Private Flying Renumeration?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: don't know, I'll ask
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen, I wonder if I might ask a small related question, about when it is or isn’t legal, especially based on FL’s point about people who write their company name on the a/c getting valuable consideration by the publicity it generates
There are a growing number of aerobatic aircraft with sponsors names on them, either in little letters or massive letters. To the extent that these are flown by Professional licence holders that seems fine, but what about when they are flown by plain vanilla PPL’s who may own some or all of that aircraft. It would seem that even if all that is derived from the sponsor is say a free can of oil every 100 hours it is still valuable consideration, and would make it illegal? Presumably the same would apply to record attempts with loads of stickers on it?
One loop hole of which I have heard tell for PPL’s to be paid for display flying is to have someone else, e.g. girlfriend mother son etc, bill the display recipient for “organisation” and for the pilot to fly for free, often with something emblazed down the side. Is this OK
There are a growing number of aerobatic aircraft with sponsors names on them, either in little letters or massive letters. To the extent that these are flown by Professional licence holders that seems fine, but what about when they are flown by plain vanilla PPL’s who may own some or all of that aircraft. It would seem that even if all that is derived from the sponsor is say a free can of oil every 100 hours it is still valuable consideration, and would make it illegal? Presumably the same would apply to record attempts with loads of stickers on it?
One loop hole of which I have heard tell for PPL’s to be paid for display flying is to have someone else, e.g. girlfriend mother son etc, bill the display recipient for “organisation” and for the pilot to fly for free, often with something emblazed down the side. Is this OK
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most interesting thing about the snail in the ginger beer bottle is that....there wasn't one. The whole of the modern law of negligence is built upon a hypothetical semi-decomposed snail. (Donohue v Stevenson went to the Lords on assumed facts. When it went back for trial, it was found that there was no snail in the bottle after all).
As for Ludwig's question, my head is too muzzy from lunchtime sunshine (not claret, honest) to delve into that one. Anyway, it's time for me to do some paid lawyering for a change.
As for Ludwig's question, my head is too muzzy from lunchtime sunshine (not claret, honest) to delve into that one. Anyway, it's time for me to do some paid lawyering for a change.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then there was the famous snail in the ginger beer bottle.....I'm sure you know that one!
but they are for the most part much more interesting than statutory law. Besides, some (such as the Carbolic smoke ball company) sound so improbable that i'm sure that you could make other cases up as required - i've been tempted to reference Grenouille v National Union of Miners to see if anybody notices... 
(Donoghue v Stevenson btw - edit: d'oh, FNG beat me to it... )
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FNG
I think you will find that a CPL is nearly worthless without the aircraft operator having an AOC.
It is the lack of an AOC for which flying schools have been prosecuted. This is also why pleasure flights have to be called "trial lessons". All the people involved have a CPL already.
I don't think the law is clear. The PPL cost sharing rule is clear when you rent a plane for £90 wet and fly 3 mates and then if you pay £10 landing fee they can reimburse you £75 max.
It gets less obvious if you own the plane personally, and do a flight to see a customer of your own business. You then invoice your company for some money. Is the reimbursement under PPL Cost Sharing Rules ? You had no passengers!
Whatever you think the answer is to the above, let's assume you are a 100% shareholder (and a Director) of a ltd co X which owns the plane. You are also a 100% shareholder (and a Director) of another ltd. co Y which is your main business, and you do a flight to a see a customer of Y. It is actually OK for X to invoice Y for the full cost, in fact X can invoice Y anything it likes. And X doesn't invoice you personally for the flight at all. I have it from the CAA that this is OK, and it is certainly standard practice.
I think you will find that a CPL is nearly worthless without the aircraft operator having an AOC.
It is the lack of an AOC for which flying schools have been prosecuted. This is also why pleasure flights have to be called "trial lessons". All the people involved have a CPL already.
I don't think the law is clear. The PPL cost sharing rule is clear when you rent a plane for £90 wet and fly 3 mates and then if you pay £10 landing fee they can reimburse you £75 max.
It gets less obvious if you own the plane personally, and do a flight to see a customer of your own business. You then invoice your company for some money. Is the reimbursement under PPL Cost Sharing Rules ? You had no passengers!
Whatever you think the answer is to the above, let's assume you are a 100% shareholder (and a Director) of a ltd co X which owns the plane. You are also a 100% shareholder (and a Director) of another ltd. co Y which is your main business, and you do a flight to a see a customer of Y. It is actually OK for X to invoice Y for the full cost, in fact X can invoice Y anything it likes. And X doesn't invoice you personally for the flight at all. I have it from the CAA that this is OK, and it is certainly standard practice.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540, I'm not the one looking for ways to do commercial flying on PPLs, or otherwise in questionable fashion. When I say "get a CPL", it's just a shorthand way of suggesting to the wannabes that they can forget about turning a profit on their private licences. The CAA is content for pilots to claim direct costs as a form of equivalent to motor mileage expenses for business trips. This is very different from being paid for flying on a PPL.
PS: Ludwig, I still can't be ersed to provide a detailed answer to your question, but wood containing loopholes may make for bad furniture. "Hello, I'm the pilot. I fly for free, but my granny over there charges £1000 a day for admin". Do people think that the CAA is completely stupid?
PS: Ludwig, I still can't be ersed to provide a detailed answer to your question, but wood containing loopholes may make for bad furniture. "Hello, I'm the pilot. I fly for free, but my granny over there charges £1000 a day for admin". Do people think that the CAA is completely stupid?
Last edited by FNG; 26th Apr 2004 at 15:16.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Almost Scotland
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legality of flight - specific example
All the debate on here about legalities and subtleties of the ANO have now made me a little apprehensive, and I would be grateful for some advice.
If I, a PPL holder, were to decide to undertake a flight for a meeting in connection with my employment, would it be legal if:
a) I have a company car from that employer, and claim the mileage cost (at company car rates, not private rates) back from the employer?
b) I mention, at the aero club, etc., that I am making this flight, and would welcome one or two passengers to accompany me, and shadow the navigation if they wish?
c) I suggest to those passengers that they may wish to share costs of the flight, not more than £tot/number of passengers?
What makes this confusing is that I would be undertaking the flight in working time, exactly as if I were driving to the meeting venue in my company car.
Any opinions as to the legal position will be welcomed!
If I, a PPL holder, were to decide to undertake a flight for a meeting in connection with my employment, would it be legal if:
a) I have a company car from that employer, and claim the mileage cost (at company car rates, not private rates) back from the employer?
b) I mention, at the aero club, etc., that I am making this flight, and would welcome one or two passengers to accompany me, and shadow the navigation if they wish?
c) I suggest to those passengers that they may wish to share costs of the flight, not more than £tot/number of passengers?
What makes this confusing is that I would be undertaking the flight in working time, exactly as if I were driving to the meeting venue in my company car.
Any opinions as to the legal position will be welcomed!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DNMM/UK
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this US, i believe it is common practice to use PPLs for business. Unfortunataly, in the UK there is a CPLs/ATPLs flying jets for business and PPLs flying grandma to norwich in a spamcan attitude.
I understand both sides of the argument, but i think that CAA need to have a flexible attitude on this issue. I agree that the interests of commercial operators and professional pilots need to be protected. iI know that there' s a tiny minority who will try to abuse the situation.
I think that the legislation should be changed to allow business flyers to make better use of PPLs and also to make the CPL more useful. I think a lot more can be done without compromising safety.
While you try to digest Ludwig's question, i think i'll throw in another for the aske of argument.
Is it illegal for a third party to pay for flight training e.g. parents, GAPAN, airlines?
Capt. M
I understand both sides of the argument, but i think that CAA need to have a flexible attitude on this issue. I agree that the interests of commercial operators and professional pilots need to be protected. iI know that there' s a tiny minority who will try to abuse the situation.
I think that the legislation should be changed to allow business flyers to make better use of PPLs and also to make the CPL more useful. I think a lot more can be done without compromising safety.
While you try to digest Ludwig's question, i think i'll throw in another for the aske of argument.
Is it illegal for a third party to pay for flight training e.g. parents, GAPAN, airlines?
Capt. M
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question (a) ???? Flying content apparently zero. Suggest you ask that question on the "Private Driving" forum of the Professional Driver's Rumour Network.
Questions (b) and (c), see the CAA's summary, linked to on the remuneration thread.
You can claim direct costs as travel expenses just as you might claim back a train fare. It would be naughty to claim from your employer the full direct costs but get paid a share of those by your pax, but you are never naughty, I am sure.
Questions (b) and (c), see the CAA's summary, linked to on the remuneration thread.
You can claim direct costs as travel expenses just as you might claim back a train fare. It would be naughty to claim from your employer the full direct costs but get paid a share of those by your pax, but you are never naughty, I am sure.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Almost Scotland
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks FNG.
Yes (a) is zero flying content, shouldn't have mentioned it! Other than to illustrate how the regulations, and multitudinous attempts to explain them, in the CAA publications and elsewhere, can cause confusion.
I'll consider myself lucky to get the business mileage reimbursed, let alone direct flight costs! No temptation there.
Yes (a) is zero flying content, shouldn't have mentioned it! Other than to illustrate how the regulations, and multitudinous attempts to explain them, in the CAA publications and elsewhere, can cause confusion.
I'll consider myself lucky to get the business mileage reimbursed, let alone direct flight costs! No temptation there.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's nothing in the rules to prevent you flying yourself to business meetings using your PPL, and plenty of people do it. As to the question "will my granny go to prison if she buys me a flying lesson?", after reading that I have resolved to drink myself to death, and so am unavailable for further comment.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FNG
Let's forget the passengers in this case. Is there a scale which the CAA approves of, for claiming back expenses from the employer?
This is why it is better to let the employer provide the aircraft (e.g. by renting it in) and in that case it is generally regarded as OK for the individual to do the flight, provided the individual (the P1) is an employee of the company on whose business the flight is, and provided the individual is not contractually required to fly.
I wish I had a reference for the above
If the man in this case gets to fly on his employer's business, in a plane provided FOC by the employer, and he takes passengers who offer/give him some money, personally I wouldn't touch that with a bargepole. At the very least, his employer can go after him for the money thus made. But non-paying passengers might be OK.
Let's forget the passengers in this case. Is there a scale which the CAA approves of, for claiming back expenses from the employer?
This is why it is better to let the employer provide the aircraft (e.g. by renting it in) and in that case it is generally regarded as OK for the individual to do the flight, provided the individual (the P1) is an employee of the company on whose business the flight is, and provided the individual is not contractually required to fly.
I wish I had a reference for the above
If the man in this case gets to fly on his employer's business, in a plane provided FOC by the employer, and he takes passengers who offer/give him some money, personally I wouldn't touch that with a bargepole. At the very least, his employer can go after him for the money thus made. But non-paying passengers might be OK.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FNG
Unfortunately this thread needs merging with the other one.
You mention "profit" but why "profit"? Recovery of "direct costs" still results in a loss if the P1 is the owner, because there is no contribution towards the 50hr check, 150hr check, the annual, the engine fund, the prop fund, etc, etc.
This is why you have to be very clear.
As I say in the other thread, an individual can do a business flight if the employer provides the plane, and the employer is allowed to provide the plane free of charge (e.g. the employer owns the plane; the employer rents or leases it in, etc). This gets around whether the individual can recover just the fuel+landing fee, or some of the other costs.
That way, the individual doesn't lose out. What I don't know is whether he can be paid for the travelling time....
Now let's make the situation more clear as mud
Let's say an individual works, as a part-time lavatory cleaner, for a flying club, and one day he rents a plane in from that same flying club, and takes 3 passengers. Under the PPL cost sharing rules, this man can recover 75% of what the club charged him for the rental. OK so far. But remember the club charged MORE than the direct costs; the club can make a profit.
BUT this man also gets some money from the f.c. because the cleans the bogs there. Some of this money comes from the plane he rented. So in effect he is getting more than 75% reimbursed by his passengers.
Can you see the problem?
I actually wrote to the CAA about this, and astonishingly they replied that it is permissible. It has to be permissible, otherwise anybody working for a business that rents out planes, and doesn't have a CPL etc, could not rent a plane privately from the company and make full use of the PPL cost sharing rules.
But it is open to abuse because man X, controlling Director of Ltd Company Y that owns a plane Z, could rent Z from Y at £1000/hr, get 3 passengers to reimburse £750/hr. This money goes to Y but X can draw most of it as salary, and even after allowing for tax/NIC he is still recovering more than 75%. I was concerned about this some time ago, for obvious legitimate reasons (anyone drawing money from a company that owns a plane could inadvertently bust the PPL cost sharing rules), and I got a written reply from the CAA legal department that this is OK, though presumably only for more reasonable numbers. I inflated the rental merely to illustrate the point.
What it comes down to is that the CAA seeks to keep a lid on what people can do without having a CPL+AOC. The CAA wishes to maintain extra standards where people pay for transport, plus of course the CAA very much likes the very substantial fees they get for AOC issue and renewal But as my example shows, the regulations can't address every possible type of usage.
C.M.
I think that you can do business flights on both N-reg and G-reg (both Private and Transport CofA) provided you are employee of the company on whose busines the flight is, and you are not contractually required to fly.
Unfortunately this thread needs merging with the other one.
You mention "profit" but why "profit"? Recovery of "direct costs" still results in a loss if the P1 is the owner, because there is no contribution towards the 50hr check, 150hr check, the annual, the engine fund, the prop fund, etc, etc.
This is why you have to be very clear.
As I say in the other thread, an individual can do a business flight if the employer provides the plane, and the employer is allowed to provide the plane free of charge (e.g. the employer owns the plane; the employer rents or leases it in, etc). This gets around whether the individual can recover just the fuel+landing fee, or some of the other costs.
That way, the individual doesn't lose out. What I don't know is whether he can be paid for the travelling time....
Now let's make the situation more clear as mud
Let's say an individual works, as a part-time lavatory cleaner, for a flying club, and one day he rents a plane in from that same flying club, and takes 3 passengers. Under the PPL cost sharing rules, this man can recover 75% of what the club charged him for the rental. OK so far. But remember the club charged MORE than the direct costs; the club can make a profit.
BUT this man also gets some money from the f.c. because the cleans the bogs there. Some of this money comes from the plane he rented. So in effect he is getting more than 75% reimbursed by his passengers.
Can you see the problem?
I actually wrote to the CAA about this, and astonishingly they replied that it is permissible. It has to be permissible, otherwise anybody working for a business that rents out planes, and doesn't have a CPL etc, could not rent a plane privately from the company and make full use of the PPL cost sharing rules.
But it is open to abuse because man X, controlling Director of Ltd Company Y that owns a plane Z, could rent Z from Y at £1000/hr, get 3 passengers to reimburse £750/hr. This money goes to Y but X can draw most of it as salary, and even after allowing for tax/NIC he is still recovering more than 75%. I was concerned about this some time ago, for obvious legitimate reasons (anyone drawing money from a company that owns a plane could inadvertently bust the PPL cost sharing rules), and I got a written reply from the CAA legal department that this is OK, though presumably only for more reasonable numbers. I inflated the rental merely to illustrate the point.
What it comes down to is that the CAA seeks to keep a lid on what people can do without having a CPL+AOC. The CAA wishes to maintain extra standards where people pay for transport, plus of course the CAA very much likes the very substantial fees they get for AOC issue and renewal
But as my example shows, the regulations can't address every possible type of usage.C.M.
I think that you can do business flights on both N-reg and G-reg (both Private and Transport CofA) provided you are employee of the company on whose busines the flight is, and you are not contractually required to fly.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll consider myself lucky to get the business mileage reimbursed, let alone direct flight costs!
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hic. Still alive, barely, although that one might just finish me off. Life ain't that complicated really. The source of the money with which the airborne bog cleaner pays his club rental (the average club spamcan resembling a flying khazi in any event) is irrelevant. He is not being paid to fly. His income is in no way flying related, and he isn't charging his mates (glad to hear that bog cleaners have mates) more than the proper share. Where's the problem? Time for another drink.
As for my reference to "profit"; really, IO540, you could wrestle a lawyer to the ground in a pedantry contest. I simply mean that PPLs shouldn't think that they can earn doubloons, shekels, zloties, wonga, clams or coppers through flying around in puddle jumpers. I really can't figure out why people think any of this is important. A PPL is for having fun with whilst gaily spending vast amounts of cash. Or it's a stepping stone on the way towards qualifying to be paid to fly, but not a means of obtaining such payment.
As for my reference to "profit"; really, IO540, you could wrestle a lawyer to the ground in a pedantry contest. I simply mean that PPLs shouldn't think that they can earn doubloons, shekels, zloties, wonga, clams or coppers through flying around in puddle jumpers. I really can't figure out why people think any of this is important. A PPL is for having fun with whilst gaily spending vast amounts of cash. Or it's a stepping stone on the way towards qualifying to be paid to fly, but not a means of obtaining such payment.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: San Fulgencio Spain
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to drag things back to frightening reality, I run a small consulting partnership. As far as I can see there is no problem in my hiring from the local club a mini spam can, flying to a business meeting and charging the full cost of the hire plus landing fees etc to myself as a business expense. The argument being, should there ever be one with the IR bods, that the alternative could have been a first class train fare which 98% of the time would heve been more expensive, but the latter would certainly by a 100% allowable expense.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bobdee
I agree; in fact it is better than that because the Revenue has no power to require that your chosen method of travel is the most economical. Otherwise, everybody would be forced to fly Ryanair and then take a bike.
Just make sure you have some documents supporting the flights, especially if it is done on a weekend and the business meeting is in Biarritz
FNG
May I suggest you stop being vague about this Let me go back to my previous example.
X is a Dir of Ltd Company Y that owns a plane Z.
He rents Z from Y for £1000/hr (inclusive), for 500 hrs/year. X always takes 3 passengers who pay him £750/hr. In a given year, X thus spends £500,000 and he recovers £365,000 under the PPL cost sharing rules. So he is £125,000 out of pocket - exactly what the CAA wants. The whole point of PPL Cost Sharing is that the pilot doesn't make any money. All legit so far?
But Y now has £500,000 in the bank. Assuming a £500k plane and generous 25% capital allowances, Y will have made a net profit of about £350,000. X can draw this out in a gross salary of £350,000. (I am avoiding dividends because the CT treatment and the 10% tax credit complicate matters). He takes home about £200k from this.
So he is no longer out of pocket. Yes, you are right, he was not paid to fly. But he's made £75,000.
But as you say, no problem.
Clearly, these things are OK in moderation.
I agree; in fact it is better than that because the Revenue has no power to require that your chosen method of travel is the most economical. Otherwise, everybody would be forced to fly Ryanair and then take a bike.
Just make sure you have some documents supporting the flights, especially if it is done on a weekend and the business meeting is in Biarritz
FNG
May I suggest you stop being vague about this
Let me go back to my previous example.X is a Dir of Ltd Company Y that owns a plane Z.
He rents Z from Y for £1000/hr (inclusive), for 500 hrs/year. X always takes 3 passengers who pay him £750/hr. In a given year, X thus spends £500,000 and he recovers £365,000 under the PPL cost sharing rules. So he is £125,000 out of pocket - exactly what the CAA wants. The whole point of PPL Cost Sharing is that the pilot doesn't make any money. All legit so far?
But Y now has £500,000 in the bank. Assuming a £500k plane and generous 25% capital allowances, Y will have made a net profit of about £350,000. X can draw this out in a gross salary of £350,000. (I am avoiding dividends because the CT treatment and the 10% tax credit complicate matters). He takes home about £200k from this.
So he is no longer out of pocket. Yes, you are right, he was not paid to fly. But he's made £75,000.
But as you say, no problem.
Clearly, these things are OK in moderation.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of absolute B******s...!
Chap wants to fly to France with some chums..all agree to divi the cost..bit of lunch here, landing charge there, perhaps a slice of fuel.........this is PRIVATE flying for goodness sake.
Chap wants to fly to France with some chums..all agree to divi the cost..bit of lunch here, landing charge there, perhaps a slice of fuel.........this is PRIVATE flying for goodness sake.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, Strake. Anyone that comes flying with me is welcome to buy me a beer later, or to volunteer a landing fee (although I shall likely refuse that). I shall buy my own fuel, thanks.
IO540, it is a jolly game to to conceive of a variety of wholly improbable scenarios which produce outcomes likely to be offensive to certain sub-sects of strict aviation Methodist, but, er...what is the point?
I am glad to say I shall be off radar for the rest of the week so shall not have occasion to read, or indeed to write, any more of this stuff.
Edit: Alas, the last bit proved untrue: blooming laptops.
IO540, it is a jolly game to to conceive of a variety of wholly improbable scenarios which produce outcomes likely to be offensive to certain sub-sects of strict aviation Methodist, but, er...what is the point?
I am glad to say I shall be off radar for the rest of the week so shall not have occasion to read, or indeed to write, any more of this stuff.
Edit: Alas, the last bit proved untrue: blooming laptops.
Last edited by FNG; 27th Apr 2004 at 16:27.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ludwig's question interests me.
I was pipe dreaming the other day. "Balloons! Yes, I'll get a balloon license!" (I probably won't - well, not for awhile). In one of the more informative sites they said that 70% of the balloons in the UK are sponsored. Now, with your ship paid for, that's most definitely a damn good consideration. Are they all CPLs?
I'm just curious - I'm not about to go 'playing' at being a pro, or bending rules that will snap back. I just find the fuzzy edges of the law very interesting.
I was pipe dreaming the other day. "Balloons! Yes, I'll get a balloon license!" (I probably won't - well, not for awhile). In one of the more informative sites they said that 70% of the balloons in the UK are sponsored. Now, with your ship paid for, that's most definitely a damn good consideration. Are they all CPLs?
I'm just curious - I'm not about to go 'playing' at being a pro, or bending rules that will snap back. I just find the fuzzy edges of the law very interesting.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a bit more likely scenario. I fly to a business meeting in an aircraft in which I hold a share. I am reimbursed the cost of the flight £60 per hour plus two landing fees by my company. I charge the client travel of 4 hours (2 there and two back) at £x per hour. Is that lawful?
Arguably it is not, as "... valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight" (ANO article 130(1)(a)), the purpose of the flight being to get me to a meeting with my client. My client is actually better off as had I gone by road it would have taken 4 hours each way, but that is irrelevent.
Coming back to the helicopter and the celebrity, any flight which results in a "profit or benefit" is aerial work. So, the business man on his business trip may well fall under article 130, whether he directly charges his client for travel time or not. If he thereby secures a deal or contract then he has certainly derived a 'benefit'. The only get out is that the benefit is not "undertaken pursuant to an agreement" where there is not deal or contract in place when the flight is made - though there may be on the way back
Here valuable consideration is not given "in respect of the flight", since the sponsorship would be independent of any particular flight. It might be otherwise if the payment was on a per flight basis or there were particular or enhanced payments for particular flights, say at particular events.
Arguably it is not, as "... valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight" (ANO article 130(1)(a)), the purpose of the flight being to get me to a meeting with my client. My client is actually better off as had I gone by road it would have taken 4 hours each way, but that is irrelevent.
Coming back to the helicopter and the celebrity, any flight which results in a "profit or benefit" is aerial work. So, the business man on his business trip may well fall under article 130, whether he directly charges his client for travel time or not. If he thereby secures a deal or contract then he has certainly derived a 'benefit'. The only get out is that the benefit is not "undertaken pursuant to an agreement" where there is not deal or contract in place when the flight is made - though there may be on the way back
70% of the balloons in the UK are sponsored. Now, with your ship paid for, that's most definitely a damn good consideration. Are they all CPLs?