Why can't PPL holders charge for their services?

[windriver]

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).

Captain Stable is spot on.

Having operated under an AOC in the past for the types of operation the OP alludes to (pleasure flying and other aerial work)

I can tell you it's reassuring to have clearly defined parameters to work within and know that had something dreadful happened there wouldn`t have been an open goal for the legal people and insurance companies to aim at.

Not to mention a robust set of terms and conditions of operation to deal the the financial and business side of things. (and the added bonus of making some proper money for flights)

Could we physically have done this stuff without CPL's and AOC's etc - Yes of course. The public wouldn`t have been any the wiser.

Are you safe to fly a few mates around and share costs - probably, if you've got a licence.

Would I use you to fly people I know for a local jolly on a nice day - no chance! Unless you could show me a copy of your AOC and professional licence. Others may see things differently - (It's nothing personal as I don`t know you.)

The hire and reward thing isn`t just about individual skill levels - there are plenty of PPL's that are "good operators"

As in so many aspects of a modern society it's about protecting the many from the few who WILL cause problems in pursuit of money. We may not like it but it's a function (duty) of the regulatory body to oversee such operations.

Is the law over restrictive? That's for individuals to decide.

[englishal]

I don't think the law is over restrictive at all....though I do think that PPL's with a speciality should be able to charge for SOME things - for example a PPL FI or a PPL who is an aerobatics expert giving tuition.

Personally I never ask for a cost share nor do i expect it from my pax but if they offer to pay the landing or lunch, then fine. The only one who has given me anything is my dad who insisted even though I refused....but that is what dads do.

[Pace]

Windriver

I also know of AOC ops in the past who I would never send my family with and who have been a disaster regarding maintenance and operating procedures with some notable accidents. One involved a business jet into a certain major airport in Scotland . I have also known superbly run and operated private ops.

Dont presume all AOC gardens are Rosy. If you are in the business then you will know thats not always the case.

Which would you rather fly in a shiny much loved and well cared for private business jet operated by a professional crew non AOC or a knackered 900 hrs a year run round the clock poorly maintained AOC business jet with crew who are also knackered and poorly treated.

Pace

[robin]

Would I use you to fly people I know for a local jolly on a nice day - no chance! Unless you could show me a copy of your AOC and professional licence. Others may see things differently - (It's nothing personal as I don`t know you.)

Your choice, but then I would never fly anyone who turned up and asked for a flight. Generally, the people I fly are friends who know me and my level of skill and experience and take the (small) risk.

When I fly the Young Aviators on trips we have to prove insurance, experience and currency and that is taken very seriously. But you'll not find an AOC or professional licence amongst us.

Why do we do it? Not for the money, as we don't even get a contribution. It means that young people can experience flight for nothing - certainly something an AOC outfit wouldn't want to do.

[windriver]

Dont presume all AOC gardens are Rosy

I don't, but it's a valid point - in the same way I don`t assume any other "regulated" group or individual professional (how I hate that overworked term) in society is. BUT such operations are at least accountable and subject to oversight and peer review. (on the radar as it were)

When I fly the Young Aviators on trips we have to prove insurance, experience and currency and that is taken very seriously. But you'll not find an AOC or professional licence amongst us.

Why do we do it? Not for the money, as we don't even get a contribution. It means that young people can experience flight for nothing - certainly something an AOC outfit wouldn't want to do.

Quite rightly and I'm delighted to hear that you are doing this...

I've don`t have a problem with the notion of PPL's versus CPL's carrying out certain operations - it's the management and framework of such operations that is designed to provide the protection for the many from the few.

[Captain Stable]

Pace, it's not the friends and family of a PPL holder who need the protection - it's the PAYING public.

Taking my wife or kids flying is one thing. Taking a paying punter up is another. One is simply for fun. The other is a business.

A Holiday company has a load of regulations with which to comply, for the protection of the public. I have just (finally!) completed arrangements for our family to go off on a half-term break this autumn. Do you then believe that I should have an ATOL for having arranged it on my family's behalf? Of course not.

Our local council licenses taxi drivers. They charge for their business. I give lifts to school to my daughter. I also give lifts to friends and family. On some trips we (my friends and I) share petrol costs. But my failing to get a taxi licence for my car is not simply a revenu-raising exercise by the council, as you accuse the CAA of being for CPL holders. But those taxi drivers would (very rightly) be up in arms if I started hanging around outside the station trying to pick up fares. Why should it be different for pilots?

Englishal, in the old days a PPL (A/Q)FI could instruct without a commercial licence. It was seen as a legitimate way to build the requisite hours, and was the standard way to progress one's career if you couldn't afford to go to Trent or Oxford and do the 13-month course. PPLs could also do aerial photography, glider tugging, para dropping etc. In my first flying job I was instructing part-time. Now, however, the whole structure of the training sequence has changed. Whether for better or for worse, I can't say.

However, the end result is that it is not legal for PPLs to carry on taking anything except cost-sharing for flying.

And why?

As an instructor, I regularly carry out currency checks on PPLs. I can quite confidently say that some of them are excellent pilots, and I wouldn't worry on a basis of safety about my wife and kids being in the back with them driving. However, I can equally confidently say that a somewhat larger number of them are, in the event of anything untoward occurring, thoroughly dangerous. They don't practice PFLs or EFATOs, and have no idea what to do if the donk suddenly goes quiet or they suddenly find oil all over the windscreen and bits of the engine departing the aircraft in unusual directions. They can't remember how to plan a PFL circuit and some have no idea what best glide speed for their aircraft is. They like to sit around bull****ting in the cafe or bar, get in their C172 or TB10 with a PPL mate, head off to the next airfield and do some more bull****ting about aviation. Very, very few that I can recall are of the "pirate" mentality and like to do silly things in aircraft, but the majority would not be able to handle a genuine emergency.

And yet some of these would like to be paid for their flying and can't accept that the rules prohibit it??????

Commercially-licensed pilots are subject to regular checks. They spend time on OPCs and LPCs practicing handling emergencies. They are kept informed of latest theory and practice, and put them into effect. Yes, some of them are worse pilots than some of the best PPLs. So what? If those PPLs want to be paid and are so good, then let them take the exams and demonstrate their flying skills to an examiner. Once they have paid the fee to the CAA (not the "purchase price" of a licence, but a contribution to the cost of regulating air safety in this country) they can do so.

[Intercepted]

As have been explained so many times in this thread already I think it's quite clear that current rules for non-commercial and commercial flights make sense.

Since I'm Swedish I would like to add a small difference between Sweden and UK though.

In Sweden we are allowed to do forest fire prevention flights where the state pays for the airplane and the pilot gets free flying hours. This is obviously very popular and helps a lot of ppl's staying current. The total flying hours allocated to fire prevention are divided between clubs and interested ppl's need to attend a short course before they can take part.

Personally I think ppl's should have to be non-commercial and I believe the above scenario is non-commercial.

What about changing the requirement of equal share of flying costs to only passengers share the cost? This is only free hours for the ppl and no revenue. Would this really be a commercial flight? I think not.

[Pace]

Intercepted and Captain Stable.

Firstly I am not in any way suggesting PPLs start flying commercially. Thinking of some I know god help the paying public if that ever happened

Somehow this thread got into private and AOC operations. PPLs fly private but commercially rated pilots also fly private and are paid to do so.
My point in that is dont think all AOCs are good or all private ops are bad.
The main point is that the authorities have more control over AOC ops than private and get a lot of revenue for exercising that control. In Turn the guys paying for the AOC demand to be protected from their business being taken away by pilots or private ops that can easely undercut them.
Yes a bit like the Black cab private hire scenario.

Intercepted yes I agree with you that especially in these hard times the CAA could look at ways of making it cheaper for PPLs to fly and getting back some or all of the costs without making a profit.

Pace

[S-Works]

From a recent accident report.....

Other than in a flying club environment, there is no system for checking that pilots are suitably qualified for flying an aircraft. Thus, when a member of the public accepts a flight with a private pilot there is no assurance that the pilot is qualified and fit to fly other than the pilot’s
own integrity.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I think Bose's quote pretty much sums it up to be honest.

[IO540]

I think Whirlybird's post

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.

is pretty much right.

It's the law.

There is some safety-based logic to having to have additional training if one accepts money, but the argument tends to fall down when one considers the boundary between, say, carrying 3 passengers and a) getting them to contribute 75% and b) getting them to contribute 75.1%. For the pilot to make money (and thus acquire the alleged incentive to fly like a cowboy), they would have to contribute 100.1% or more (in fact even more depending on the "direct costs" argument........).

But then very little of aviation regulation is evidence based. Nobody has ever sat down and determined that a pilot who sat 14 exams is 12.2% likely to kill his passengers over his flying lifetime, whereas one who has sat just 2 exams is 17.3% likely to do the same.

The need for an AOC for public transport has been institutionalised for many years, worldwide, under ICAO, and the resulting fee structure is what props up every country's national CAA. Consequently the AOC regime is tightly enforced, and the enforcement is enthusiastically supported by AOC holders who understandably don't like a non-holder undercutting them.

[Whirlybird]

IO540,
I think that post made history in a minor way, in being the first time you and I have ever actually agreed about something on PPRuNe.

[RTN11]

Haven't read every post, so this may already have come up, but...

To get a CPL you must also hold a class 1 medical. There are plenty of people who are allowed to fly with a class 2, who would not pass a class 1. This is more restrictive for a reason.

[Captain Stable]

Very good point, RTN.

Originally Posted by IO540

But then very little of aviation regulation is evidence based. Nobody has ever sat down and determined that a pilot who sat 14 exams is 12.2% likely to kill his passengers over his flying lifetime, whereas one who has sat just 2 exams is 17.3% likely to do the same.

The accident statistics are out there if you want to analyse them. Go through AAIB reports. Check out how many accidents are PPLs and how many commercially-qualified.

But we don't want ATPLs/CPLs to be merely "less likely" to kill passengers. We want them to be very significantly less likely to kill passengers, and for several reasons:-

• They tend to carry far more pax than does a PPL
• They tend to carry pax on a much more frequent basis than do PPLs
• The pax they carry are paying for the privilege and expect to be carried safely from A to B - they are not up for a jolly.
• The pax they carry expect their pilots to be better-qualified than your average weekend pleasure flyer.

The reason PPLs are not permitted to carry paying pax is that the law forbids it.

The reason the law forbids it is for the protection of the fare-paying public and for protection of legitimate businesses.

but the argument tends to fall down when one considers the boundary between, say, carrying 3 passengers and a) getting them to contribute 75% and b) getting them to contribute 75.1%.

Why does it fall down? A line has to be drawn somewhere. To be quite honest, I would draw the line elsewhere - at NO cost-sharing, unless those sharing the cost were also licensed pilots.

[Crash one]

No doubt it's all been said but as a miserable 150 odd hr NPPL I know that some airborne situations require more competence than others. The full complement of competence does not arrive along with the "poo brown".
Frinstance yesterday I changed the oil & thought "a quick blast round the coast to circulate the stuff as it is a nice evening & the wind had dropped"
Taxi out to the far end (nearly) looked over the fence & the farmer next door ploughing, field full of seagulls, more inbound overhead! The better part of valor being cowardice, I put the thing away & went home.
If I had had a passenger on board who had paid to be there I can imagine, "What the hell are you doing? I want to get to xxxx before 5 oclock, the sun is shining, no wind, what's the problem?"
Most flying training to PPL is in good wx, that's why half of it gets cancelled. As a basic (N)PPL where do you draw the line & be able to say "Now I can do it"? There are plenty of over confident people out there who would draw the line long before I would.
Which is the reason for the CPL extra training/time. Bloody obvious really.

[trex450]

The law is simple, you cannot be paid for your services as a PPL. However one quick question. If as a PPL (which I guess you technically are if you a flying an aircraft on a private category C of A irrespective of whether you hold an ATPL or not) what happens if you carry a passenger (for no reward or even cost sharing) who asks to be flown over certain locations which they then photograph. You know in advance that those photographs are going to be published and are thus. While you have absolutely no reward and have paid the full operating cost of the aircraft can you be seen as operating outside the law? I am guessing that this is very much a grey area especially as the photos published might be published but not be profitable.

[Pace]

If as a PPL (which I guess you technically are if you a flying an aircraft on a private category C of A irrespective of whether you hold an ATPL or not)

Trex

Not the case at all it is quite common for a CPL or ATPL to be flying and to be paid to fly a private cat aircraft. What happens if the owner cannot fly and has to employ someone to fly for him?

Pace

[Captain Stable]

What would happen? I would suggest that a responsible pilot could say "It's not legal - I could lose my licence so sorry, but the answer's no".

And Pace is quite correct - I used to fly a Private Cat. KingAir for a private owner, and he paid me to do so. What he could NOT do was offer his aircraft (and pilot) for hire by anyone else.

[trex450]

How is it possible then for GA magazines to publish flight test articles, with photos, on aircraft that are on a private C of A and also happen to be for sale in the same magazine. Surely this breaks many rules? The magazine profits with the article and the seller (assuming they sell) gains a considerable financial reward.

Pace, Capt Stable,
if you can be paid (as a pro) by your employer to fly a private aircraft I assume that you can only transport your employer on social rather than business journeys as any business trips would be undertaken for financial gain on their part therefore breaking the law.

[Say again s l o w l y]

We're getting into semantics here, but a journalist isn't being paid for the flight, they are being paid for the article that they write. The subject might be an air test, but that is irrelevant. They are one step removed from being paid to fly the machine.

The ruse of paying someone to be a gardener, but then their actual job is to fly you about, has been tried on numerous occasions. If I recall correctly, as long as your primary role isn't flying then it is sort of legal but in a very grey and dodgy area.