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

Buying me dinner or contributing to the landing fee will always be gratefully accepted though.

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.

you were flying "solo" with your wife?:confused:

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.

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.:ugh:

flybymike Poorly worded I agree. :O

First flight as a licensed pilot without being under the supervision or authority of an instructor.

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

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.

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.

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.

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:ok:

Eventually he closed down his bush operation because it could not compete against the corner cutters:(

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
I beg to differ. Money trumps boundaries.

Sorry should have added the words "should be" ;)

Pace