Aerial Survey work on a PPL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 52
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerial Survey work on a PPL
As a PPL holder, renumeration in any form is obviously not permitted, and i am responsible for paying for at least my share of the cost of the flight. ie half if 2 on board, or a quarter if 4 on board etc.
Obviously i can't be paid for this, is there any way i can legally perform these flights as PIC, without being paid? Obviously the hours i'd be gaining would be very welcome, but i don't want to risk my license.
Obviously i can't be paid for this, is there any way i can legally perform these flights as PIC, without being paid? Obviously the hours i'd be gaining would be very welcome, but i don't want to risk my license.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Massachusetts Bay Colony
Age: 57
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably not as even simply logging hours is considered compensation. Every pilot that's come before us has thought of this wheeze and I think the CAA closed that loophole in Jan 1904. 
If in doubt, give the CAA a ring.
If in doubt, give the CAA a ring.
This will help you: "Summary of the Meaning of Public Transport & Aerial Work" (CAA)
Form which comes:
Aerial Work (Article 157 (1) and (2))
2.1.1 A flight is for the purpose of aerial work if payment is made in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight, unless the flight is in fact for the purpose of public transport (see para 2.2 below).
2.1.2 If the only payment involved is the payment of the pilot, the flight is deemed to be private for airworthiness purposes (although it will still be aerial work for other purposes, e.g. flight crew licensing). This enables a private owner to pay a flying instructor for a flying lesson in his own aircraft even though the continuing airworthiness requirements that would be applicable to public transport aircraft may not have been applied.
My undertsnading of 2.1.1 is that it means "No, you can't" because the "purpose of the flight" is to conduct work which will be paid for.
Form which comes:
Aerial Work (Article 157 (1) and (2))
2.1.1 A flight is for the purpose of aerial work if payment is made in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight, unless the flight is in fact for the purpose of public transport (see para 2.2 below).
2.1.2 If the only payment involved is the payment of the pilot, the flight is deemed to be private for airworthiness purposes (although it will still be aerial work for other purposes, e.g. flight crew licensing). This enables a private owner to pay a flying instructor for a flying lesson in his own aircraft even though the continuing airworthiness requirements that would be applicable to public transport aircraft may not have been applied.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst not condoning it, yes you can. As long as you receive no valuable consideration you can do it.
There is an FI at Sywell for example who is employed as a receptionist who happens to teach most of the day as he is unable to get a JAA CPL. Perfectly legal unless he is required to fly.
There is an FI at Sywell for example who is employed as a receptionist who happens to teach most of the day as he is unable to get a JAA CPL. Perfectly legal unless he is required to fly.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who pays the Piper plays .........!
The simplest way to look at this is to consider the purpose of the flight. From what is desribed the purpose is to undertake an aerial survey. To pilot an aircraft for such a purpose on behalf of other people it is 'aerial work' irrespective of whether money changes hands or not. If others are carried also for the purpose it becomes the public transport of passengers.
I mention "on behalf of other people" because should you be a surveyor and flying yourself to do the survey for your own purposes then it would not be aerial work. In this case you would be using the aeroplane in the same way that you might otherwise use your car. Using the aeroplane musn't in itself be a requirement to do the job otherwise the actual flight is for the purpose of 'aerial work' or 'public transport'.
An example of non-public transport/Aerial work would be; you and three others from your office need to be at a certain place by a certain time. You elect to hire an aeroplane with you as pilot, this being a quicker and preferred method to driving. It is clearly a private flight and you take no benefit for you had to go anyway.
I mention "on behalf of other people" because should you be a surveyor and flying yourself to do the survey for your own purposes then it would not be aerial work. In this case you would be using the aeroplane in the same way that you might otherwise use your car. Using the aeroplane musn't in itself be a requirement to do the job otherwise the actual flight is for the purpose of 'aerial work' or 'public transport'.
An example of non-public transport/Aerial work would be; you and three others from your office need to be at a certain place by a certain time. You elect to hire an aeroplane with you as pilot, this being a quicker and preferred method to driving. It is clearly a private flight and you take no benefit for you had to go anyway.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 52
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloody annoying isn't it? Considering the flying involved would be very straightforward, nothing out of the ordinary at all. I suppose the problem with being employed in some other capacity (officially) with the organisation in question, but performing the flights, raises the problem of the aircrafts tech log corresponding with my log entries. It's not as if i could conceal the fact i was flying the aircraft. Even if i was the 'receptionist' (officially). Would it then mean i could do it if i paid my share of the flights?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose said;
No. No. and again No.
As many others have pointed out, it is not simply a matter of not paying the pilot. Unless everything done is free i.e. the operator in the back is not being paid anything (and can choose not to fly with no fear of an adverse outcome) and whoever is doing the survey is not receiving anything valuable while remembering that having a survey done to support your own planning application or other project is very valuable indeed.
If the situation is as you describe at Sywell and it is not training for a Microlight Rating (which a PPL can be paid for) then;
a) It is clear from what you say that the person is not "employed" as a receptionist because as you point out, you will never see them "employed" in that capacity.
b) If as you say they spend their time providing flight instruction for an organisation that provides them with valuable consideration when they are not actively employed in another capacity (see a)) then they and the organisation are operating illegally; and
Most importantly -
All training conducted by such an FI would be illegal and thus not count towards the training required for a licence or rating issue.
That would be a very expensive situation for a prospective student
Sounds like a place to be avoided at all costs if what Bose says is true.
If it is not true then he has nothng to support his position.
Regards,
DFC
Whilst not condoning it, yes you can. As long as you receive no valuable consideration you can do it.
There is an FI at Sywell for example who is employed as a receptionist who happens to teach most of the day as he is unable to get a JAA CPL. Perfectly legal unless he is required to fly.
There is an FI at Sywell for example who is employed as a receptionist who happens to teach most of the day as he is unable to get a JAA CPL. Perfectly legal unless he is required to fly.
As many others have pointed out, it is not simply a matter of not paying the pilot. Unless everything done is free i.e. the operator in the back is not being paid anything (and can choose not to fly with no fear of an adverse outcome) and whoever is doing the survey is not receiving anything valuable while remembering that having a survey done to support your own planning application or other project is very valuable indeed.
If the situation is as you describe at Sywell and it is not training for a Microlight Rating (which a PPL can be paid for) then;
a) It is clear from what you say that the person is not "employed" as a receptionist because as you point out, you will never see them "employed" in that capacity.
b) If as you say they spend their time providing flight instruction for an organisation that provides them with valuable consideration when they are not actively employed in another capacity (see a)) then they and the organisation are operating illegally; and
Most importantly -
All training conducted by such an FI would be illegal and thus not count towards the training required for a licence or rating issue.
That would be a very expensive situation for a prospective student
Sounds like a place to be avoided at all costs if what Bose says is true.
If it is not true then he has nothng to support his position.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest you give Brooklands aviation a call at Sywell and ask them, they are not a microligt school they operate AT-3's. I know the Instructor personally and know his situation. FAA CPL/IR, JAA PPL with FI rating, unable to get a CPL due to eyesight. Flies many hours a day teaching and doing trial flights but is employed in an admin role.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would steer well clear of that place then if a student. Shame to pay for illegal flying and have your PPL application turned down.
Remember that "employed" does not mean being paid to do something. You can be "employed" and not be paid.
The only way a PPL can provide PPL instruction is where no money changes hand for the instruction.
I could bet that it is not a case of train with instructor A and the rate is £xxx per hour but train with instructor B when the rate is £ much less per hour because they are a PPL. More likely that the rate is £xxx per hour regardless of who you fly with.
Perhaps the CAA need to pay a visit or atleast a call to the General Agrigate and see what is going on.
You are such a snith Bose
Regards,
DFC
Remember that "employed" does not mean being paid to do something. You can be "employed" and not be paid.
The only way a PPL can provide PPL instruction is where no money changes hand for the instruction.
I could bet that it is not a case of train with instructor A and the rate is £xxx per hour but train with instructor B when the rate is £ much less per hour because they are a PPL. More likely that the rate is £xxx per hour regardless of who you fly with.
Perhaps the CAA need to pay a visit or atleast a call to the General Agrigate and see what is going on.
You are such a snith Bose
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Bose a big thank you for the tip-off.
Appears that Mr ......can't have a JAA Class 1 because of a visual impairment.
The organisation are aware of this and he is not employed in an admin position. He is employed as an instructor!
Trial Lessons by PPLs etc etc. There are going to be plenty of training organisations that keep to the law who will object strongly to this carry on.
What a can of worms.
Regards,
DFC
Appears that Mr ......can't have a JAA Class 1 because of a visual impairment.
The organisation are aware of this and he is not employed in an admin position. He is employed as an instructor!
Trial Lessons by PPLs etc etc. There are going to be plenty of training organisations that keep to the law who will object strongly to this carry on.
What a can of worms.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Payment
You cannot be paid to act as pilot or as an instructor unless you hold a CPL. There are a few exemptions from this restriction that have been granted just the same.
A Non-CPL Instructor may be paid when instructing for the Microlite Licence and other similar NPPL licences by grant of an exemption. Unfortunately no such exemptions have yet been granted for teaching the PPL 'A', be it for the NPPL or EASA PPL.
However, should you hold a Flight Instructor Rating but not a hold a CPL or valid CPL (ie no current Class 1 medical) you may instruct unpaid. A flying club could come to an arrangement whereby they employ an instructor for one task and pay for that work but require the same person to do any flight instructing without pay. It would be necessary to ensure that it couldn't be construed that any payment for another different task was in fact a substitute for the flight instructing work.
A Non-CPL Instructor may be paid when instructing for the Microlite Licence and other similar NPPL licences by grant of an exemption. Unfortunately no such exemptions have yet been granted for teaching the PPL 'A', be it for the NPPL or EASA PPL.
However, should you hold a Flight Instructor Rating but not a hold a CPL or valid CPL (ie no current Class 1 medical) you may instruct unpaid. A flying club could come to an arrangement whereby they employ an instructor for one task and pay for that work but require the same person to do any flight instructing without pay. It would be necessary to ensure that it couldn't be construed that any payment for another different task was in fact a substitute for the flight instructing work.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so if I understand correctly (and as per the article in this months Pilot Mag) - it is possible to instruct with just a PPL license as long as you don't recieve any money for it and you have the minimum hours etc?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes that is correct. There are quite a few PPL Instructors out there.
The discussion is more around the legality of being employed for one task as a 'cover' for doing another.
The discussion is more around the legality of being employed for one task as a 'cover' for doing another.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is posible to provide JAA instruction when holding just a PPL and Flight Instructor Rating provided that there is no payment made for the flight instruction
For example-
A Another Flying Club Have a PA28.
They offer the aircraft at £100 for PPL hire and £150 Dual.
If the instructor provided by the Club only has a PPL then the club can only charge the student £100 per hour for dual training. i.e. They can not charge for the training because the training provided (by a PPL) can not be charged for.
Thus with a mix of PPL and CPL instructors, they have to offer different rates depending on which instructor you fly with.
With that in mind I know who I would be flying with.
However, in some organisations they charge the same rate and simply gloss over the fact that your instructor for today only has a PPL and you are paying more profit into the company's pocket.
Other training providers, professional instructors and the CAA take a dim view of such operations.
So if you are getting a PPL instructor (who can be just as god as a CPL one), make sure that you are not paying anyone for the instruction.
Regards,
DFC
For example-
A Another Flying Club Have a PA28.
They offer the aircraft at £100 for PPL hire and £150 Dual.
If the instructor provided by the Club only has a PPL then the club can only charge the student £100 per hour for dual training. i.e. They can not charge for the training because the training provided (by a PPL) can not be charged for.
Thus with a mix of PPL and CPL instructors, they have to offer different rates depending on which instructor you fly with.
With that in mind I know who I would be flying with.
However, in some organisations they charge the same rate and simply gloss over the fact that your instructor for today only has a PPL and you are paying more profit into the company's pocket.
Other training providers, professional instructors and the CAA take a dim view of such operations.
So if you are getting a PPL instructor (who can be just as god as a CPL one), make sure that you are not paying anyone for the instruction.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central London
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Eastern Daily Press has used a ppl to take aerial pictures for the last ten years. They credit PPL Mike Page who is based at Seething.
A lot of the pictures suggest they have been commisioned. ( eg the Lowestoft sewage works in the EDP today!)
His website suggests non profit making but he is listed on Pilotweb as a photo journalist.
Archant own the Eastern Daily Press and Pilot!
The CAA never prosecute for aerial pix.
Older pilots will remember the Skyview fiasco
A lot of the pictures suggest they have been commisioned. ( eg the Lowestoft sewage works in the EDP today!)
His website suggests non profit making but he is listed on Pilotweb as a photo journalist.
Archant own the Eastern Daily Press and Pilot!
The CAA never prosecute for aerial pix.
Older pilots will remember the Skyview fiasco
Last edited by Phil Space; 1st Nov 2007 at 20:09. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Grand Com f'Ort
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should think that anyone who has gone jumped through the various hoops to get a professional license might like to have a one sided discussion with various folk mentioned, ideally behind the ops hut and after dark. 
Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
Pay nothing at all, and even opposable thumbs are unlikely...
Again, the lowest grade of 'discussion' here.
Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
Pay nothing at all, and even opposable thumbs are unlikely...
Again, the lowest grade of 'discussion' here.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentleman or Players
DFC
I'm not sure that you are correct in your example, for this reason.
The fact that the PPL has a Flight Instructor rating means that the club is acting properly in employing the instructor and not paying him/her and is free to make charges as it deems fit. The CAA has no power with regard to club charges to its members and nor should it.
As long as the PPL Flight Instructor does not receive remuneration then they too are acting correctly.
I'm not sure that you are correct in your example, for this reason.
The fact that the PPL has a Flight Instructor rating means that the club is acting properly in employing the instructor and not paying him/her and is free to make charges as it deems fit. The CAA has no power with regard to club charges to its members and nor should it.
As long as the PPL Flight Instructor does not receive remuneration then they too are acting correctly.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central London
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imagine setting up a proper aerial photo operation at Norwich.
Not a hope in hell when someone will do the same pix free.
http://www.mike-page.co.uk/
He even admits to modding the aircraft!
Not a hope in hell when someone will do the same pix free.
http://www.mike-page.co.uk/
He even admits to modding the aircraft!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerial Photography
Should a PPL use his aeroplane from which to take photos, why not. The PPL photograher may charge what he likes for his photos but must not charge for the flight or his services as a pilot.
Should a PPL transport a photographer with the intention of taking photos then the situation changes. The photographer is a paying passenger and the appropiate laws come into play. If I remember correctly Skyviews said that they employed a person who was a photographer but used an aeroplane only as a means of conveyance for which the photographer was properly qualified to do. The photos were sold as one off items at a later date but had not been commisioned and no charge was made for the actual flying or pilotage.
Should a PPL transport a photographer with the intention of taking photos then the situation changes. The photographer is a paying passenger and the appropiate laws come into play. If I remember correctly Skyviews said that they employed a person who was a photographer but used an aeroplane only as a means of conveyance for which the photographer was properly qualified to do. The photos were sold as one off items at a later date but had not been commisioned and no charge was made for the actual flying or pilotage.