Why can't PPL holders charge for their services?
 

Apologies if this has been done before, I have searched on this site and googled it as well.

Basic PPL holders are trained and assessed to be proficient at piloting small aircraft in certain limited conditions. There are no limitations on carrying a passenger - except that you cannot charge the passenger for your service.

What is the actual reasoning behind this? The CAA judge you fit to carry passengers, so what is the harm in charging for it? I don't understand this at all. Obviously in real life if you spend £100 on a flight and your mate gives you £75 for doing you a favour then that's just what happens. No-one cares and no-one gets reported.

I'm a low hour PPL student so forgive my ignorance on the topic.

You have a driving license, can drive a car, why not just stop in the taxi rank and pick up passengers?

Research what the CPL contains, which written exams are involved and then I think you'll have a better understanding of the difference in qualification and how it makes you more qualified.

Also consider the words 'duty of care'.

I will do as you suggested.

In regards to the comment about having a driving license, I'm sure that if your friend gave you £50 for a journey, and this got reported to the DVLA, nothing would come of it. If you took the same money for a flight (the whole cost) someone could report it and you'd be buggered.

Like I said I'm very early on in the learning process so I might sound naive.

Not a pilot or working in aviation, but presumably the insurance for by a PPL carrier would not cover any commercial activity.

I have read that it is acceptable to accept a contribution for fuel costs when a group share a car journey without the driver being accused of driving 'for hire or reward' or invalidating his insurance. Do it regularly or for strangers and the law would take a different view though.

Don't know if there is a similar relaxation for PPL holders.

During a chat on a train journey many years ago an oil worker told me that he frequently walked into a flying club and asked if he could hitch a lift with anyone going in his direction. It was unsaid but accepted that cash would be exchanged. Said it was faster and cheaper than going by train when travelling from London to Aberdeen.

A PPL is absolutely not a guarantee of competence. You might have a licence, but that's it.

Someone who has 45hrs under their belt is in no way shape or form competent enough to be entrusted with fare paying passengers, who demand a certain level of certainty that they won't end up smeared across the earth. I wouldn't say that most bare hours CPL's are upto snuff really, but at least they've had far more indepth training and been tested to a higher level.

The simple answer is that it is enshrined in law, but the law is there because the travelling public needs to be protected from cowboy operators as much as possible. PPL's aren't the cowboys, but they would be the ones taken advantage of if there wasn't a decent level of oversight of Public Transport. Whether the CAA provide that is an argument for another day!

@ Say again s l o w l y;

I understand that the PPL is a very basic qualification, but you are free to carry passengers as much as you like. If you were thus inclined you could carry 3 passengers for 8 hours a day in a C172 or something, as long as you operated within the confines of your license parameters. Although slightly worrying (I wouldn't take passengers until I have at least 100 hours on type) that people could do this, by CAA standards you are competent to do this. I do understand your point though.

@ Gruntpaddock;

I realise that in reality PPL holders will take cash off passengers without arguing. If, when I receive my license, I take my friend somewhere and he gives me say 80% of the cost to say thanks for the effort, it's obviously not going to be a matter of concern between us.

Edit: And similarly if I ask a mate to take me up in their aircraft for a spin I would be paying a lot more than 50%. It's common courtesy.

TheOptimist, your passengers can agree to share the direct operating costs of a flight, but you must always pay your share. By law.

So if 4 of you want to share a flight, you must pay no less than 25% yourself.

You can put up a notice at the flying club saying something like "Anyone interested in sharing costs to Guernsey and back next weekend?", but you may not advertise such a flight in any other way.

Many people have tried various dodges to get round this over the years, but make no mistake, the CAA's Enforcement Branch take a very hard line over what is termed Illegal Public Transport.

See http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1196/20071...PRCampaign.pdf

It's also illegal!

Like you said you are new and don't know a great deal but now you have been told equal splitting of costs between all occupants of the a/c is ok or you paying the greater share. Even in the strange situation that a friend says to you fly me and I will take you to the footy match and for dinner, this is also deemed as payment and is illegal, or any other similar situation. A ppl allows you to get airborne and get back alive in good weather with friends on board who are well aware of your extremely limited experience.

When I built my hours I used to take three mates from work for a scenic around the city and we would all pay 25% each it was a big company with lots of employees so it helped allot as normally I could do this once every couple of weeks after work.

As for you not taking a pax until you have 100 hrs on type, I would wait before you make sweeping statements like that.

Anyway have fun building those hours and be safe.:ok:

Carrying passengers who are there by their own choice is one thing. Carrying passengers who are paying you to take them somewhere is completely different.

When you get in a car with a friend, then you are willingly accepting risk, when you get into a taxi, then you are going to expect that the driver is properly licenced, the car is fully legal and that they are not going to put you in any unnecessary risk.

Any business has to have things that very few private individuals have. Do you have public liability insurance outside of you bog standard car insurance? If you seriously injure someone who is a mate along for the ride, then they have accepted some element of risk, so any claim they may make against you is going to be limited.
However, if someone is paying you, then they can go for you with full force.

There are many reasons why you need a CPL rather than a PPL, but that isn't all you need to carry fare paying passengers, you need the aircraft to be correctly maintained and in the right category and you also need an organisational structure that is approved by the CAA. They aren't there for your benefit, but for the passengers benefit (and the CAA's to be honest...)

Illegal public transport flights are something that gets taken extremely seriously and if you get caught doing it, then you are liable to end up in a whole heap of trouble.

BEagle has outlined the cost sharing that is allowed. Common coutesy doesn't come into it. In fact, I would never charge a friend for coming flying with me. They are my guest, that is my "common courtesy". They can offer of course, but I would never expect it or accept it.

Hey SAS, can I be your friend?:)

Don't forget that even a CPL isn't enough for carrying fare paying passengers. You need an ATPL, and the aircraft needs to be operated under an Air Operators Certificat (AOC).

A CPL is perfectly acceptable for carrying fare paying passengers. You only need an ATPL to command a multi pilot aircraft.

Ah....I learnt something new. Thank you.

I take it an AOC is still required though.

The way I see the logic of it is that if you offer a mate a flight you still get the say so on going or not if conditions are iffy.
However if someone is paying for a service then the pilot is going feel obliged to go even if it is outside thier personal limits.

why not? After you have completed your PPL you have shown that you have a certain degree of competence.

The more direct analogy is with mini-cab drivers - who do not need a special driving qualification.

Largely the issue is about protecting the commercial aviation companies. Most of the prosecutions come from AOC holders telling the CAA about people who are running illegal hire operations.

This is not to say it is a bad thing to protect the public in a specialised area where the majority of passengers would be unable to make an educated decision. It is likely is the Acme aircraft cab company set up business their accident rates would be higher than the present arrangements, commercial pressures would pretty much ensure that.

I wouldn't subscribe to the 100 hrs on type but you do need to feel sufficiently confident that the "duty" you owe to your passenger (to pay them attention and explain what is going on all the time) and the potential risk of distraction from them is within your ability to deal with.

I took my wife on my very first solo flight after I got my license but it was only that I felt confident to do so and that my instructor agreed it was an OK thing to do.

That said, he insisted on doing a check ride first, with Gill in the back and scared the life out of her doing an EFATO.

A driving license can't really be considered to be analagous with flying, otherwise a basic PPL would be allowed "at their own risk" (and everybody elses) out in the dark, the wind, the rain and the clouds without further instruction or testing.

"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!!

:ugh:

Didn't I see somewhere that the UK CAA won't approve commercial (i.e. fare paying) operations in single engine piston a/c.

Hence all "trial flights" are essentially "training flights".

??

Charter flights are conducted in Robinson 44s and they've only got the one piston engine. However, the operation has to be through an AOC so it's a matter of whether any particular operator wants to have SEPs on their AOC. Some may consider that there wouldn't be enough revenue generated to make it worth it.

Trial lessons are training flights surely? If they are a pleasure flight, then there would be no opportunity for the passenger to have a go, the dual controls would be removed and the pilot needn't be an instructor.

Cheers

Whirls