Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Legality of a PPL holder being paid

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Legality of a PPL holder being paid

Old 8th May 2019, 06:39
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 227
Here's a simple test. A private pilot cannot be tasked to perform a flying activity or duty by someone else. The moment you are you are outside your limitations as a private pilot licence holder.
Xeptu is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 06:39
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
Mostly,
Are you really certain that "becasue it's done, it must be legal" (my paraphrase of the above) is legally watertight??
Tootle pip!!
The flight is ancillary to the work - you are not paying the LAME to fly but fix an AOG (generally) aircraft.

Hey Bob, that L/H starter has gone on the Baron at Halls Creek can you go fix it ASAP we are short on aircraft and very busy. Can you get it done today?

Sure Colin, I can get Fred (PPL & LAME) to head out after smoko in the C206 - he is chasing hours and not that busy today here.

Thanks mate!

Invoice transport @ x $ per hour 4.2 hrs (aircraft cost)
and LAME hours 6 hours (4.2 above travel time and 1.8 starter change).
Bend alot is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 07:16
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,001
There must be ways to get exemptions.

Latrobe Valley Aero Club legally used club aircraft and PPL pilots to fly firefighters fire spotting for many years.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 07:17
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 227
An acceptable example, provided Fred is also an employee of the same Company and Bob is asking Fred if he wouldn't mind, as opposed to I can get Fred.
Xeptu is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 07:40
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 1
Fred can be a full time employee or a casual even a third party Labour Hire worker, Fred indicated to Bob that he wants flying hours if possible (chasing hours).

But Fred can refuse if he wanted to as he is not "employed" to fly.

More info needed on Squawk7700 scenario.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 07:48
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: The Pointy End
Posts: 21
From what Pecterinium has told us. They will be a physiotherapist flying around themselves and other company personnel (only) to various sites around Eastern Aus to perform therapy work.

Now, for arguments sake, let’s say his/her company bought an aircraft.

CAR 2(7)(D) states that:

The following are regarded as private operations:
  • the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft
  • 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
Now Part 61.505 states:

Subject to Subpart 61.E and regulation 61.510, the holder of a private pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft as pilot in command or co‑pilot if:
(a) the aircraft is engaged in a private operation

Now I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that Pecterinium has a pretty stable basis for flying their company’s aircraft on the aforementioned activities.

Re: payment, I can’t find a bit of legislation that says he/she can’t get paid for it.


DrongoDriver is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 08:02
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,696
Folks,
I really do recommend a somewhat closer reading of CAR 206 ---- including the case law and AAT cases.
We all know CASA is rather selective in enforcement, a lot is ignored ( because the rules are silly ---- in the case of a PPL LAME with a toolbox and a few spares flying to fix an AOG is a case in point) until somebody is in the sights of an FOI or, more commonly, an AWI.
CASA "routinely" not enforcing a regulation, or somebody else ignoring said regulation with apparent impunity, does not make your ignoring/infringing said regulation "legal".
Then, when CASA takes an interest, watch out, and have deep pockets..
Tootle pip!!

PS: From CAR 206
(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft (not being a carriage of goods in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals);
(ix) any other purpose that is substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vii) (inclusive);

You do all understand the meaning of "trade", according the HCA, do you??
LeadSled is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 08:52
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: The Pointy End
Posts: 21
There was an article in the Australian last weekend about a very well-known jazz player that uses his Piper to fly him and his bandmates around the country for gigs. Do his instruments count as “goods for the purposes of trade”?
If Mr Pratt on his Global Express brings on his laptop in which he will present a PowerPoint to his board, are they “goods for the purposes of trade”?
If so, then both must be operating commercial flights, not a private ones.

As long as the physiotherapy company do not charge clients for the aircraft, then it won’t be seen as a charter operation.

Furthermore, a CASA “Classification of Operations” document from 1997 states:
pilot “with a toolbox”, and corporate aircraft
are private operations.

Why not just avoid all this confusion and the roguish regulator and N-reg your 172
DrongoDriver is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 10:26
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: South Africa
Posts: 1
What nonsense is this?! Legality of a PPL getting paid? The legality clearly states you CANNOT be remunerated for flying with a PPL,it is literally that simple. If you can't even abide to that, please don't consider getting a CPL, don't even want to think of the commercial laws you'd then be breaking if you're already considering breaking laws at PPL level.

Good day sir.
Future 73 Pilot is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 11:10
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
Folks,
I really do recommend a somewhat closer reading of CAR 206 ---- including the case law and AAT cases.
We all know CASA is rather selective in enforcement, a lot is ignored ( because the rules are silly ---- in the case of a PPL LAME with a toolbox and a few spares flying to fix an AOG is a case in point) until somebody is in the sights of an FOI or, more commonly, an AWI.
CASA "routinely" not enforcing a regulation, or somebody else ignoring said regulation with apparent impunity, does not make your ignoring/infringing said regulation "legal".
Then, when CASA takes an interest, watch out, and have deep pockets..
Tootle pip!!

PS: From CAR 206
(viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft (not being a carriage of goods in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals);
(ix) any other purpose that is substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vii) (inclusive);

You do all understand the meaning of "trade", according the HCA, do you??
Is AAT still current? or is it the MRT?

Am happy anyway the way we operated any flight - we never charge any money for the aircraft, only if you use it pay for the fuel & make sure the pilot can fly it.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 12:32
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,069
So MichaelSmith, on his round the world seaplane flight, carried a camera and took photos and video for his book and documentary. Does Michael fall foul of 206? Let’s ignore the N registration for a minute,
Sunfish is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 20:56
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 227
Originally Posted by Bend alot View Post
Fred can be a full time employee or a casual even a third party Labour Hire worker
Be careful with statements like that, in law everything is tested, for a court to be satisfied you are an employee of the Company, would mean this is the company where most of your income is derived, it will hold your taxation part A exemption. A Casual and certainly a labour hire company would not meet that requirement.
Xeptu is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 23:29
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
CAR 206 has nothing to do with what you are allowed to do on a PPL.

CAR 206 is all about AOCs. It has no reference to private operations. It would be wrong to say a PPL can do anything that is not listed in CAR 206.

What you can do on a PPL is spelled out in CAR 2(7)(d) which defines private operations.

CAR 2(7)(d) says that the pilot cannot be paid for aerial spotting or aerial photography, but has no other restriction on paying the pilot. It does not allow a fee to be charged to carry passengers (by the pilot or anyone else) other than equal sharing of costs under CAR 2(7A).
andrewr is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 00:53
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,142
Thanks Leadie for pointing out CAR 206
As a PPL with his own business aircraft, and a camera , right royally done over by both 206 and 2 (7) d for the same thing...photography for money. Rather heinous crime for a photographer.
You dont get an AOC as a PPL
CASA claimed " No person can take a photograph from an aircraft in Australia without a CPL and an AOC." Not under oath of course, so any old BS will do.
Hi Dick !! Love your books and aerial photography. And Mike Smith, and the Melbourne photogapher Vukosac ? who has an aircraft with a vertical camera built in. (Just like mine). Examples recently in The Oz, and international exhibitions to follow. Richard Waldenorp in WA another example.
CAsA can ALWAYS make some bs excuse to justify anything
If the above 2 regs are stil there,,, then what is the worth of Part 61,113 ? Crap ??

As for Future 73 Pilot ( you wish ! ) Hope you dont have any medical issue like hearing loss or eyesight issues and yr flying dreams turn to ashes, being denied a CPL What will you do then. Go fly a hang glider?

Here's one for ya'll. A PPL helicopter pilot flies his Marine pilot mate ..the invoicing carries both the helicopter and ship time costs.. Is that a "commercial" operation.?

Ignoring F73P. .... whether the electrician carries light globes for sale, or the photographer gathers imagery.for sale WTF has that got to do with CAsA.??
..Pray tell what impact this has on the "safety of the airways and people on the ground" Or the poor kiddies in the kindy if I crash into one as quoted by CAsA. I do hope a A380 never lands on a big High School.
All CAsA has to worry about does the a/c have an MR, is the pilot licenced, medical, AFR and the flight
VFR or IFR is conducted by the rules. These are the SAFETY issues.. all else is NOTFB
But control freaks rule OK ?
aroa is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 00:54
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,272
Here's a simple test. A private pilot cannot be tasked to perform a flying activity or duty by someone else. The moment you are you are outside your limitations as a private pilot licence holder.
An investment bank 100% owns an aircraft for company use. An employee banking analyst has a PPL.
So are you suggesting that if the business owns the aircraft, all onboard are employees, the analyst can't be task to fly employees around?

Same as the farm scenario. A farm employs someone as a farm hand who has a PPL. Are you suggesting he can't be tasked to fly the 182 on company business?

Again Insurance will probably shoot down these operations, however they are legal.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 01:17
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: The Swan Downunder
Posts: 227
That's right, A Private Pilot Licence is for the holders personal use. His employer cannot require him to use it for any reason or purpose.
Xeptu is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 01:19
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Originally Posted by Xeptu View Post
Here's a simple test. A private pilot cannot be tasked to perform a flying activity or duty by someone else. The moment you are you are outside your limitations as a private pilot licence holder.
I am not aware of any such regulation. Can you provide a reference?

A lot of this thread is just people's opinions on what the law should be, rather than what it is. (CASA allegedly often operates on the same principle, which is one reason why this stuff can be confusing.)
andrewr is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 01:20
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Originally Posted by Xeptu View Post
That's right, A Private Pilot Licence is for the holders personal use. His employer cannot require him to use it for any reason or purpose.
Again, I am not aware of any such regulation. Do you have a reference?
andrewr is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 01:33
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Xeptu View Post
Be careful with statements like that, in law everything is tested, for a court to be satisfied you are an employee of the Company, would mean this is the company where most of your income is derived, it will hold your taxation part A exemption. A Casual and certainly a labour hire company would not meet that requirement.
Next thing you will be saying is I must give all my employers my Tax File number.

Are you saying casuals are not employees?

A court can/will test if a worker is a "employee" or a "Independent Contractor" - generally in Sham Contracting cases.

Even the government have full time casuals. I know of one (full time casual) that is employed as a LAME but does also fly aircraft for them - bit different as he is not a PPL.

I have seen nothing that would exempt a worker on assignment (90 days) to my company (from a Labour Hire Firm) being excluded in the above scenario, than any of my other employees.

Bend alot is offline  
Old 9th May 2019, 01:33
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,001
Speaking of Mike Smith... presumably Stefan Drury is deriving an income on YouTube by making videos, flying to locations with or without passengers to meet people to make videos about them and also himself.

How does that fit into the regulations that were derived long before YouTube was invented?

Squawk7700 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.