:D :D :D

A comment my boss made to me about his observations (PRIOR to me, I might add... ;) :) :ok: :E)

KC

That isn't the case, IO540: see ANO Art 157 for the distinction between public transport and aerial work. 'Tis only public transport (Art 6 refers) that requires the operator to have an AOC.

Wouldn't happen to have any vacancies for a new CPL/IR, 370TT by any chance? Cheeky I know to break in here, sorry - but you don't get anywhere by not asking in this world.

Madlandrover - incoming pm!

Talk about speedy reply - wouldn't get that from Ryanair etc!

Thread hijack over...

Hahaha, but when he comes over to NZ - keep your hands off and don't come with him... ;)

It's mine.... :E

Pitts 2112, just a small point. You say that 'just logging hours is considered compensation' and indeed the CAA in the past have tried to argue this. Sometimes they were successful before some Benches; but not always.

However that cannot be the law as it stands today. There is no Divisional Court (Administrative Court if you prefer) or Court of Appeal authority upon the point but when the giving of flying instruction for reward was a privilege of the PPL it was (just) possible to argue that 'reward' covered flying hours other than instructional hours.

The position today is different. The PPL FI is in no special position in relation to flying for reward than his non FI PPL. If the mere logging of hours itself constituted a breach of the terms of the PPL then the FI could give no instruction at all and the rating would be meaningless.

Do you have any more details of the court cases, Tigerbatics?

I don't see how logging hours can amount to compensation because it would make illegal any flight with passenger(s) who already pay their maximum share permitted under the PPL cost sharing rule.

The logging of the hours would amount to additional compensation which would breach the limit.

Anyway, what are logged hours worth? They are worth exactly nuffink unless one is working towards an ATPL or something similar.

Io540, There are no cases to provide any guidance. I agree with you I have never thought that it amounted to 'reward' but it was the position taken over the years by the CAA. Since it was mentioned again, and by someone I understand is a Magistrate' I thought I would do my best to put that old one away for good even if it meant giving my opinion free!

Whoever said, on this or another thread, that the CAA like 'grey areas' is correct. This is why there is so little authority to be found in decided cases.They seldom appeal if they loose because they can try again with another case later provided no higher court has taken the point away by prior decision.

They do not make the law and sometimes do not seem to like it very much. Then they publish CAPs which slightly distort the meaning of the rules and allow misconceptions to continue if they have a 'chilling effect' on behaviour that is legal but for some reason they want to discourage.

Please do not ask for examples because I have none off hand. However I have seen it over and over again during the last 30 years.

Not sure I follow this, tigerbatics. On teh one hand you say:

on the other

Surely if there are prosecutions based on 'just logging hours' then you should be able to tell us about the cases, even if they don't create precedent.

Logging hours is not a reward it is simply an administrative reacord keeping task that every pilot is legally required to do.

If however, you agree with someone that if they do a certain task or provide a certain service or provide certain goods and in return you will give them x number of hours flying in an aircraft then the giving of the x number of hours flying is indeed a reward and is valuable consideration.

Thus if a PPL was not being paid for the time they were giving instruction but the club in return permitted them to use the aircraft for their own pleasure at no cost then there is valuable consideration being provided.

This is not to be confused with asking a PPL to fly your aircraft from A to B. In that case, they have not got the use of the aircraft. They are providing a service for you which you do not compensate them for.

Of course, there is one fly i the ointment for all this - the minimum wage. If you employ a person to complete a task they are entitled to the minimum wage. So how does an organisation employ a PPL to complete flight instruction and not pay them. Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't situation!

Regards,

DFC

Surely if there are prosecutions based on 'just logging hours' then you should be able to tell us about the cases, even if they don't create precedent.

Magistrates' Court cases (where most CAA GA stuff is processed) are usually not transcribed, so short of somebody sitting in the public gallery nobody will know what happened.

IO540 is quite correct. What I intended to convey was that there was no 'authority' on the matter because a higher court had not spoken. Magistrates' Court cases are not reported and cannot be cited in any way in any court even to another Magistrates' Court and even if the advocate appearing has personal knowledge of the earlier case.

The information I have for the CAA view of many years ago is therefore purely anecdotal from gossip at the time at the Bar (legal not public or saloon). It is subject to all the caveats of such gossip. However I think it is true. DFC explains why quite clearly it would have been rational for the CAA to take that view.

I make the point that now the 'reward', to be outside the terms of the PPL, must be something other than the flight itself. It was not clear that this was so before.

There is nothing whatever wrong with a club/school employing someone in an administrative capacity and paying them as such and also, if they have a PPL FI, allowing them to give instruction to students provided they are not paid anything additional and the student is not charged for instruction in respect of the PPL FI's time. I would add that in most instances a PPL FI would not be 'employed' by the club/school at all but be a club member.

Thanks for expanding your answer tigerbatics. I understand now.

I think it's possible to construct other examples even without the flight instructor aspect (IO540 gave an example). What I've never been sure about is how persuasive such apagogical arguments are in court.

Agree totally.

I take it then that you would say that a commercial organisation could not get a PPL(FI) to fly a trial lesson because the "student" (or the person who purchased the voucher) has already paid for the as you say "instruction in respect of the PPL FI's time" when they purchased the voucher.

However, I am not sure I agree with your statement of;

I agree that in a club you would be correct. However, most flying schools in the UK are limited companies who make a profit by trading in flight instruction through a "club". With the officers of the company making the decisions regarding the organisation and hiring and firing, would it not be the case that the instructor (regardless of licence type) is employed by the limited company.

There has for years been the "self employed flight instructor" which many schools used to try and get themselves out of various comittments. However, since the PPL(FI) could not be a self employed instructor (it is illegal) they have to be employed by the school. This then leads into minimum wage, etc etc etc.

Regards,

DFC

Interesting DFC thanks for your post; my thoughts are as follows:

1) An FI can no longer be 'freelance' in the sense that he used to be. In the old days he could just work from home as it were. Now he must work through a registered flight training organisation but there is nothing in the ANO or in any rule which prescribes what his tax situation must be. Consequently there is no problem with such work being done by self employed instructors, registered with and working through, such an organisation. In that event there is no question of the minimum wage.

2) Trial Flights by PPL FI is a very interesting question and you raise a good point. It may well be that some such flights at some places could be illegal but I do not think that it is wise to assert that all are. It depends in any given instance on the exact circumstances and I can see that some arrangements would be better than others.

Bookworm, that type of argument is the very stuff of legal argument and the manner in which the vast majority of arguments are cast. How effective it is in any given case really depends on how it fits into the total picture of the case being presented by the party concerned.

You are right, it is possible to construct other examples.

For fun, or if you get bored, you may like to take time out to consider an interesting point: you may conclude that the cost share provisions are, or may be, inconsistent with the PPL FI situation. However you may come to a different view entirely. It really is not straight forward at all.

But if the FI was receiving renumeration then even if they were'nt explicitly 'employed' by the club\school, there would be a tangible relationship between the two which would result in them effectively being considered an employee (as opposed to a worker) should that ever come to the test?

However presumably that's not the case for Self Employed individuals. But self employed FIs would more likely be career FIs/hour builders with the CPL anyway I'd imagine.

An employer/employee relationship is that of master and servant. An FI, self employed if he is a CPL or a volunteer if he is a PPL, registered with and working through a training organisation is not a servant of that organisation.

He is however an agent when working within the scope of his authority.

The fact that payment is, or is not, made to an FI is not relevant to his status as either a servant/employee on the one hand or a mere agent on the other. It is a matter of contract between the parties involved.

Does that help Slopey?

Errrrm, yes, although my brain isn't quite set up to tell me at this time in the morning! ;)