Offering flights in a raffle on PPL?

[tegwin]

I know you are not allowed to use a PPL(H) for rent or for hire or to gain renumerations...

BUT...

Could I legally raffle off tickets at my sisters school and then reward the winner with a short flight? Every single penny earned from the raffle would go straight to the air ambulance...So I wouldnt make any money from it!

Its just all her friends want a ride, so its only fair that I have a competition so I only have to take one of the little up with me!

Any thoughts?

[niknak]

If you were a commercial enterprise with a CAA AOC it wouldn't be a problem, but as a private individual I would suggest that you may well be infringing the terms of any insurance you may have and that what you are suggesting is, in the eyes of the CAA, hire and reward (because someone is paying for the flight - whatever the circumstances).

[Talkdownman]

CHARITY FLIGHTS
1 Article 159 of the Air Navigation Order 2005 makes provision for certain fund raising flights on behalf of registered charities to be
flown as private flights. They are therefore excluded from the commercial air transport regulations in respect of the carriage of
passengers and from the aerial work regulations in respect of sponsored flights without passengers. They may be conducted in
accordance with the conditions of a Permission issued by the CAA, by:
(a) The holder of a Private Pilot’s Licence or National Private Pilot’s Licence;
(b) professionally licensed pilots; or
(c) pilots of gliders and hang gliders holding certificates issued by their respective associations.
2 The types of flights which the provisions and the term ‘Charity Flights’ encompass are:
(a) The carriage of passengers, which includes children of all ages, on flights for which no payment is made to the operator or
pilot of the aircraft but for which the passengers make a payment, all of which is contributed to a registered charity; or
(b) the carriage of passengers on a flight as a prize in a lottery, the total proceeds of which go to a registered charity; or
(c) a sponsored flight, either with or without passengers, for which the total proceeds go to a registered charity.
See
http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4W136.PDF

[Mike Cross]

The general prohibtion (to which there are exemptions, including the one talkdownman refers to) applies where:-

valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight.

It matters not who it is given or promised to.

[bladewashout]

So, under 2(a), and assuming the donation goes to a registered charity, if you were to ensure that the total of the raffle ticket income equals or exceeds the actual cost of the flight, then you are ok?

(But still have to get permission from the CAA)

BW

[Mike Cross]

Eh?

the total proceeds of which go to a registered charity

The way I read it, it matters not how much it is, simply that ALL of the income goes to the charity. i.e. without any deduction of expenses.

(on the basis that if they meant Nett Proceeds they would have said so)

e.g. Someone pays for and donates use of a/c
all money from ticket sales goes to the charity.

[QDMQDMQDM]

This gets discussed here on a regular basis. Have a look in the search. Most people, of whom I am one, regard it as too much hassle, but a few hardy souls wade through the red tape.

[FREDSIMTH]

As said previously this has been done to death before. However I personally would avoid the charity flight situation. The reason being, I expect a general member of the public who won a flight would in a sense be putting their trust in a stranger ( like you do when you fly a commercial airline), and would probably be expecting a level of expertise and / or service level which doesn't exist. I don't think it would be fair to expect every winner to check out their pilots level of expertise and experience. Nor do I think it fair to expect them to know what questions to ask.

At least when you take a friend etc they know pretty much what they are getting and the associated risks....

[tegwin]

That'l teach me....I should have tried searching about this...loads of threads about it

It seems like an overly complicated sitaution...

Pretty logical in that its there to protect the un-suspecting public from unproffesional pilots....

I could legally put all my sisters friends into a hat (not literally..although I might enjoy that), and draw one out at random and then take them up...we would know each other and no money or reward would be exchanged...

Can someone please write the idots guide to CAA/JAA laws

[Mike Cross]

Can someone please write the idots guide to CAA/JAA laws

Ha! It would be out of date before the ink was dry. The whole thing is in a constant state of flux and the law seems to change more often than some of us change our socks.

One of the reasons it changes is that some bright spark thinks he's found a loophole or a new interpretation and the legal bods act to plug or "clarify" it.

LASORS purports to be a guide but even in that the editor sticks in opinions that do not appear in the actual legislation.

It's not confined to aviation. I could offer to give away a free plasma TV worth a thousand quid with every pair of socks. I'd charge 925 quid a pair for the socks. Guess what - no VAT on socks!

As a general rule of thumb, if it feels wrong it is wrong.

Many years ago I used to do air experience flights for the Scout Association on a plain PPL. They paid for the aircraft and I flew it, not any more. (I even flew it into Stansted to refuel, that shows you how long ago it was!)

[mm_flynn]

Basic idiots guide for this one CAA law.

You must have 200 PIC hrs and 25hrs on type and be current
Broadly the airport and aeroplane must be suitable for aerial work (licenced aerodrome, 50 hour checks, etc.)

You can not land away or travel more than 25 miles from departure point. It must be 'good VMC' (2000/8) and no 'tricky' flying. You need to have the same kit in the plane as if it was used for training (first aid kit, etc)

If you meet all of the conditions in Annex 1 (and it is a G reg plane) then that is it.

If you can't, then fill the form in to apply for an exemption. (see talkdownman's link for the details and the form)

[IO540]

Incidentally, is it not the case that a pilot with a CPL (any ICAO CPL) can fly beyond the 25nm radius? I vaguely recall this is one of the very few (and largely useless) privileges of a CPL outside an AOC context.

Mike

It matters not who it is given or promised to

Which bit of the ANO enables a PPL to self fly hire a plane and fly it alone? Money is passing from one party to another, after all.

[Mike Cross]

IO I hate you!

There's two bits to the question.

Airworthiness and Licensing

Art 157 et seq give the general conditions and exemptions that define aerial work and public transport.

Art 14 et seq detail various requirements relating to airworthiness if the flight is Public Transport or Aerial Work. (there's more dotted all over the ANO as well)

Schedule 8 (Arts 27-31) set out the license privileges, including for example Aerial Work that can be carried out by a PPL

I think the bit you're looking for is this:-
Art 157 (3) (c) says that for the purposes of Part 3 (that's the airworthiness bit) it's Public Transport if it's self-fly hire.

Art 157 (6) then goes on to say that even if it's PT under 157 (3) (c) it's a Private Flight except for the purpose of Part 3 (airworthiness) and Arts 19 (2) and 20 (2) (required equipment)

So it's dead simple really, it has to be airworthy to PT standards, but it's a Private Flight as far as license privileges are concerned. (if you believe that you'll believe anything)

Why o why do I allow myself to get suckered by you into expressing an opinion?

Hope I've got it right. (where's the fingers crossed smiley?)

Mike

PS above is based on the article numbering in the May 2007 version of the ANO