 6 person and 6 seat limitation i.e I am unable to fly an 8 seat aircraft even if I only have 6 people on board. I've spent a fair while scoring the CAR's, CAO etc and I can only seem to find references to the limit of 6 "people" rather than "6 seats"

In short, on a PPL, can i fly any single engine piston aircraft that's < 5700kg and has more than 6 seats as long as I don't fill it up with more than 6 people?

[MikeTangoEcho]

thats what I would've thought, I've only seen references to 6 pob.. and <5700kg, however maximum seating capacity also comes to mind, interested to see if anyone else knows

[triathlon]

You can fly an aircraft with more than 6 seats. The law is not seat limiting, only PAX limiting.

[TSIO540]

there is nothing prohibiting you from flying a twin so long as you are appropriately rated..

My limited understanding of the PVT ops rule was that cost sharing could not be done between more than 6 people... i.e. you could take out a Chieftain but could only share the cost with 6 people

[flyingpom]

Does any regulation actually detail the seating limits?? or lack of.. or is this implicit by the fact the regs only talk about persons?

[tmpffisch]

Only from the fact they mention passengers, not seats.

I held a Chieftain endorsement with only a PPL before I got a CPL.

[Bevan666]

And there is no limit to the numbers of passengers either. Only a limit of 6 if you are cost sharing.

Bevan..

[Xcel]

Agree with bevan and tsio...

Know if a few ppl owners of 10 seat plus jets and kingairs...

It's a cost sharing limit as has been said... Although I can't reference at the moment as I'm without regs at hand...

[capt787]

If you are rich enough like certain bloke name John who own a B707 then it is OKAY to carry more than 6 pax in your aircraft as long as none of your pax are paying you anything in any form for sharing the cost. Selling an apple for $600 to your mate after the flight count as cost sharing as well.

Reference: CAR 7 - 7A

Carrying pax WITHOUT cost sharing falls into CAR 7 (d)(v)
Carrying pax WITH cost sharing falls into CAR 7A

[S-N-A-F-U]

I was under the usumption that it was no more than 6 pax cost sharing, there are a lot of skydive opps that carry more than 6 pax and are flown under private opps with private pilots

[Eljay]

While we are on the subject. How far does cost sharing go?
Can I share the complete cost of running the aircraft (ie: fuel, maint, annual, insurance, hangarage, cost outlay)? Or am I restricted to only the cost of the fuel and landing charges?

[flyingpom]

Here's the Reg:

(7A) An aircraft that carries persons on a flight, otherwise than in
accordance with a fixed schedule between terminals, is
employed in a private operation if:
(a) public notice of the flight has not been given by any form
of public advertisement or announcement; and
(b) the number of persons on the flight, including the
operating crew, does not exceed 6; and
(c) no payment is made for the services of the operating crew;
and
(d) the persons on the flight, including the operating crew,
share equally in the costs of the flight; and
(e) no payment is required for a person on the flight other
than a payment under paragraph (d).

Unless I am reading this wrong:

- A PPL holder engaged in a private flight is not allowed to carry more than 6 people. Although the previous section ( paragraph d ) details:

(d) an aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or
in the course of:
(i) the personal transportation of the owner of the
aircraft;
(ii) aerial spotting where no remuneration is received by
the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person
or organisation on whose behalf the spotting is
conducted;
(iii) agricultural operations on land owned and occupied
by the owner of the aircraft;
(iv) aerial photography where no remuneration is
received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or
by any person or organisation on whose behalf the
photography is conducted;
(v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods
without a charge for the carriage being made other
than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods
being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer
of the aircraft;
(va) the carriage of persons in accordance with
subregulation (7A);
(vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes
of trade;
(vii) conversion training for the purpose of endorsement
of an additional type or category of aircraft in a pilot
licence; or
(viii) any other activity of a kind substantially similar to
any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vi)
(inclusive);
shall be taken to be employed in private operations.

Which does not mention a person limit.....

It's bloody confusing non the less..

[nomorecatering]

An aviation lawer once proved to me that one could fly an A380 as PIC with a Day VFR PPL licence if it was yours and you were carrying your 347 wives and kids. All you needed was a type rating and a co pilot.....and the othere design feature endorsements.

Ok, insurance would be sticking point, and its never gonna happen. But appararently legit as far as the regs go.

[Ted D Bear]

Flyingpom

If none of the pax is paying anything, it is a PVT op under 7(d)(v). No limit on numbers.

If the pax and crew are cost sharing equally, it is a PVT op under 7(d)(va) (which refers to 7A). Maximum 6 POB - and the other requirements of 7A need to be met.

Ted

[Sunfish]

I can see myself at the controls of my own PC12......then I wake up.

It's about commitment to doing it right.

The Lance is about as big as I'm prepared to get without doing an IFR rating.

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

Cessna found with the C207 one of the limiting factor in sales was due to substanial increase in insurance premiums compared to the C206/C210.

Put the PC-12 on the bucket list sunfish!

[flyingpom]

Thanks All, good responses. Interestingly enough, it seems quite a few of the instructors etc out there don't know the correct regs and just quote 6 people as the limit under all circumstances...

[Tinstaafl]

That's not new. Ignorant, or misinformed, or mislead flying instructors have been around since shortly after Messrs Wright passed on their knowledge. The rules are quite clear in this case**. The problem comes when people don't take the time to read them in their entirety *and* parse the various commas, sub-sections & references.

It used to be that cost sharing didn't exist in the rules as a private operation (and that fact that pax paid meant it was considered a charter). No one ever made mention of a 6 person or seat limitation because none was referenced in the rules. Then cost sharing was added to private ops with the 6 person proviso. That's when the ignorant started spouting crap about private ops are limited to 6 person or seats.

Another thing concerning parachute operations & payment that often gets mentioned: The rules make a specific reference to skydiving as a private operation. Comparing skydiving to charter or aerial work is a non-starter so moaning about how it's so similar to charter is pretty much futile. My belief is that rules take the view that the meatbombs pay to fall, not pay to fly. How they get to the start of the fall is incidental. It could be by plane, balloon, skyhook or catapult.


**But rather less so when it comes to defining RPT. Anyone yet found a definition for 'fixed terminal' or 'fixed routes'?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Anyone yet found a definition for 'fixed terminal' or 'fixed routes'?

Isn't a fixed route when your on a promise?

Dr

[Andy_RR]

Originally Posted by ForkTailedDrKiller

Isn't a fixed route when your on a promise?

Dr

Yeah, but under Montreal (or whatever it is) even RPT is as good as a politicians promise.