A question on Air Law
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
From: Peterborough
A question on Air Law
Fellow aviators,
Just a very quick one, as following on from the recent weather in this region, TORRO have approached me would like me to overfly the sites of any Tornado touchdowns in the future to observe for damage.
Now, as PPLs, I know we're not allowed to fly for hire or reward, but presuming that I was to do this for free and was to pay for the fuel costs out of my own pocket, this is still within the rules of the air isn't it?
Also, if TORRO did ask if they could pay for the fuel, where would I stand on this?
I need to get my air law textbooks out again and read through all that beautiful legal jargon, as I don't really fancy getting a strip torn off by the CAA!!!
Cheers
Chris
Just a very quick one, as following on from the recent weather in this region, TORRO have approached me would like me to overfly the sites of any Tornado touchdowns in the future to observe for damage.
Now, as PPLs, I know we're not allowed to fly for hire or reward, but presuming that I was to do this for free and was to pay for the fuel costs out of my own pocket, this is still within the rules of the air isn't it?
Also, if TORRO did ask if they could pay for the fuel, where would I stand on this?
I need to get my air law textbooks out again and read through all that beautiful legal jargon, as I don't really fancy getting a strip torn off by the CAA!!!
Cheers
Chris
Joined: Dec 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 20
From: I have no idea but the view's great.
Just out of interest, if you paid for the flight and the fuel in its entirity could you then charge several hundred pounds for the report that you gave?
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
From: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
If you receive 'valuable consideration' then the flight is aerial work. This can mean not only money paid but any other benefit give in exchange for the flight. Charging for the report would come into that category if you were bing engaged to produce the report by the customer and the flight was a key part of the preapration of the report (as appears to be the case here).
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
From: Peterborough
OK no problems at all - so if I was to do the flight and I was to pay for the fuel and hire of the aircraft, and then not accept any form of payment at all (be it reports, or free membership to TORRO), then it is within the laws.
The end fact is that I am more than prepared to do the flights for Torro for absolutly no reward or hire or valuable consideration, as meteorology fascinates me.
The end fact is that I am more than prepared to do the flights for Torro for absolutly no reward or hire or valuable consideration, as meteorology fascinates me.
The Original Whirly
Joined: Feb 1999
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 4,327
Likes: 2
From: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Are all of you sure about the being paid for the report side of this? I think you're wrong. This would, logically, mean that many of the people writing articles for the flying mags - flight tests, travel-type articles etc - were breaking the law. Those without CPLs anyway. I don't think that's ever the way it's been interpreted before. Flying Lawyer, where are you????
(No personal attacks please. Yes, I do write for the mags, but yes, I do have a CPL)
(No personal attacks please. Yes, I do write for the mags, but yes, I do have a CPL)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
To complicate matters further, there are very few things which need a CPL but which don't need an AOC. One of them is that with a CPL one can be employed as a pilot by one's employer, to fly on THAT firm's business only. As soon as any 3rd party is involved, that's a no-go.
The ANO is vague (probably deliberately so) and badly drafted. One example is the "valuable consideration" bit (making a flight Aerial Work). It doesn't specify the direction in which the VC needs to flow to make it AW.
So if a plain PPL rents a C152 from his flying school, VC is flowing from the pilot to the school. That should make the flight AW. Obviously it doesn't in reality! No reasonable person would regard VC flowing FROM the pilot (i.e. aircraft rental) as relevant to AW.
But VC flowing TO the pilot does make the flight AW (other than in the specific exemptions in the ANO e.g. charity flights or PPL Cost Sharing) in the eyes of the CAA, and that's understandable.
Funnily enough, a while ago I spoke to a very senior person in the CAA enforcement dept, and he said that VC flowing in ANY direction makes the flight AW. He presumably forgot the UK self fly hire business .... but it shows the widespread confusion.
Have I missed something?
The ANO is vague (probably deliberately so) and badly drafted. One example is the "valuable consideration" bit (making a flight Aerial Work). It doesn't specify the direction in which the VC needs to flow to make it AW.
So if a plain PPL rents a C152 from his flying school, VC is flowing from the pilot to the school. That should make the flight AW. Obviously it doesn't in reality! No reasonable person would regard VC flowing FROM the pilot (i.e. aircraft rental) as relevant to AW.
But VC flowing TO the pilot does make the flight AW (other than in the specific exemptions in the ANO e.g. charity flights or PPL Cost Sharing) in the eyes of the CAA, and that's understandable.
Funnily enough, a while ago I spoke to a very senior person in the CAA enforcement dept, and he said that VC flowing in ANY direction makes the flight AW. He presumably forgot the UK self fly hire business .... but it shows the widespread confusion.
Have I missed something?
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
From: notts
Hire and Reward
The restriction to allow only a Commercial Pilot to receive a valuable consideration is for the specific role of acting as pilot. It is perfectly ok for a PPL to fly an aircraft on behalf of his company as long as he is not paid as a pilot but rather flies only in the process of doing his job for which he is paid.
If a surveyor or photographer who is only paid for the report or photographs then in the process of his work chooses to fly an aircraft then he is not acting as pilot for hire or reward. If this were not so it would mean that should a PPL wish to use an aircraft to travel to a meeting instead of using the car they would also be flying for hire an reward. They are being paid by salary or fee for their time after all but not to act as pilot.
What the instigator of this thread appears to be suggesting is that he would prefer to do the survey, flying, that being his means of transport, rather than visit the sights by using his car. Sounds ok to me.
If a surveyor or photographer who is only paid for the report or photographs then in the process of his work chooses to fly an aircraft then he is not acting as pilot for hire or reward. If this were not so it would mean that should a PPL wish to use an aircraft to travel to a meeting instead of using the car they would also be flying for hire an reward. They are being paid by salary or fee for their time after all but not to act as pilot.
What the instigator of this thread appears to be suggesting is that he would prefer to do the survey, flying, that being his means of transport, rather than visit the sights by using his car. Sounds ok to me.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
Have I missed something?
2 Subject to the provisions of this article, an aircraft in flight shall for the purposes of this Order be deemed to fly for the purposes of public transport:
...
(c) for the purposes of Part III of this Order (other than articles 14(2) and 15(2) thereof), if valuable consideration is given or promised for the primary purpose of conferring on a particular person the right to fly the aircraft on that flight...
3(c) Notwithstanding the giving or promising of valuable consideration specified in subparagraph (2)(c) in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight it shall:
(i) subject to sub-paragraph (ii), for all purposes other than Part III of this Order; and
(ii) for the purposes of articles 14(2) and 15(2) of this Order;
be deemed to be a private flight.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
That is curious.
ANO Part III deals with airworthiness.
ANO Articles 14(2) and 15(2) refer to aircraft equipment; not relevant to flying or aerial work.
Has the ANO been renumbered since my 2003 copy?
Homeguard: *It is perfectly ok for a PPL to fly an aircraft on behalf of his company as long as he is not paid as a pilot but rather flies only in the process of doing his job for which he is paid.* A PPL also must not be contractually required to fly.
ANO Part III deals with airworthiness.
ANO Articles 14(2) and 15(2) refer to aircraft equipment; not relevant to flying or aerial work.
Has the ANO been renumbered since my 2003 copy?
Homeguard: *It is perfectly ok for a PPL to fly an aircraft on behalf of his company as long as he is not paid as a pilot but rather flies only in the process of doing his job for which he is paid.* A PPL also must not be contractually required to fly.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
ANO Part III deals with airworthiness.
ANO Articles 14(2) and 15(2) refer to aircraft equipment; not relevant to flying or aerial work.
ANO Articles 14(2) and 15(2) refer to aircraft equipment; not relevant to flying or aerial work.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
From: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
The problem here is taking small sections without reading them in the overall context of the Order.
The first part of paragraph 130 says:
(a) Subject to the provisions of this article, aerial work means any purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight.
(b) If the only such valuable consideration consists of remuneration for the services of the pilot the flight shall be deemed to be a private flight for the purposes of
Part III of this Order.
So, sub paragraph (a) makes a flight for which valuable consideration is given or promised aerial work. If the only valuable consideration is a payment to the pilot then for the purposes of aircraft certification only it is treated as private. In other words, if you pay a someone to fly your aircraft from A to B you do not need a Public Transport C of A, and by article 130(3)(c) it is deemed to be private for other purposes. However, the person you pay has to have a CPL, in accordance with Schedule 8 of the ANO.
Coming back to the point in issue, if someone pays you to fly and take photos or obtain data for a report, that is Aerial Work, as the payment is more than just for the services of the pilot, because the purpose of the flight is to take the pictures, gather the data etc and payment is being made for that. Valuable Consideration is defined in paragraph 129 of the Order as:
any right, interest, profit or benefit, forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility accruing, given, suffered or undertaken pursuant to an agreement, which is of more than a nominal nature
If you go up on your own initiative to take photos, etc in the hope of selling them then this is not Aerial Work as there is no "agreement" giving rise to payment of any form of consideration.
I think Wirlybird's point is an interesting one. The position of a journalist employed specifically to write air test reports and articles is arguably in receipt of consideration pursuant to an agreement, making any such flight aerial work. If on the other hand it is not part of his contract then the position is different.
The first part of paragraph 130 says:
(a) Subject to the provisions of this article, aerial work means any purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight.
(b) If the only such valuable consideration consists of remuneration for the services of the pilot the flight shall be deemed to be a private flight for the purposes of
Part III of this Order.
So, sub paragraph (a) makes a flight for which valuable consideration is given or promised aerial work. If the only valuable consideration is a payment to the pilot then for the purposes of aircraft certification only it is treated as private. In other words, if you pay a someone to fly your aircraft from A to B you do not need a Public Transport C of A, and by article 130(3)(c) it is deemed to be private for other purposes. However, the person you pay has to have a CPL, in accordance with Schedule 8 of the ANO.
Coming back to the point in issue, if someone pays you to fly and take photos or obtain data for a report, that is Aerial Work, as the payment is more than just for the services of the pilot, because the purpose of the flight is to take the pictures, gather the data etc and payment is being made for that. Valuable Consideration is defined in paragraph 129 of the Order as:
any right, interest, profit or benefit, forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility accruing, given, suffered or undertaken pursuant to an agreement, which is of more than a nominal nature
If you go up on your own initiative to take photos, etc in the hope of selling them then this is not Aerial Work as there is no "agreement" giving rise to payment of any form of consideration.
I think Wirlybird's point is an interesting one. The position of a journalist employed specifically to write air test reports and articles is arguably in receipt of consideration pursuant to an agreement, making any such flight aerial work. If on the other hand it is not part of his contract then the position is different.
Last edited by Justiciar; 11th August 2005 at 19:24.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
From: Montsegur
Has the ANO been renumbered since my 2003 copy?
A new Order has been made and comes into effect later this month so new lots of new article numbers for everyone to learn.
I am told that article 130 has been split into several seperate articles although the substance hasn't chenged
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
because the purpose of the flight is to take the pictures, gather the data etc and payment is being made for that
"If no valuable consideration had been given nor promised, would the flight still have taken place in a substantially similar way?"
If the answer is no, it would seem that valuable consideration has been given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight.
That for me at least helps to differentiate the travel articles (answer: yes) from the flight tests (answer probably: no).
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Is there any case law on this?
These are criminal (not civil) matters and the CAA would have to prove BRD that the flight which is alleged to have been AW would not have been flown just for fun.
I know (1st hand, pre-CPS, motoring offences) that a few Magistrates are thick as a plank but any accused with more than 2p and a remotely good lawyer would appeal an obviously dodgy verdict.
Quite a few people like to fly anyway I fly at least once a week just for currency, for example.
It's like an instructor training for the IMCR in a Private CofA plane (non-owner case). Traditionally, he would charge for "ground school". In the absence of the student dropping the instructor in the **** with a statement confirming payment was made/promised for FLYING, what approach do the CAA use to make the allegation stick?
Otherwise, we can have these wonderfully academic debates for ever.
My feeling on this is that, for the most part, the CAA prosecute only the most blatent cases. The trouble with aviation is that there is always somebody who tries something on. Which is why the ANO is an unreadable jumble.
These are criminal (not civil) matters and the CAA would have to prove BRD that the flight which is alleged to have been AW would not have been flown just for fun.
I know (1st hand, pre-CPS, motoring offences) that a few Magistrates are thick as a plank but any accused with more than 2p and a remotely good lawyer would appeal an obviously dodgy verdict.
Quite a few people like to fly anyway
I fly at least once a week just for currency, for example.It's like an instructor training for the IMCR in a Private CofA plane (non-owner case). Traditionally, he would charge for "ground school". In the absence of the student dropping the instructor in the **** with a statement confirming payment was made/promised for FLYING, what approach do the CAA use to make the allegation stick?
Otherwise, we can have these wonderfully academic debates for ever.
My feeling on this is that, for the most part, the CAA prosecute only the most blatent cases. The trouble with aviation is that there is always somebody who tries something on. Which is why the ANO is an unreadable jumble.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
From: notts
Contracts
IO540
Why must holding a PPL and flying an aeroplane not be in a job contract. 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. In the same way that you may be required to drive the company or your personal car in your employment. BUT you cannot be paid as a pilot or receive benefit of any kind SPECIFICALLY for the ACT of flying unless you hold a CPL. That is the difference.
Why must holding a PPL and flying an aeroplane not be in a job contract. 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. In the same way that you may be required to drive the company or your personal car in your employment. BUT you cannot be paid as a pilot or receive benefit of any kind SPECIFICALLY for the ACT of flying unless you hold a CPL. That is the difference.