Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Why can't PPL holders charge for their services?

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Why can't PPL holders charge for their services?

Old 6th Oct 2009, 11:22
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SX in SX in UK
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They are my guest, that is my "common courtesy". They can offer of course, but I would never expect it or accept it.
Buying me dinner or contributing to the landing fee will always be gratefully accepted though.
Kolibear is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 11:24
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, UK ;
Age: 71
Posts: 1,153
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
AFAIK, SEPs are used for "sight seeing" and there is no reason for them not to be used for other revenue earning work under the appropriate licensing and certification.

What I think the CAA is opposed to is single engined, single pilot passenger carrying IFR, such as might be done in a Cessna Caravan.
Dave Gittins is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 11:25
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I took my wife on my very first solo flight
you were flying "solo" with your wife?
flybymike is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 11:26
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A couple of points.

1 - I don't believe any type of motorised transport operation carried out for Hire and Reward (i.e. you are paid to do it) is allowed on a basic licence. There is always extra qualification. While a mini-cab driver doesn't need to pass an additional driving test, they and their vehicles are additionally licenced. (I believe there are successful prosecutions of people with basic driving licences driving licenced minicabs even when the minicab was off duty). In aviation, it works the same. You need additional training (mostly in knowledge) to be paid to operate an aircraft. This type of operation would be photography, pipeline patrol, traffic spotting, etc. (i.e. no passengers of freight being carried)

2 - To carry passengers or freight for gain (i.e. Public Transport), not only does the pilot need to be trained (a CPL) but the aircraft must be maintained to a specified (higher) standard and operated within a structure designed to ensure a higher level of safety (an AOC). Not withstanding any views about the AOC just being a piece of paper, the facts would suggest that AOC operations have a substantially lower accident rate than private ops.

3 - The 'trial lesson' structure is sometimes used to get around what would be an requirement to have an AOC if undertaking a pleasure flight. the logic is, you have chosen to give flying a go (you personally flying the aircraft) you know it is not a commercial flight with the service and safety you would expect - therefore complying with the full details of an AOC is unnecessary.

The whole purpose of the law is so ordinary people, who have no real knowledge of the risks and decision processes involved in running air transport are 'guaranteed' a safety standard that is comparable to what they would expect from any other form of public transport (i.e. very safe) and do not need to undertake their own due diligence. The law assumes pilots, flying club members and their invited friends have sufficient understanding of the risks, aircraft, and pilot experience to make these judgements on their own - and due to the lack of any payment, understand the operation has no guarantee of any given level of safety.
mm_flynn is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 11:31
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: In a country
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dublinpilot

You have just proved the fact that half of the people on pprune post and don't know a thing about the industry.

Why post if you don't have a clue, don't take in personally but it happens all the time on this site and it detracts from often a sensible debate.

IMHO its just happening to much lately.
Bla Bla Bla is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 11:44
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, UK ;
Age: 71
Posts: 1,153
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
flybymike Poorly worded I agree.

First flight as a licensed pilot without being under the supervision or authority of an instructor.
Dave Gittins is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 12:02
  #27 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 14,202
Received 46 Likes on 24 Posts
Useful CAA leaflet.

In the meantime, even those correcting incorrect posts may miss something. ANO 2009, schedule 8 allows a CPL holder to fly as pilot in command of any flight except a multi-crew public transport flight - so a multi-crew aerial work, private, positioning or test flight would be fine, as of-course is a single pilot public transport fly. There is a further restriction mind you - without an IR, a CPL holder can't fly public transport in aeroplanes above 2300kg unless the take-off and landings are no more than 25nm apart.

There are a few loopholes - for example there's no microlight CPL, so almost all microlight instructors (under a CAA exemption) are quite legally paid to fly with PPLs. CAA itself allows its own staff to fly on business so long as they hold an IMC (the latter being an internal requirement, not a legal one). Many BMAA and LAA member/PPL holders regularly conduct test flying which technically is an aerial work activity, again with CAA issued exemptions allowing this.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 12:18
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bla Bla Bla
Dublinpilot

You have just proved the fact that half of the people on PPRuNe post and don't know a thing about the industry.

Why post if you don't have a clue, don't take in personally but it happens all the time on this site and it detracts from often a sensible debate.

IMHO its just happening to much lately.
Well, because I believed that I did know the answer.

When it was pointed out that my knowledge was incorrect, I acknowledged that and learnt from it.

If people who honestly believe that they know something aren't allowed to post that, in case they might be wrong, then Pprune would not be here for very long.
dublinpilot is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 12:43
  #29 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,561
Received 402 Likes on 210 Posts
This document lays down the UK regulations.

Para 5.3 (cost sharing) is relevent to the original question.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summar..._transport.pdf

A breach of these regulations also implicates the owner / operator of the aircraft as the insurance will be invalidated.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 13:18
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What is the actual reasoning behind this?
The reasoning behind it is that if there were no such restrictions there would be chaos and carnage.

Human nature is such that when remuneration is involved ambition and greed WILL override all other considerations. In common with most laws these restrictions are "designed" to protect the many from the few for the greater good.

From a pragmatic perspective it's not worth the hassle mate. For reasons already stated in this thread - if you go much further than BEagle and others state your fare paying 'passengers' WILL at some point drop you right in it when they start moaning, refusing to pay up or turn nasty demanding their rights WHEN you screw up or are subject to some sort of 'misunderstanding' over your presumably non existent terms of service.
windriver is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 13:43
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,553
Received 24 Likes on 13 Posts
Canada

Here in Canada, the regulatory structure is similar; however the bush operators are pretty much left a free hand. Some are conscientious; others less so and the accident rates reflect that.

Max Ward started out as a bush operator and distinguished himself by never losing a single passenger

Eventually he closed down his bush operation because it could not compete against the corner cutters
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 14:23
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"if I ask a mate to take me up in their aircraft for a spin I would be paying a lot more than 50%."

Too damned right!!! It would probably be your life!!
Why not? Good fun, I have spun aircraft a few times - as long they are certified for spins and you have the relevant training & are competent go for it!


On the other hand, I remember reading somewhere that if you were in the USA and have an FAA PPL then you are allowed to fly around an MP (or Senators as they call them) and recieve payment. I dont remember the full details but hoping someone Stateside can come up with facts.
Julian is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 15:16
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Optimist;

There is another very good reason for PPLs not to fly paying passengers, their own safety.

Many of us on here hold CPLs/ATPLs and have thousands of hours and years of training and experience. I fly fixed wing and rotary for my living, recently in the rotary world there have been occasions when helicopter pilots have discovered that the paying customers of one pilot have been flown by a PPL who thinks he has been terrribly clever. The reports to the CAA have had little effect, a strong punch in the mouth and half a dozen very angry helo pilots pointing out the error of his ways seems more effective.

To any PPL who wants to share costs, thats great go ahead and do it, I cost share on lots of private flights with mates in our own aircraft. Cross the line and put passengers at risk and expect your world to become a very uncomfortable place if you are caught. For one thing your pax aren't insured because your flight is illegal, as one poster correctly stated you may be encouraged to fly beyond your limits, and the PPL is a very basic licence.

Cost share on an agreed basis and enjoy the flight. Charge and the pressure comes on heavily, the passengers expect you to perform when you may not be able to.

The CAA issue a very good leaflet on whether a flight is legal. It is aimed at passengers but is well worth a read by pilots too.
Sir Niall Dementia is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 15:47
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A very interesting thread

I've been flying passengers for many years on my PPL and occasionally received some cost sharing funds in return - not sure if the beers or rounds of bacon butties count as a benefit though.

What seems odd is that we can perfectly well fly people as long as we don't benefit. I take the view that I intend to corrupt as many people as possible into taking up the sinful activity of recreational flying and I take that task very seriously whether or not I get financial help.

I don't take particularly seriously the view that because I am not an instructor I am automatically putting my passengers lives at risk. I have more hours and experience than some of the junior instructors I've flown with.
robin is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 16:01
  #35 (permalink)  

The Original Whirly
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I believe the original point was that taking friends flying with a basic PPL is legal, but if they pay more than their share it becomes illegal, and that this is illogical. Yes, it is. Personally, I can't think of a good reason for it. But it does happen to be the law. And if you choose to break that law, that's your business, as with any other law. End of story. I don't see how this thread has run to two pages...but that's PPRuNe for you.
Whirlybird is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 16:58
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I believe the original point was that taking friends flying with a basic PPL is legal, but if they pay more than their share it becomes illegal, and that this is illogical. Yes, it is.
No, not illogical (at least, to my mind), Whirly.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere. If the pax pay their share, then it's just a joint jolly. If they pay all the costs (plus a "drink" for the pilot), then it becomes indistinguishable from a charter. So where do you draw the line? It's reasonable if two business associates are going off to a distant meeting, one has a PPL and decides he's going to fly. His colleague decides to come too, and offers to share the cost. Nobody is benefitting. But there comes a grey area in the middle. How much more than "his share" can he pay without it being a charter? Somewhere, I would suggest, between £(Cost/2)+1 and £(Cost-1). The line is, I suggest, therefore logically in the right place.

Public transport needs to be subject to oversight and therefore legislation and licensing, for the public's safety and financial safeguards against operators going bust. Hence the requirements for AOCs and ATOLs. Hence the higher requirements of licensing and recurrent checking and medicals for pilots conducting such flights.

Not only do the public need to be protected against the wiles of the pirates illegal public transport operators. So do legitimate businesses who incur significant costs in ensuring their aircraft are suitably maintained, pilots are trained, checked and medicalled (??), their duty hours within safe and legal limits and the whole caboosh is insured.

Therefore like, I suspect, a lot of commercially-qualified pilots, I would have no hesitation whatsoever in shopping anyone conducting illegal public transport.
Captain Stable is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 17:26
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dublinpilot

You have just proved the fact that half of the people on pprune post and don't know a thing about the industry.

Why post if you don't have a clue, don't take in personally but it happens all the time on this site and it detracts from often a sensible debate.

IMHO its just happening to much lately.
Bla Bla Bla, Dublinpilot has been posting useful, helpful (and accurate) material on here for far longer than recent upstarts. A little consideration for an honest innocent mistake would be prudent and polite, before flying off the handle.
flybymike is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 21:05
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I believe the original point was that taking friends flying with a basic PPL is legal, but if they pay more than their share it becomes illegal, and that this is illogical. Yes, it is. Personally, I can't think of a good reason for it.
I am going to take this from a slightly different angle. There are two well known statements. Firstly gaining a PPL is a basic licence to start learning.
Second is a question we should ask of a pilot is whether we would be happy to send our kids up with that pilot?

Joing the two together would you be happy with a new pilot who has just got a licence to start learning to take your kids up flying?

I know my answer would be NO! There are long established pilots I wouldnt be happy sending my kids up with but I certainly would not be happy sending my kids up with a pilot who flew 12 hrs a year and was not experienced.
The Law states that such a newbie pilot can take his friends, business associates and family for flights.
Obviously the law does NOT regard the friends, family and business associates as having the same rights to safety as those who hand over money.
A lot in flying is about double standards and slight of hand a lot is to do with protectionism and protecting companies who pay a lot of money to comply with certain regulations and restrictions and who then demand that they are protected from pilots who could easely undercut them and operate to lower standards.

So this is a complex one. Would you be happy with Pilot X flying your children in Y aircraft ? that should be the question.

The exhange of money is really irrelevant.

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 21:27
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PACE
The exchange of money is really irrelevant.
I beg to differ. Money trumps boundaries.
windriver is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2009, 21:44
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I beg to differ. Money trumps boundaries.
Sorry should have added the words "should be"

Pace
Pace is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.