CAR 2(7)/(9) Interpretation
Thread Starter
CAR 2(7)/(9) Interpretation
I am interested in the opinions of particularly the more legal minded of the pprune community.
CAR 2(7) states.
(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;
........shall be taken to be employed in private operations.
This to me simply means,
Fred owns an aircraft. Fred has a friend (Bob) who is a licenced PPL, who is endorsed on Fred's aircaft. For the purposes of flying Fred around to his favourite places, Fred pays for all operating costs etc and Bob flys Fred around for free. = Private operation.
Now what if Freds aircaft is u/s for some reason so Bob says, 'Hey, the local aero club has a similar aircraft I can fly, lets hire that!'. This would seem to now fall outside the realms of CAR 2(7) as Fred no longer owns the aircraft.
However, CAR 2(9) states
(9)Any reference in these regulations to the owner of an aircraft must, where under a contract of hire or charter agreement the control, maintenance and operation of the aircraft is vested in the hirer, be read as a reference to the hirer.
So my two questions are,
Does CAR 2(9) mean that because Fred is hiring the aircraft, and the control, maintenance and operation of the aircraft is vested in the hirer, the word owner in CAR 2(7)(d) can be read as a reference to the hirer Fred, and this is still a private operation?
And question 2, is there any reason in the first scenario that Fred can't pay Bob a healthy salary to be his personal pilot, and still have the operation remain private?
Please respond with references if you can.
Thanks,
JJTS
CAR 2(7) states.
(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;
........shall be taken to be employed in private operations.
This to me simply means,
Fred owns an aircraft. Fred has a friend (Bob) who is a licenced PPL, who is endorsed on Fred's aircaft. For the purposes of flying Fred around to his favourite places, Fred pays for all operating costs etc and Bob flys Fred around for free. = Private operation.
Now what if Freds aircaft is u/s for some reason so Bob says, 'Hey, the local aero club has a similar aircraft I can fly, lets hire that!'. This would seem to now fall outside the realms of CAR 2(7) as Fred no longer owns the aircraft.
However, CAR 2(9) states
(9)Any reference in these regulations to the owner of an aircraft must, where under a contract of hire or charter agreement the control, maintenance and operation of the aircraft is vested in the hirer, be read as a reference to the hirer.
So my two questions are,
Does CAR 2(9) mean that because Fred is hiring the aircraft, and the control, maintenance and operation of the aircraft is vested in the hirer, the word owner in CAR 2(7)(d) can be read as a reference to the hirer Fred, and this is still a private operation?
And question 2, is there any reason in the first scenario that Fred can't pay Bob a healthy salary to be his personal pilot, and still have the operation remain private?
Please respond with references if you can.
Thanks,
JJTS
It's more to do with the category that the aircraft is registered in or operates under - a private op compared to a commercial op.
A wealthy dude can own an enormous aircraft for his personal transport and pay a tribe of commercial pilots a nice salary and it is still a private operation.
A private pilot can't be paid for flying. And a rich dude would have rocks in his head if he didn't get the most experienced commercial pilot he can afford.
And don't read too much into CAR 2.9 because it refers to you specifically signing a contract to hire the machine AND look after its maintenance etc. A simple rental for a day doesn't fall under this one.
A wealthy dude can own an enormous aircraft for his personal transport and pay a tribe of commercial pilots a nice salary and it is still a private operation.
A private pilot can't be paid for flying. And a rich dude would have rocks in his head if he didn't get the most experienced commercial pilot he can afford.
And don't read too much into CAR 2.9 because it refers to you specifically signing a contract to hire the machine AND look after its maintenance etc. A simple rental for a day doesn't fall under this one.
A private pilot can be paid to fly. You have to read the definitions of operations carefully. Some operations are excluded from the definition of a private operation because money changes hands (to the pilot or the operator), and other operations that are included in the private category make no mention about the pilot being paid. If the operation fits a private category that doesn't preclude being paid - and isn't captured by an Aerial Work, Charter or RPT definition - then the pilot can be paid. By definition only a PPL is needed to conduct a private flight.
