Aerial photography
Re: Aerial photography
I think the key is an explicit appreciation of the risk exposure and the measures to mitigate it. The law on PT is there to protect Joe Punter, who has a right to expect a particular level of risk, appropriate to an air transport undertaking. A PPL (CPL, whatever) who wants to take photos from the right seat undoubtedly understands and accepts the risks associated with private flying. Difficult to legislate for that subtlety though, without creating glaring loopholes.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Aerial photography
I agree that a "public transport" passenger can be reasonably regarded as having a greater expectation of safety that somebody who is getting a free ride.
One could argue that the above is nonsense; an absolutely negligible % of fatalities could possibly come from the difference between G-reg PT and non-PT maintenance regimes, but I concede that for some reason Joe Public buying a ticket is less expecting to die than one not buying a ticket. If there was a problem then I'd suggest it comes from flying 30 year old wrecks
The problem is that the regs which classify a flight as PT extend far far beyond what a reasonable person might regard as such.
One example is rental, which is automatically classed as PT. Even if I rent a plane from my own business (a business which I own 100%) that makes it PT. Renting the same plane to somebody else, for a completely private flight, is also PT.
To that extent I think spernkey is right; the PT regs have been extended right into the gutter to protect the PPL flight training industry (which relies a lot on self fly hire) by creating a level playing field between the schools, and individual owners wishing to recover some of their costs by renting out their planes. Flying schools moan like hell to the CAA over this sort of stuff.
So, such owners are pushed into the artificial device of creating partnerships, sometimes as limited companies to protect the shareholders from each other's actions, all done to avoid what might appear as "rental".
A lot of the ANO, as applying to GA, is really trade and revenue protection, and cannot possibly by the slightest stretch of imagination be based on safety data.
The FAA has no problem with mandatory maintenance being just the Annual (of course in practice one still does regular maintenance as required for the engine and such, but one doesn't have to chuck anything up to £500 at a JAR145 company to change the oil and the filter) and the aircraft can still be rented out (Part 91). They operate a fleet many times bigger than the CAA and if they had a problem they would know about it.
One could argue that the above is nonsense; an absolutely negligible % of fatalities could possibly come from the difference between G-reg PT and non-PT maintenance regimes, but I concede that for some reason Joe Public buying a ticket is less expecting to die than one not buying a ticket. If there was a problem then I'd suggest it comes from flying 30 year old wrecks
The problem is that the regs which classify a flight as PT extend far far beyond what a reasonable person might regard as such.
One example is rental, which is automatically classed as PT. Even if I rent a plane from my own business (a business which I own 100%) that makes it PT. Renting the same plane to somebody else, for a completely private flight, is also PT.
To that extent I think spernkey is right; the PT regs have been extended right into the gutter to protect the PPL flight training industry (which relies a lot on self fly hire) by creating a level playing field between the schools, and individual owners wishing to recover some of their costs by renting out their planes. Flying schools moan like hell to the CAA over this sort of stuff.
So, such owners are pushed into the artificial device of creating partnerships, sometimes as limited companies to protect the shareholders from each other's actions, all done to avoid what might appear as "rental".
A lot of the ANO, as applying to GA, is really trade and revenue protection, and cannot possibly by the slightest stretch of imagination be based on safety data.
The FAA has no problem with mandatory maintenance being just the Annual (of course in practice one still does regular maintenance as required for the engine and such, but one doesn't have to chuck anything up to £500 at a JAR145 company to change the oil and the filter) and the aircraft can still be rented out (Part 91). They operate a fleet many times bigger than the CAA and if they had a problem they would know about it.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: cambs.
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Aerial photography
Here!! here!! IO540 (and far better put than i could) - if the industry wasn't so riddled with self interest ridden parties getting the ear of the authority we might even still have self-improoving BCPL's to work with - but then there might be less debt ridden wannabe's for the training schools/airlines to abuse and that clearly wouldn't do. To my recolection those guys werent falling out of the sky regularly so people of limited intellect like me just get assuming that move had to be serving someones interest - somehow?
Re: Aerial photography
Originally Posted by IO540
The problem is that the regs which classify a flight as PT extend far far beyond what a reasonable person might regard as such.
One example is rental, which is automatically classed as PT. Even if I rent a plane from my own business (a business which I own 100%) that makes it PT. Renting the same plane to somebody else, for a completely private flight, is also PT.
One example is rental, which is automatically classed as PT. Even if I rent a plane from my own business (a business which I own 100%) that makes it PT. Renting the same plane to somebody else, for a completely private flight, is also PT.
1) a certificate of Maintenance Review
2) a tech log
3) no pilot maintenance
4) certain other restrictions on running parts past their certified life
As a potential renter of aircraft, I don't think that's an unreasonable standard to ask for. Believe me, you wouldn't want to rent something I had changed the oil filter on.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Aerial photography
Just had to say how much I enjoyed the postings here by I-reason.
Scares me to death but what a man, surely this is flying in the way that we GA people in the UK will never have the opportunity or nerve to do.
Would make a good magazine article
Scares me to death but what a man, surely this is flying in the way that we GA people in the UK will never have the opportunity or nerve to do.
Would make a good magazine article
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Aerial photography
I do believe you Bookworm but what's the difference between you (having changed the oil filter yourself, left it loose and not wirelocked it) renting the plane to another pilot, and taking 3 passengers along?
The safety argument would lead a complete ban on passengers, and flying within the gliding distance of any habitation, if any pilot maintenance has been done.
And that is assuming the local JAR145 firm does a better job. It's true but only sometimes Of the last half dozen jobs I've had done by fully approved firms, half were done wrong.
The 50hr check on a SEP is really trivial - just a load of inspection (most of which is done on a preflight anyway) and the oil/plugs. The cost of special tools is recouped the very first time they are used. Personally I get an A&P friend to help me but that's largely because getting the cowlings off etc is a 2-man job.
There are so many areas in flying where a pilot has to make a life-critical "executive decision", yet for some reason it is assumed that the same person is unable to determine whether he is or isn't capable of changing the oil.
but what's the difference between you (having changed the oil filter yourself, left it loose and not wirelocked it) renting the plane to another pilot, and taking 3 passengers along?The safety argument would lead a complete ban on passengers, and flying within the gliding distance of any habitation, if any pilot maintenance has been done.
And that is assuming the local JAR145 firm does a better job. It's true but only sometimes
Of the last half dozen jobs I've had done by fully approved firms, half were done wrong.The 50hr check on a SEP is really trivial - just a load of inspection (most of which is done on a preflight anyway) and the oil/plugs. The cost of special tools is recouped the very first time they are used. Personally I get an A&P friend to help me but that's largely because getting the cowlings off etc is a 2-man job.
There are so many areas in flying where a pilot has to make a life-critical "executive decision", yet for some reason it is assumed that the same person is unable to determine whether he is or isn't capable of changing the oil.
Re: Aerial photography
Originally Posted by IO540
I do believe you Bookworm but what's the difference between you (having changed the oil filter yourself, left it loose and not wirelocked it) renting the plane to another pilot, and taking 3 passengers along?
but what's the difference between you (having changed the oil filter yourself, left it loose and not wirelocked it) renting the plane to another pilot, and taking 3 passengers along?I'm not saying that the standards are set at the right level. But I am saying that there is a case for allowing private flights (even those with passengers) to operate with a higher level of residual risk than public transport flights, and for aircraft flown by the owner or a small group to be maintained in a way that involves more self-certification than aircraft that are hired out. In other words, I agree with the framework.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Aerial photography
I agree with the principle, so long as the PT flights really are public transport flights.
Very little real public transport is done in what one might call "GA" planes.
The only case I can think of is a flying school that I know, obviously an AOC holder, having a Seneca and one day five men and a load of golf clubs turn up for a charter flight from one end of UK to the other. But these are isolated cases. (The fact that a Seneca with 6 men can't carry enough fuel for a circuit is beside the point )
So, what does all the other PT related regulation really achieve? It keeps AOC holders happy, for starters.
Very little real public transport is done in what one might call "GA" planes.
The only case I can think of is a flying school that I know, obviously an AOC holder, having a Seneca and one day five men and a load of golf clubs turn up for a charter flight from one end of UK to the other. But these are isolated cases. (The fact that a Seneca with 6 men can't carry enough fuel for a circuit is beside the point
)So, what does all the other PT related regulation really achieve? It keeps AOC holders happy, for starters.
