A question on Air Law
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Homeguard,
The bit about the pilot not being contractually required to fly is in the ANO, article 130. In my copy it is (9) (b)
"provided that neither the pilot in command nor any other person who is carried is legally obliged, whether under a contract or otherwise, to be carried."
Otherwise it is AW.
Of course, I may have taken this out of context. Such is the ANO. Unless one reads the whole lot, memorises it, one cannot be sure there isn't another para elsewhere that applies.
Your "difference" seems a very fine piece of hair splitting. Do you have some reference for this? Maybe the CAA have issued some flyer clarifying this; they've published many of those. How can a pilot be contractually required to fly (i.e. his contract of employment says he must fly on company business if asked to do so) and not be paid for the "act" of flying?
Traditionally, PPLs have always flown on their own business. (Unless one rents the plane out, this is indeed a requirement if one is to get Revenue/C&E concessions for it as a business asset). But the pilot has the choice of driving, walking, flying, etc.
The bit about the pilot not being contractually required to fly is in the ANO, article 130. In my copy it is (9) (b)
"provided that neither the pilot in command nor any other person who is carried is legally obliged, whether under a contract or otherwise, to be carried."
Otherwise it is AW.
Of course, I may have taken this out of context. Such is the ANO. Unless one reads the whole lot, memorises it, one cannot be sure there isn't another para elsewhere that applies.
Your "difference" seems a very fine piece of hair splitting. Do you have some reference for this? Maybe the CAA have issued some flyer clarifying this; they've published many of those. How can a pilot be contractually required to fly (i.e. his contract of employment says he must fly on company business if asked to do so) and not be paid for the "act" of flying?
Traditionally, PPLs have always flown on their own business. (Unless one rents the plane out, this is indeed a requirement if one is to get Revenue/C&E concessions for it as a business asset). But the pilot has the choice of driving, walking, flying, etc.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
From: notts
IO540
I thought it worth quoting the whole of the ANO particular section refered to.
(9)
(a) Subject to paragraph (b), a flight shall be deemed to be a private flight if the only valuable consideration given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight other than:
(i) valuable consideration specified at paragraph (2)(c); or
(ii) in the case of an aircraft owned in accordance with paragraph (10)(a), valuable consideration which falls within paragraph (10)(b);
is the payment of the whole or part of the direct costs otherwise payable by the pilot in command by or on behalf of the employer of the pilot in command, or by or on behalf of a body corporate of which the pilot in command is a director, provided that neither the pilot in command nor any other person who is carried is legally obliged, whether under a contract or otherwise, to be carried.
I am reading the '.......legally obliged .......' to mean that you cannot be employed to act as as pilot unless you hold a CPL and any passengers must chose. But does that fact bar an employer from taking into account that you have a PPL when considering employing you because they have an aeroplane that you MAY use whenever practicable and this will useful to them.
The CAA pay their employees a mileage allowance but that dosn't infer that they the CAA legally oblige their employees to drive cars. However one can invisage many situations whereby many CAA employees could not actually function other to to drive a car in the process of doing their job. In which case should we take it that for ordinary employees who drive as part of doing their job that they should hold Commercial Drivers licences?
I think one can look too deeply into many things without resolve. The law cannot have an answer for every action we take every day of our lives. Nor should it. Thank God that common sense can sometimes be the deciding factor.
I thought it worth quoting the whole of the ANO particular section refered to.
(9)
(a) Subject to paragraph (b), a flight shall be deemed to be a private flight if the only valuable consideration given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight other than:
(i) valuable consideration specified at paragraph (2)(c); or
(ii) in the case of an aircraft owned in accordance with paragraph (10)(a), valuable consideration which falls within paragraph (10)(b);
is the payment of the whole or part of the direct costs otherwise payable by the pilot in command by or on behalf of the employer of the pilot in command, or by or on behalf of a body corporate of which the pilot in command is a director, provided that neither the pilot in command nor any other person who is carried is legally obliged, whether under a contract or otherwise, to be carried.
I am reading the '.......legally obliged .......' to mean that you cannot be employed to act as as pilot unless you hold a CPL and any passengers must chose. But does that fact bar an employer from taking into account that you have a PPL when considering employing you because they have an aeroplane that you MAY use whenever practicable and this will useful to them.
The CAA pay their employees a mileage allowance but that dosn't infer that they the CAA legally oblige their employees to drive cars. However one can invisage many situations whereby many CAA employees could not actually function other to to drive a car in the process of doing their job. In which case should we take it that for ordinary employees who drive as part of doing their job that they should hold Commercial Drivers licences?
I think one can look too deeply into many things without resolve. The law cannot have an answer for every action we take every day of our lives. Nor should it. Thank God that common sense can sometimes be the deciding factor.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Homeguard
Of course that's OK.
I can recruit a barmaid because she has a nice pair of "assets" (wouldn't be a good idea to put that requirement in the job description though, in these PC times) but I cannot put in her employment contract that she must use them for company business
However if she appears willing to use them for promoting company business (which is exactly how barmaids are recruited) that is just fine... and, guess what....... she gets the job!
But that's not what you wrote previously. You wrote
and I'd say that if flying is in the job description (as a required means of travel) then a PPL cannot do it.
The parallel with cars is irrelevant because driving isn't controlled by a stupidly convoluted piece of legislation called the ANO. Subject only to insurance limitations, you can drive for any purpose, excluding paying passengers I think.
I agree with your last sentence 100% - just as well since almost nobody can understand the ANO anyway.
But does that fact bar an employer from taking into account that you have a PPL when considering employing you because they have an aeroplane that you MAY use whenever practicable and this will useful to them.
I can recruit a barmaid because she has a nice pair of "assets" (wouldn't be a good idea to put that requirement in the job description though, in these PC times) but I cannot put in her employment contract that she must use them for company business
However if she appears willing to use them for promoting company business (which is exactly how barmaids are recruited) that is just fine... and, guess what....... she gets the job!But that's not what you wrote previously. You wrote
Having a pilots licence and then flying an aeroplane in the process of ones work is perfectly legal. It may be condition of any job contract.
The parallel with cars is irrelevant because driving isn't controlled by a stupidly convoluted piece of legislation called the ANO. Subject only to insurance limitations, you can drive for any purpose, excluding paying passengers I think.
I agree with your last sentence 100% - just as well since almost nobody can understand the ANO anyway.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
From: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
I do think it would be perfectly legal to state that the job applicant must hold a PPL to apply.
