Why can't PPL holders charge for their services?

[Pace]

BabyBear

Dont complicate things its as simple as this.

You are either a fun leisure pilot and like in any fun leasure activity you pay through the nose to do it, or your a professional and charge for your superior high level of knowledge and the confidence you instill in your adoring passengers that you will save the day even if both wings fall off.

White and Black! Anthing in between is called a grey area and a no go

Pace

[robin]

BabyBear

Dont complicate things its as simple as this.

You are either a fun leisure pilot and like in any fun leasure activity you pay through the nose to do it, or your a professional and charge for your superior high level of knowledge and the confidence you instill in your adoring passengers that you will save the day even if both wings fall off.

White and Black! Anthing in between is called a grey area and a no go

Pace

No - I don't think so. It's why we have the dispensation for cost-sharing.

[The Heff]

Of course it all works in theory...

Hypothetically, if it was legally permissible that a private pilot could charge for services rendered; then the PPL would be in-distinguishable from the CPL with regards to the rights and privileges of the holder. So I deduce that the real reason that the CAA impose this restriction is to help keep aviation alive.

Because the purpose of the PPL is to allow someone to fly for their own pleasure, the only importance of the training is that they're able to fly about safely, without too much accuracy. So the minima and skills required for the PPL can be relaxed a bit to make it cheaper and easier to obtain. Thus more people believe that general aviation is feasible and embark upon flying training, buying aeroplanes and generally flying about.

The purpose of the CPL, as I understand it, is to allow someone to fly for business reasons. Commercial traffic seems to take priority over private, because money is involved, and with ATC making demands on commercial pilots to help them expedite their flight, a bit more skill is required than just to be able to fly safely. Hence more training is required, and also more revalidations to prove that the pilot is as good as he thinks he is, etc. More money goes to the flying schools.

Air Operator's Certificates allows the CAA an influx of cash so that they can afford to regulate aviation, plus the requirement for the aircraft to have a Certificate of Airworthiness to give the engineers their bread and butter. The CAA can sting for more cash by insisting upon Class 1 medicals - generating jobs and income for the medical sector, and plus the pilot needs type ratings for the aircraft, etc. Its all to prove that he's qualified, of course. But the CAA must be making a fortune out of all the regulation. A fortune that it couldn't make if PPLs were able to earn a monetry benefit by flying.

Sorry if my post seems a bit rambling. The trouble with hypothetical situations is there's a lot to consider, which makes structured thoughts rather difficult.

[ShyTorque]

Debate here is quite pointless. Try ringing this number:

T: 020 7379 7311 (This telephone number can also be used for all out of hours emergencies)

[Duck Rogers]

Originally Posted by Bigglesthefrog

Flintstone
There is nothing to stop anyone from doing this and no legislation against it either (unlike CAA regs). But I very much doubt if anyone would ever bother to ride thousands of miles every week in all weathers on his moped only to have nothing to show for it at the end of the week except a sore backside and a face full of dead flies. So the threat would not worry me.

You're avoiding the question.

He asked "What if?". How would you feel if, after setting up and managing your company, a moped owner with a fetish for flies in the teeth and a sore arse turned up with an A-Z road atlas? One who couldn't be bothered to invest the time and money, didn't have the nous to learn the roads or was too dumb to acquire a full bike licence. What if he started taking money from you as an unregulated operator?

Anyone who wants to fly parcels around is free to do so. Just get a CPL (minimum), an AOC, decent aircraft and they're set. Until then best leave it to those who do it properly.





As a mod I don't usually take a side but in this case, as a professional pilot, I feel obliged to.

[Scratch Pad]

Pace pretty much has it summarised.

If you want to be paid to fly, get the qualification. If you can't do that stay out of it.

The fact that there are so many Walts supporting breaking the rules makes me wonder what else they get up to.

[flybymike]

I am surprised we have not yet drfifted on to the subject of PPLs who run aerial photography businesses, some of whom I am told, have many thousands of hours (mainly in low level orbit ) and who allegedly make a nice living from selling speculative and commissioned photos. The argument is of course, that the payment is for the photo and not for the flying.

[Bla Bla Bla]

Before I was a pilot I was a helicopter engineer, the owner of the maintenance outfit only had a ppl H and ppl A. He used to do all the flight testing of the aircraft which were in for maintenance and ferry the aircraft for people. Now the cost of these trips were paid for by the customer, so is it legal for an engineer to fly an aircraft and be paid if he is flying it in the capacity of an engineer testing the machine.

It seems to be a bit of an odd one, and also if he were to crash with another engineer on board and kill him would there be any insurance payout to the family or would it be void. This was in the UK.

Answers on a post card.

[Rightbase]

There is nothing to stop anyone from doing this and no legislation against it either (unlike CAA regs). But I very much doubt if anyone would ever bother to ride thousands of miles every week in all weathers on his moped only to have nothing to show for it at the end of the week except a sore backside and a face full of dead flies. So the threat would not worry me.

Duck's observation on this quote by Biggles does not gel with me. I think Biggles has inadvertently made the real point with his observation that there is no pleasure in having to flog through bad weather. You would have to be well rewarded for doing it to even consider it.

And whatever the official reasoning, that safety consequence justifies the law for me. I pay for the privilege of flying for pleasure, and if it doesn't look like being a nice experience I save the money for later. Anything that might put me under a commercial, legal or moral obligation to fly would dilute the pleasure motive, and shift the balance towards flying in less congenial and therefore less safe circumstances.

[TheOptimist]

I'm fairly surpised that this thread has grown as much as it has. I thought the first couple of posts would be the end of it. Since starting it and reading through the replies, however, I have changed my viewpoint thatnks to your answers.

1. Firstly, I wasn't questionning the difference in qualification and skill level of CPL holders to any degree. I was merely interested in the rationale behind the law that even though PPL holders can carry as many passengers as they like, they cannot do it for any financial benefit.

2. My question pertained to the occasional 'mate' who might ask a favour. I wasn't suggesting that posting an advert in the local paper for an air-taxi service would be acceptable

Obviously as a low-hours student I have not had the oppurtunity to take any passengers. Nor have I ever paid a PPL holder for a pleasure flight. I've re-read my original posts and they don't give an actual reflection of the answers I was trying to obtain. I was careless with my wording - for example the section on 'nobody cares what goes on.' Clearly people do care.

In starting this thread I was more interested in finding out exactly why PPL cannot carry any passengers (which to a large degree has been answered) and what constitutes as payment. Someone earlier in this thread mentioned their mate friend them breakfast to say thank you. This is more the 'reward' I am concerned about. Like I said previously I'm not talking about starting up your own airline (don't take that past novelty-value).

It was overly-predispositious of me to suggest that in the future I would 'pay more than half' if a friend took me up and would accept more than half if someone insisted on it etc etc. After reading this thread I will make sure that doesn't happen. I suppose that's the point of being a student isn't it really, you've got to learn these things.

It does still seem a little odd to me that you can carry as many passengers as you can get your hands on, and are judged safe to do so, yet cannot accept money for it. I know that's just the way it is though, and I know that with a CPL you will be ten times more qualified to do this.

Edit: In reference to the comment regarding 'having 100 hours on my belt before taking passengers,' it isn't a set figure. When you pass your driving test you're anything but proficient on the roads. You do more learning in the first day without an instructer than you did in the previous 2 months. Obviously the PPL standards are much higher than the equivalent driving standards so this isn't as much of a case - but even if I feel confident I'd want to take a few hours on top of my qualification to make sure I was comfortable - e.g. a few more difficult landings, or increment weather etc etc.

[eharding]

Originally Posted by flybymike

I am surprised we have not yet drfifted on to the subject of PPLs who run aerial photography businesses

Probably because Google has put most of them out of business.

[Pace]

Optimist

I can understand your confusion to the fact that you can legally take your friends, family and business associates flying while the same people who may pay for a flight have to do so through a licenced establishment.

Should the reason given be based on safety then you are justified at considering the CAA do not regard the lives of your passengers on a private flight as equal to the same people paying for a flight.

If the CAA state that the regulations are in place to protect AOC holders business from unfair competition then that would be more easely understood.

I can also understand especially in this recession hard pressed PPL holders wanting to take money to cover the cost of the flight.

So how would you achieve that without opening the flood gates to a mass of would be commercial PPLs trying to cover their costs.

Go into the higher levels of multi crew private aircraft flown by professional crews yet where they are still not able to profit from the flight and it then does appear to be protectionsism under the guise of something else.

Pace

[englishal]

Part of getting a PPL is learning the rules:

1 - to carry fare paying passengers you need a minimum of CPL
2 - to carry fare paying passengers you need to be operating on an AOC
3 - to carry freight you need a CPL but not nescessarily an AOC
4 - to carry work mates in the company aeroplane, a PPL will do (but there are some requirements). The company can pick up the tab.
5 - to carry your friends in your aeroplane each can contribute and equal share to the cost of the flight - UP TO a max of 6 pax

[Brooklands]

to carry your friends in your aeroplane each can contribute and equal share to the cost of the flight - UP TO a max of 6 pax

Englishal - are you sure its 6? I always thought it was a maximum of four including the pilot.

Brooklands

[englishal]

ahem.......perhaps it is

[Bla Bla Bla]

Wow this is going on a bit its simple really.

As a ppl you have been tested to the minimum ppl standard to see if you can be a safe hobbyist.

As a cpl you have been tested to the minimum cpl standard to see if you can be a safe commercial pilot.

Both types of pilot are expected to improve with experience and have allot lot still to learn its just the cpl has a more in depth flying training and allot more theory and a harder flight test due to the tighter standards required. This gives him or her a safer starting point than a ppl.

You cannot join the red cross and do a few weekends medical training and then do the work of a doctor even if you think you may know as much as one.

[Whirlybird]

You cannot join the red cross and do a few weekends medical training and then do the work of a doctor even if you think you may know as much as one.

But you CAN get a PPL and do pretty much what a CPL holder does; you just can't be paid for it. That's the whole point.

[flybymike]

to see if you can be a safe hobbyist

Perhaps EASA should change the name of the proposed leisure pilots licence ( the source of much fury and a gift to the anti aviation lobby) to "Hobbyist pilots licence" and see what effect that has.

[Captain Stable]

But you CAN get a PPL and do pretty much what a CPL holder does; you just can't be paid for it. That's the whole point.

With the greatest of respect Whirly, no it's not the whole point.

A PPL holder is tested to a far lower level of competence than a CPL or ATPL holder. He does not have a mound of regulation with which to comply (He may think he does, but, until he's got an AOC, as the saying goes, you ain't seen nothin' yet).

A commercial operation needs approved post-holders in certain jobs. Those post-holders are approved by the CAA based upon their experience. The Ops Manual has to be approved, and relevant to the type of operation undertaken. The aircraft has to be maintained by an approved organisation, not just Joe in the hangar at Lesser Snodgrass airfield. Pilots have to be subject to a satisfactory Duty Hours Limitations scheme. None of these are of any relevance to a PPL holder taking a back-hander for taking his boss off to a meeting or running a package to the factory at the other end of the country or even to "here - buy yourself a drink or ten" for taking people up pleasure flying.

The argument about carrying pax or goods is irrelevant. Protection of the public is the point, whether it's protection from injury or death or, depending on the nature of the package, financial damage (or ruin).

I worked f***ing hard for my ATPL's, IR's and instructor ratings. I paid a lot for them. I have now EARNED the right to be paid to fly. I am a professional pilot, and give a professional service, whether taking people up for a 30-minute jolly in a PA28 or flying them across Europe in a BE200. They can be confident that my hours are subject to statutory limitations. They can be confident that my company keeps track of my medical due date and any recurrent training and checking. They can be confident that I have been trained to a sufficent level that I can single-handedly carry out a procedural NDB approach in crappy weather down to minima with one engine failed, a go-around and diversion. They can be confident that I've been trained (and retrained) in CRM regularly. They can be confident that I have the minimum number of hours for the job as specified by my employers.

What can they be confident of in a PPL?

[Pace]

Captain stable

Very valid and good points until we get to this part

Protection of the public is the point

I am more cynical and would fire at the CAA A question. Is not the family, the friends the company employee who can all be legally carried by a PPL not the Public? Are they not entitled to the same safety requirements and standards as the "Public"? as next day they could buy a ticket with an AOC to go somewhere and suddenly become "the public".

It stinks a bit of double standards and work and revenue to the CAA.
We think of private operations as being 18 year old jamie in his Cessna 172 with three PAX but private ops can be a Challenger jet with commercially rated crew carrying business personel all over the world.

Pace