Why can't PPL holders charge for their services?

[Bla Bla Bla]

Robin,

I agree with you in some regards, but this is not about whether you have the same hours as a cpl guy or not. Apart from it being the law, I'm afraid a ppl say with one thousand hours built over the best part of ten years of non pressured fun flying only in good weather and no real deadlines to meet just does not compare to a cpl with one thousand hours built over a couple of years flying charter often into bad weather and with allot of commercial pressure, heavy loads etc.

I know a few ppl's who are very talented safe pilots, but I also know some right plonkers who think they are talented.
So yes I'm sure you are a safe ppl and in the right circumstances you could be a safe bet to fly with, but if I look back to when I had a couple of hundred hours I cringe at some of the things I did because, I knew very little and didn't realise it.


flybymike,

I'm not flying off the handle and I'm sure Dublinpilot can look after himself!

[Dave Gittins]

Pace

Thread drift alert.

When I did my skills test, the examiner told me the difference between pass and fail was whether he would let me take his kids in the aeroplane.

I agreed with him that if the answer was not "yes" I needed more teaching and practise.

Nowadays the criteria before I fly is would I take take my granddaughter with me.

[Pace]

When I did my skills test, the examiner told me the difference between pass and fail was whether he would let me take his kids in the aeroplane.

Dave

There is a difference between talk and actions I knew one who offered his wife as a new PPLs first passenger but he had a massive life insurance on her and couldnt stand the woman

Pace

[BabyBear]

Guys, I think there is a danger of viewing these retrictions as specific to GA and PPL holders? It appears to me that some actually believe it is victimisation?

The truth is that the privelages of a PPL holder (and student start at 14 solo at 16) are more generous than other forms of licences.

A better comparison than taxis' may be mini buses:

To drive a mini bus for hire and reward a 'higher' form of licence is required, however, as with the PPL, there are exemptions allowig passengers to be carried on a 'basic' licence. Unlike the PPL the exemptions are subject to greater conditions.

Holders of a full category B (car) driving licence may drive any of the vehicles listed below:

• a passenger carrying vehicle manufactured more than 30 years before the date when it is driven and not used for hire or reward or for the carriage of more than 8 passengers
• a minibus with up to 16 passenger seats provided the following conditions are met:

i. the vehicle is used for social purposes by a non-commercial body but not for hire or reward
ii. the driver is aged 21 iii. the driver has held a car (category B) licence for at least 2 years
iv. the driver is providing the service on a voluntary basis
v. the minibus maximum weight is not more than 3.5 tonnes or 4.25 tonnes including any specialist equipment for the carriage of disabled passengers
vi. if the driver is aged 70 or over, is able to meet the health standards for driving a D1 vehicle
When driving a minibus under these conditions you may not receive any payment or consideration for doing so other than out of pocket expenses or tow any size trailer; you may only drive minibuses in this country. Drivers aged 70 or over will need to make a special application, which involves meeting higher medical standards.

Another example may be HGV v Public Service Vehicles, although HGV drivers will be more than capable of driving a bus the law requires them to get an additional licence to do so.

So given the limited restrictions on PPL holders I would argue that we actually have it easy with some simple obvious and logical laws (albeit it's not others logic) governing licensing, the reasons for which have already been covered.

[Bigglesthefrog]

This is a very interesting string which although it started with a simple and sensible question has gone off on many tangents. So let’s be honest about it, there isn’t really much of a logical reason behind a PPL NOT taking payment. The CAA has, by way of presenting the pilot with a license which sanctions the carrying of passengers, agreed that he or she is competent enough to fly with passengers and the insurance companies clearly are happy about this too. Pilots flying children on a basic PPL has been carried out for years successfully (PFA/EAA Young Eagles). But when money comes into it things change because people’s livelihoods are involved. The costs of obtaining the required licensing is very considerable and yes, in most circumstances produces pilots that may be safer to fly with than PPLs. However, I was once chatting over dinner with a good friend who, before his retirement was a Training Captain with a very well known airline. In answer to a question from me about the competence of professional pilots, staggered me by saying that he had met and flown with pilots who he not only considered incompetent, but down right dangerous! So it would seem that the holding of a CPL or ATPL does not guarantee the safety of passengers as some commentators have suggested here.
But let’s for a moment focus on the basic argument that carrying passengers for reward by the holders of a PPL is against the public interest due to safety aspects. It would follow therefore that if this is the real reason, then it should be OK for a PPL to get paid to take a normal package from one part of the country in VFR, to another and deliver it. But it isn’t is it? And at this point I feel that not allowing it by law is tantamount to providing protection to carriers and professional pilots from a much cheaper and possibly (on short journeys) ,a more efficient source.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by Bigglesthefrog

But it isn’t is it? And at this point I feel that not allowing it by law is tantamount to providing protection to carriers and professional pilots from a much cheaper and possibly (on short journeys) ,a more efficient source.

It is much cheaper but is also demonstrably less safe (as the accident statistics clearly show). We accept in almost all aspects of life that undertaking something as a business requires a higher standard, more insurance, licences, permissions, Directors, etc. than doing something for yourself.

Even the basic task of baking cookies - which moms do day in and day out (including feeding the cookies to children) - becomes very different when you start to sell the food beyond your local charity bake sale.

Why should we expect aviation to be uniquely different then everything else in allowing unregulated commercial operations.

[BabyBear]

Biggles, don't take this the wrong way, but you demonstrate well why such laws are required; to guard against the possible actions of those with the inability to understand the basic concept!

Please do not see this as a criticism, but as a statement of fact. If we did not have such laws it would clearly be a free for all. Now whilst I am sure you would deem anything you would do as safe and acceptable, would you be happy that all others actions, 100% of the time, would be safe and acceptable to you?

[S-Works]

Why bother with even a PPL? Why not just go out and fly?

[BabyBear]

Originally Posted by Bose-X

Why bother with even a PPL? Why not just go out and fly?

Now that might be an idea, but would you include taking passengers and if so could they be fare paying?

[Bigglesthefrog]

We accept in almost all aspects of life that undertaking something as a business requires a higher standard, more insurance, licences, permissions, Directors, etc. than doing something for yourself.

MM.
Many years ago I worked as a motorcycle courier and in fact jointly ran the outfit for a while. There was never any shortage of businesses willing to trust us with potentially very important documents and in some cases live human organs. We worked on ordinary motorcycle driving licenses and some, I would suggest, more down market outfits even used young provisional license holders complete with "L" plates. Company owners and directors saw the riders and their machines when they turned up for the pick-up, but we never ever had anyone contact us concerned about the young looking kid with the leather jacket walking off with their prized belonging!

BB.
I welcome your comments and certainly don't take them the wrong way at all. I would never suggest that my actions have always been safe and acceptable. We all know our limits and also know when we have exceeded them. Even though we may deny fault in ourselves to others, most of us know, in the back of our minds that we're fallible and this would include professional pilots as well as private!
I accept absolutely that a free-for-all would lead to many problems, but the point in my posting was to refute the explanation of safety as the driving force in the legislation and replace it with the need to protect the professional side of the industry from the competition of cheaper alternatives. But if you should disagree with me and maintain that it is safety that is in fact the issue, then surely delivering a parcel for reward on a good day from one part of the country to another, would be just as safe as any recreational flight for which a PPL is already licensed by the CAA and would therefore be OK?

[BabyBear]

Originally Posted by Bigglesthefrog

BB.
I welcome your comments and certainly don't take them the wrong way at all. I would never suggest that my actions have always been safe and acceptable. We all know our limits and also know when we have exceeded them. Even though we may deny fault in ourselves to others, most of us know, in the back of our minds that we're fallible and this would include professional pilots as well as private!
I accept absolutely that a free-for-all would lead to many problems, but the point in my posting was to refute the explanation of safety as the driving force in the legislation and replace it with the need to protect the professional side of the industry from the competition of cheaper alternatives. But if you should disagree with me and maintain that it is safety that is in fact the issue, then surely delivering a parcel for reward on a good day from one part of the country to another, would be just as safe as any recreational flight for which a PPL is already licensed by the CAA and would therefore be OK?

Biggles, I believe you are over simplifying the issue by isolating the flying, it is not simply a case of whether the job can be done or not, it is much more complex and many of the reasons it should be so are not related to the actual flying. Yes there are the safety issues, but, rightly, in my view, there are also commercial considerations. As I pointed out in a previous post GA & PPL holders are not singled out for such treatment.

To me it simply would not make sense to have a free for all.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by Bigglesthefrog

MM.
Many years ago I worked as a motorcycle courier and in fact jointly ran the outfit for a while.

I know nothing about the courier business, but would be surprised to find it is totally unregulated (i.e. anyone with a bike can just punt for business with no permits, licences, approvals required - other than a basic motorcycle licence )


----

Your safety example of delivering a parcel is interesting. Clearly carying a small, stable, non-time critical parcel on a good VFR day from one locality within a country to another has no safety risk relative to a purely recreatioal flight. However, this is only a small stretch from flying a friend - you can't make a business out it.

The law is to prevent people form offering a more general service (eg. I will fly your parcel to a schedule) where the pressures of less than ideal weather, timing, airport environments, cargo packaging/type and all of the other issues that come from offering a service to the public at large come into play.

[Whirlygig]

Biggles, I would suggest that your motorcycle courier operation had riders all with invalid insurance - "hire and reward"?

If you allowed PPLs to earn moeny, how would you recommend that your customer distinguishes between you as a conscientious-and-just-as-good-as-a-CPL pilot, and a-wet-behind-the-ears-just-got-my-PPL-in-45-hours pilot? They can't. Or how about a new law which says PPLs can earn money ... but only on a good day

One aspect of a commercial licence is the monitoring of that licence through more stringent proficiency checks, operational checks and medicals.

Cheers

Whirls

[Genghis the Engineer]

Possibly a motorcycle courier business is allowed to be pretty much unregulated because it's only transporting "stuff".

Taxis and aeroplanes transport "people", on which society rightly places a much higher value.

G

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer

Possibly a motorcycle courier business is allowed to be pretty much unregulated because it's only transporting "stuff".

Taxis and aeroplanes transport "people", on which society rightly places a much higher value.

G

Although as Biggles correctly points out, the laws requiring an AOC are not just for people, they apply equally to transporting "stuff".

Although, motorcycle couriers may be totally unregulated (I don't know), I do know that all of the other transport operators (vans and lorries) that transport "stuff" are regulated in a similar way to aircraft operations.

[Bigglesthefrog]

Biggles, I would suggest that your motorcycle courier operation had riders all with invalid insurance - "hire and reward"?

I would agree with you Whirly, the guys we used worked on a self employed basis and got paid per mile. It was their responsibility to make sure their insurance was valid. The company had insurance that covered the cargo and actually had to call on it once when I personally lost an item on the M4 whilst riding my bike on a run to London. But there was no regulation imposed on the riders from our point of view. However, this was many years ago and things may have changed, but somehow I doubt it, as I have noticed that most of the bikers that deliver Pizzas for Piza Hut are riding bikes displaying "L" plates

To come back to the aviation discussion, which I'm enjoying, I have to say that I do acknowledge the need to have laws to regulate what could become a dogs breakfast if it was a free-for-all. But having said that, I am also very mindful that many regulations that abound today, seem to be unnecessarily restrictive and in some cases designed to increase revenue. But I do think that there may be some cases where a PPL should be able to claim the full cost of a flight on say delivering "stuff" that did not involve the carriage of personnel, apart from the pilot of course and was flown in conditions and airspace conducive to his PPL status. If the money received did not exceed the total cost of the flight it would not be commercial and therefore no threat to any of the aviation businesses.

[BabyBear]

Originally Posted by Bigglesthefrog

If the money received did not exceed the total cost of the flight it would not be commercial and therefore no threat to any of the aviation businesses.

Again I think you have too simplistic a view. The definition of a commercial transaction is not dependent on a profit being made.

It appears that you do agree there is a need for legislation. If this is the case then I am sure you can stretch to accepting that there will always be 'peculiarities' and that any legislation will not be perfect. Do you not think that, even if it was deemed appropriate, creating legislation to permit the odd PPL carrying the odd parcel would be nonsensical?

I also wonder what your views would be if you had such a commercial organisation. Try asking those trying to make a living out of transport how they feel about 'cowboys'.

[Flintstone]

Biggles.

Putting aside, for a moment, the legalities and obvious points of ATPL-v-CPL-v-PPL in terms of skills and safety let's go back to the time when you derived an income from that motorcycle courier business.

Now let's imagine I approached all your customers and said I'd deliver their stuff for only the cost of running my moped. You, not surprisingly, stop me in the street and ask me what the hell I think I'm doing and I reply that it's ".... not commercial and therefore no threat to any of the motorcycle courier businesses".

How does it sit with you now?

[Bigglesthefrog]

Now let's imagine I approached all your customers and said I'd deliver their stuff for only the cost of running my moped. You, not surprisingly, stop me in the street and ask me what the hell I think I'm doing and I reply that it's ".... not commercial and therefore no threat to any of the motorcycle courier businesses"

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.

Do you not think that, even if it was deemed appropriate, creating legislation to permit the odd PPL carrying the odd parcel would be nonsensical?

BB
I think that penalising the odd PPL for carrying a parcel is nonsensical.
What would happen if the PPL carried a cost sharing passenger who delivered the package and HE (not the pilot) got paid his costs for it, no profit just his costs. His costs would be his share to the pilot of the cost sharing flight, so no money would have been made out of the flight.
Someone will probably tell me that this scenario is also a no go within the bounds of the legislation because it was a commercial flight. But try as I may, I can not see how more commercial this flight would be to the pilot than if he had done the same trip with just his cost sharing passenger and received half the cost of the flight which in the eyes of the CAA is OK

[BabyBear]

BB
I think that penalising the odd PPL for carrying a parcel is nonsensical.
What would happen if the PPL carried a cost sharing passenger who delivered the package and HE (not the pilot) got paid his costs for it, no profit just his costs. His costs would be his share to the pilot of the cost sharing flight, so no money would have been made out of the flight.
Someone will probably tell me that this scenario is also a no go within the bounds of the legislation because it was a commercial flight. But try as I may, I can not see how more commercial this flight would be to the pilot than if he had done the same trip with just his cost sharing passenger and received half the cost of the flight which in the eyes of the CAA is OK

As I said it's not going to be easy introduce laws that cover every eventuality, nor is it practical to even try. It's not a case of penalising the odd PPL, the odd PPL is not a consideration to start with, nor should he be. They are there to cover the main issues and to this end they achieve the purpose.

To be honest the more you type the more thankful I become that they do exist.

Let's just agree to disagree on this one!