AOC or 'Private'
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncle Ian – I think you are correct that when all of us in Europe fall under J.A.R or more likely E.A.S.A rule for flight operations filming will revert to Aerial work. As far as I can make out we are the only country in the world that classes Filming as Commercial Air Transport. However by then it will probably be almost impossible to attach anything to a helicopter without a rain forest of paperwork and we will be grounded anyway.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paco - Could you explain a bit more about how you see the EASA Cof A working. You say that there is no longer an Aerial Work category. Is this repalced with something else?
Thread Starter
As i have said before i reckon well over 50% of all flights in the UK are "private" if you know what i mean. Most big co a/c are leased and pilot paid seperately.
Interested to hear Flying Lawyer's views.
Post edited by Heliport.
Interested to hear Flying Lawyer's views.
Post edited by Heliport.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know the percentage but, yes, I do know what you mean - and so does the CAA.
Leasing an aircraft is perfectly legal, but the CAA is well aware of the 'fiddles' which go on. As with many things, in aviation and elsewhere, 'fiddles' are all very well until there's an investigation and the arrangement is closely examined. An investigation may be triggered by an incident or by a report to the CAA - the latter often by a commercial operator.
If there's an investigation, the CAA will not only check the paperwork thoroughly but also speak to the person named as the lessee. (Or, more accurately, try to - the lessee is under no obligation to answer the CAA's questions.)
If, after investigating, the CAA suspects it was a charter dressed up as a lease and there's evidence to support that suspicion, the CAA is likely to prosecute.
The CAA isn't as active in this area as it could be. I've never understood why, given that they investigate and prosecute very trivial matters.
Tudor Owen
PS
Re your first post -
I haven't heard about the court case you mention, but I know of a report which was investigated earlier this summer.
Everything was in order and nothing came of it.
Leasing an aircraft is perfectly legal, but the CAA is well aware of the 'fiddles' which go on. As with many things, in aviation and elsewhere, 'fiddles' are all very well until there's an investigation and the arrangement is closely examined. An investigation may be triggered by an incident or by a report to the CAA - the latter often by a commercial operator.
If there's an investigation, the CAA will not only check the paperwork thoroughly but also speak to the person named as the lessee. (Or, more accurately, try to - the lessee is under no obligation to answer the CAA's questions.)
If, after investigating, the CAA suspects it was a charter dressed up as a lease and there's evidence to support that suspicion, the CAA is likely to prosecute.
The CAA isn't as active in this area as it could be. I've never understood why, given that they investigate and prosecute very trivial matters.
Tudor Owen
PS
Re your first post -
I haven't heard about the court case you mention, but I know of a report which was investigated earlier this summer.
Everything was in order and nothing came of it.
Thread Starter
i think i know why!! A) It is i believe perfectly legal to get somebody to sign a properly drafted lease agreement, albeit just for a short period, and then let them pay a commercial Pilot seperately, arms length from the owner. This is i believe a private flight as per the rules.. and then B) there is the little point of if you make over 50% of all flying in this country illegal then all the owners AND pilots who work in this area will pack up....then all the a/c that rely on a bit of subsidy will have to be sold.....by which time there will be no need for the CAA as there will be virtually no aviation left, except of course for the very wealthy cruising around in twins ! The benefits of leasing ? example...you can lease a 206 for say Ł220 dry but charter can be Ł600 and you can lease my AS350BA for Ł450 and pay Ł800+ for charter ! I beliave that if you reduce the prices many more people will fly therefore making the operating costs much lower.....my insurance is Ł100 per hour but could come down to Ł25 ! same with all fixed costs. 90% of the people who lease would not pay full charter rates and would be lost and all the revenue that goes into maintenance,parts , new a/c would also be lost.
Nigel,
How dare you suggest such a thing? Can you not understand the need for legislation, regulations, rules, policies, and implementing memorandum's.....what does reality have to do with this?
Just like the US Government policy on paperwork reduction....adds two pages to every federal document explaining what that policy is.
How dare you suggest such a thing? Can you not understand the need for legislation, regulations, rules, policies, and implementing memorandum's.....what does reality have to do with this?
Just like the US Government policy on paperwork reduction....adds two pages to every federal document explaining what that policy is.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Wolves
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
uncle ian - "The fundamental problem lies with the wording of the ANO in my opinion. It is clear to almost anyone but our beloved regulators that aerial camera work (along with so many of the things helicopters do that are not passenger transit flights) is not public transport as percieved by "the man on the Clapham omnibuss"."
I have been asking questions on another forum about this and the unfortunatly I have come up with the following assessment based on the ANO and various other documents:-
Is somebody making money from the flight? If so, it is aerial work although aerial work can be either a public or a private flight. If it is aerial work then the pilot must have a CPL/ATPL.
The bigger question as most operations come under aerial work is therefore is it a public transport flight or a private flight? If it is a public transport flight then you need an AOC.
So....how do you figure out if it's a public transport flight. Simple - are there any paying passengers on the flight where a passenger is defined in the ANO (and pretending you are a member of the flight crew in a C150 does not work - see the wording of the ANO).
So...... filming is aerial work - and therefore needs a CPL flying the plane (unsurprisingly) and as the passenger is paying the pilot to carry him/her then it is also a public transport flight. Pretty simple really - the fact that he/she happens to be carrying a camera aloft is neither here or there - and the fact that it is no a 'transit' flight does not matter either. The simple fact is that a person is paying the pilot to fly him around.
The ONLY way I can see to get around this is if the pilot is the owner of the 'filming business' and has a CPL/ATLP, and PAYS a passenger to take the photos for him. This would make the flight Aerial Work - but in the public flight category and would threfore be exempt from needing an AOC.
If somebody hires the aircraft and the pilot separatly as suggested, this can be tested against the 'rules'. Is somebody making money from the flight - yes they are so it is Aerial Work and the pilot therfore must have a CPL/ATPL. Is there an ANO defined passenger on the flight who has paid somebody/something so he/she can be on the flight. Yes- they paid both the pilot and the aircraft hire so the flight is P.T. and needs an AOC.
I have been asking questions on another forum about this and the unfortunatly I have come up with the following assessment based on the ANO and various other documents:-
Is somebody making money from the flight? If so, it is aerial work although aerial work can be either a public or a private flight. If it is aerial work then the pilot must have a CPL/ATPL.
The bigger question as most operations come under aerial work is therefore is it a public transport flight or a private flight? If it is a public transport flight then you need an AOC.
So....how do you figure out if it's a public transport flight. Simple - are there any paying passengers on the flight where a passenger is defined in the ANO (and pretending you are a member of the flight crew in a C150 does not work - see the wording of the ANO).
So...... filming is aerial work - and therefore needs a CPL flying the plane (unsurprisingly) and as the passenger is paying the pilot to carry him/her then it is also a public transport flight. Pretty simple really - the fact that he/she happens to be carrying a camera aloft is neither here or there - and the fact that it is no a 'transit' flight does not matter either. The simple fact is that a person is paying the pilot to fly him around.
The ONLY way I can see to get around this is if the pilot is the owner of the 'filming business' and has a CPL/ATLP, and PAYS a passenger to take the photos for him. This would make the flight Aerial Work - but in the public flight category and would threfore be exempt from needing an AOC.
If somebody hires the aircraft and the pilot separatly as suggested, this can be tested against the 'rules'. Is somebody making money from the flight - yes they are so it is Aerial Work and the pilot therfore must have a CPL/ATPL. Is there an ANO defined passenger on the flight who has paid somebody/something so he/she can be on the flight. Yes- they paid both the pilot and the aircraft hire so the flight is P.T. and needs an AOC.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless,
I read all this stuff above (about how many pinheads it takes to ground an angel) and then I go outside and salute my flag, even with W in office.
Nick
PS isn't that a cool play on words in there?
I read all this stuff above (about how many pinheads it takes to ground an angel) and then I go outside and salute my flag, even with W in office.
Nick
PS isn't that a cool play on words in there?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is the first time I have ever, on PPRuNe or elsewhere, heard anyone describe the law in this area as "pretty simple really."
Simple?
It is nothing short of a disgrace that the ANO is so appallingly written and so difficult to understand. The CAA expects pilots and operators to comply with provisions, and may prosecute them if they fail to do so, yet even lawyers who specialise in aviation don't find the provisions easy to understand.
Here's an example of what the CAA regards as acceptable legislation for modern times. You can't get much more 'modern times' than this - it came into force about a month ago on 20th August.
Those are just the "general rules." You then have to turn to the exceptions set out (in similar 'easy to understand' style) in Articles 158-163 inclusive.
Pretty simple really.
Even the guidance (CAP 393 Air Navigation Order and Regulations) written by the CAA, and intended to assist people to understand the virtually incomprehensible relevant provisions written by the CAA into the ANO, contains a disclaimer!
Some examples from PinkPilot's understanding of these "simple" rules:
"Is somebody making money from the flight?"
That's not the test.
"aerial work can be either a public or a private flight."
'Aerial work' is a category of Private flight.
"So....how do you figure out if it's a public transport flight. Simple - are there any paying passengers on the flight where a passenger is defined in the ANO."
That's not the test.
"Aerial Work - but in the public flight category"
"Is somebody making money from the flight - yes they are so it is Aerial Work"
The CAA might well say that, but the ANO doesn't.
Simple?
It is nothing short of a disgrace that the ANO is so appallingly written and so difficult to understand. The CAA expects pilots and operators to comply with provisions, and may prosecute them if they fail to do so, yet even lawyers who specialise in aviation don't find the provisions easy to understand.
Here's an example of what the CAA regards as acceptable legislation for modern times. You can't get much more 'modern times' than this - it came into force about a month ago on 20th August.
Article 157. Public transport and aerial work—general rules
(1) Subject to the provisions of this article and articles 158 to 163, aerial work means any purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight.
(2) If the only such valuable consideration consists of remuneration for the services of the pilot the flight shall be deemed to be a private flight for the purposes of Part 3 of this Order.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this article and articles 158 to 163, an aircraft in flight shall for the purposes of this Order be deemed to fly for the purpose of public transport—
(a) if valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in the aircraft on that flight;
(b) if any passengers or cargo are carried gratuitously in the aircraft on that flight by an air transport undertaking, not being persons in the employment of the undertaking (including, in the case of a body corporate, its directors and, in the case of the CAA, the members of the CAA), persons with the authority of the CAA either making any inspection or witnessing any training, practice or test for the purposes of this Order, or cargo intended to be used by any such passengers as aforesaid, or by the undertaking; or
(c) for the purposes of Part 3 of this Order (other than articles 19(2) and 20(2)), if valuable consideration is given or promised for the primary purpose of conferring on a particular person the right to fly the aircraft on that flight (not being a single-seat aircraft of which the maximum total weight authorised does not exceed 910 kg) otherwise than under a hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement.
(4) Notwithstanding that an aircraft may be flying for the purpose of public transport by reason of paragraph (3)(c), it shall not be deemed to be flying for the purpose of the public transport of passengers unless valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of those passengers.
(5) A glider shall not be deemed to fly for the purpose of public transport for the purposes of Part 3 of this Order by virtue of paragraph (3)(c) if the valuable consideration given or promised for the primary purpose of conferring on a particular person the right to fly the glider on that flight is given or promised by a member of a flying club and the glider is owned or operated by that flying club.
(6) Notwithstanding the giving or promising of valuable consideration specified in paragraph (3)(c) in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight it shall—
(a) subject to sub-paragraph (b), for all purposes other than Part 3 of this Order; and
(b) for the purposes of articles 19(2) and 20(2);
be deemed to be a private flight.
(7) Where under a transaction effected by or on behalf of a member of an association of persons on the one hand and the association of persons or any member thereof on the other hand, a person is carried in, or is given the right to fly, an aircraft in such circumstances that valuable consideration would be given or promised if the transaction were effected otherwise than aforesaid, valuable consideration shall, for the purposes of this Order, be deemed to have been given or promised, notwithstanding any rule of law as to such transactions.
(8) For the purposes of—
(a) paragraph (3)(a), there shall be disregarded any valuable consideration given or promised in respect of a flight or the purpose of a flight by one company to another company which is—
(i) its holding company;
(ii) its subsidiary; or
(iii) another subsidiary of the same holding company;
(b) this article "holding company" and "subsidiary" have the meanings respectively specified in Section 736 of the Companies Act 1985.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this article and articles 158 to 163, aerial work means any purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight.
(2) If the only such valuable consideration consists of remuneration for the services of the pilot the flight shall be deemed to be a private flight for the purposes of Part 3 of this Order.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this article and articles 158 to 163, an aircraft in flight shall for the purposes of this Order be deemed to fly for the purpose of public transport—
(a) if valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in the aircraft on that flight;
(b) if any passengers or cargo are carried gratuitously in the aircraft on that flight by an air transport undertaking, not being persons in the employment of the undertaking (including, in the case of a body corporate, its directors and, in the case of the CAA, the members of the CAA), persons with the authority of the CAA either making any inspection or witnessing any training, practice or test for the purposes of this Order, or cargo intended to be used by any such passengers as aforesaid, or by the undertaking; or
(c) for the purposes of Part 3 of this Order (other than articles 19(2) and 20(2)), if valuable consideration is given or promised for the primary purpose of conferring on a particular person the right to fly the aircraft on that flight (not being a single-seat aircraft of which the maximum total weight authorised does not exceed 910 kg) otherwise than under a hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement.
(4) Notwithstanding that an aircraft may be flying for the purpose of public transport by reason of paragraph (3)(c), it shall not be deemed to be flying for the purpose of the public transport of passengers unless valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of those passengers.
(5) A glider shall not be deemed to fly for the purpose of public transport for the purposes of Part 3 of this Order by virtue of paragraph (3)(c) if the valuable consideration given or promised for the primary purpose of conferring on a particular person the right to fly the glider on that flight is given or promised by a member of a flying club and the glider is owned or operated by that flying club.
(6) Notwithstanding the giving or promising of valuable consideration specified in paragraph (3)(c) in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight it shall—
(a) subject to sub-paragraph (b), for all purposes other than Part 3 of this Order; and
(b) for the purposes of articles 19(2) and 20(2);
be deemed to be a private flight.
(7) Where under a transaction effected by or on behalf of a member of an association of persons on the one hand and the association of persons or any member thereof on the other hand, a person is carried in, or is given the right to fly, an aircraft in such circumstances that valuable consideration would be given or promised if the transaction were effected otherwise than aforesaid, valuable consideration shall, for the purposes of this Order, be deemed to have been given or promised, notwithstanding any rule of law as to such transactions.
(8) For the purposes of—
(a) paragraph (3)(a), there shall be disregarded any valuable consideration given or promised in respect of a flight or the purpose of a flight by one company to another company which is—
(i) its holding company;
(ii) its subsidiary; or
(iii) another subsidiary of the same holding company;
(b) this article "holding company" and "subsidiary" have the meanings respectively specified in Section 736 of the Companies Act 1985.
Pretty simple really.
Even the guidance (CAP 393 Air Navigation Order and Regulations) written by the CAA, and intended to assist people to understand the virtually incomprehensible relevant provisions written by the CAA into the ANO, contains a disclaimer!
Some examples from PinkPilot's understanding of these "simple" rules:
"Is somebody making money from the flight?"
That's not the test.
"aerial work can be either a public or a private flight."
'Aerial work' is a category of Private flight.
"So....how do you figure out if it's a public transport flight. Simple - are there any paying passengers on the flight where a passenger is defined in the ANO."
That's not the test.
"Aerial Work - but in the public flight category"
"Is somebody making money from the flight - yes they are so it is Aerial Work"
The CAA might well say that, but the ANO doesn't.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 23rd Sep 2005 at 23:57.
Yes- they paid both the pilot and the aircraft hire so the flight is P.T. and needs an AOC
Pinkpilot - That is exactly what authorities in Scandinavian countries require. I have always been surprised to see discussion on the forum that AOC would not be required for Aerial work like photoflights etc.
If a CPL pilots is doing photo or film flight´s without beiing under an AOC then what are the duty hr limits, altitude requirements, is harness needed, who is responsible for permits and so on and so forth. These are all issues specified in the HOM manual.
In Scandinavian and Nordic countries the law in this regard is very straightforward, a AOC is required for Aerial work! In the UK it seems that the rules are sometimes very complicated but it´s really common sense to require AOC for all aerial work be it Aerial work or Public transport (JAR-OPS 3). A private flight is a pilot flying for his own pleasure or building hours while flying self fly hire in some circumstances he can share the direct operating cost of the aircraft with a friend who comes along for a ride but he most surely cannot operate the aircraft to make money!
Edit: To add reply to FL comments, sometimes I feel sorry for you Brits
Meant in the way that your CAA works in mysterious way´s.
Last edited by Aesir; 23rd Sep 2005 at 23:43.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA is somewhat clearer.
If you are a company operating its airplane, the company is considered a private individual, and can operate the aircraft subject to Part 91 as a private aircraft. Your pilots, if paid as pilots and not flying incidentally to their employment, are commercial and must be so rated.
Other than company employees may fly in the company airplane, as long as no fee is charged. These others might share in the expenses, proportionately, but seldom do.
If you are a company operating its airplane, the company is considered a private individual, and can operate the aircraft subject to Part 91 as a private aircraft. Your pilots, if paid as pilots and not flying incidentally to their employment, are commercial and must be so rated.
Other than company employees may fly in the company airplane, as long as no fee is charged. These others might share in the expenses, proportionately, but seldom do.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For AOC holders ("air transport undertaking") it gets even more interesting. Art 130 (2) states:
"(2) Subject to the provisions of this article, an aircraft in flight shall for the purposes of
this Order be deemed to fly for the purposes of public transport:
(a) if valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or
cargo in the aircraft on that flight;
(b) if any passengers or cargo are carried gratuitously in the aircraft on that flight by
an air transport undertaking, not being persons in the employment of the
undertaking........."
So - if you are an AOC holder any flight you do carrying non-employees is a PT flight whether or not they are paying passengers.
"(2) Subject to the provisions of this article, an aircraft in flight shall for the purposes of
this Order be deemed to fly for the purposes of public transport:
(a) if valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or
cargo in the aircraft on that flight;
(b) if any passengers or cargo are carried gratuitously in the aircraft on that flight by
an air transport undertaking, not being persons in the employment of the
undertaking........."
So - if you are an AOC holder any flight you do carrying non-employees is a PT flight whether or not they are paying passengers.
Questions
1/If a company leased an aircraft for say a 6 month period, provided camera kit and employed camera operator and (CPL) pilot under short term contract could the flights be operated under aerial work?
2/ What would the operational diferences be that could impact a filming job, between such an outfit and an AOC operating Public Transport?
Mickjoebill
1/If a company leased an aircraft for say a 6 month period, provided camera kit and employed camera operator and (CPL) pilot under short term contract could the flights be operated under aerial work?
2/ What would the operational diferences be that could impact a filming job, between such an outfit and an AOC operating Public Transport?
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Wolves
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Is somebody making money from the flight?"
That's not the test:-
But it seems to work - from the ANO - aerial work means any purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuble consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight.
- If anybody (anybody) is making money - its either aerial work or public transport. Is the pilot being paid? - then it's aerial work or public transport.
"aerial work can be either a public or a private flight."
'Aerial work' is a category of Private flight.
- fair enough, to keep it clean in my head I always think aerial work includes public transport (working in the air!). My bad! Should have made that clear - but it does not change the intent.
"So....how do you figure out if it's a public transport flight. Simple - are there any paying passengers on the flight where a passenger is defined in the ANO."
That's not the test. Actually I think it is for our purposes:-
- from the ANO - "bla bla bla...deemed to fly for the puposes of public transport if valuble consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers"
"Aerial Work - but in the public flight category"
- yup - my bad again! By that I meant not Public Transport - sorry!
"Is somebody making money from the flight - yes they are so it is Aerial Work"
The CAA might well say that, but the ANO doesn't.
Actually, I think it does - see above - and by Aerial Work - I actually meant Aerial Work or Public Transport!
By the way - I am an engineer, not a lawyer so I have to simplify things so I can understand them! And if I t
Basic question is:-
Does Aerial Photography where the photographer pays the pilot require an AOC according to the ANO?
My answer (which may well be wrong) is YES!
Is valuble consideration (money) being given (yes - to the pilot) for the carriage of passenger (yes - the photographer is bein carried). Therefore - is seems to be simple (sorry) but this is a Public Transport Flight and threfore needs an AOC.
In answer to mickjoebill......I give up. Its all a load of B*^*Cks. I just get my head around it then I read it again in another context and it all goes to pot. I hate the CAA. I wish I was a Lawyer and not just an engineer!
I still stand by my reconing above on Aerial Photography though but what happens when it's all operated by a company - god knows. It took my 2 months to get this far!
Jesus........
That's not the test:-
But it seems to work - from the ANO - aerial work means any purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuble consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight.
- If anybody (anybody) is making money - its either aerial work or public transport. Is the pilot being paid? - then it's aerial work or public transport.
"aerial work can be either a public or a private flight."
'Aerial work' is a category of Private flight.
- fair enough, to keep it clean in my head I always think aerial work includes public transport (working in the air!). My bad! Should have made that clear - but it does not change the intent.
"So....how do you figure out if it's a public transport flight. Simple - are there any paying passengers on the flight where a passenger is defined in the ANO."
That's not the test. Actually I think it is for our purposes:-
- from the ANO - "bla bla bla...deemed to fly for the puposes of public transport if valuble consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers"
"Aerial Work - but in the public flight category"
- yup - my bad again! By that I meant not Public Transport - sorry!
"Is somebody making money from the flight - yes they are so it is Aerial Work"
The CAA might well say that, but the ANO doesn't.
Actually, I think it does - see above - and by Aerial Work - I actually meant Aerial Work or Public Transport!
By the way - I am an engineer, not a lawyer so I have to simplify things so I can understand them! And if I t
Basic question is:-
Does Aerial Photography where the photographer pays the pilot require an AOC according to the ANO?
My answer (which may well be wrong) is YES!
Is valuble consideration (money) being given (yes - to the pilot) for the carriage of passenger (yes - the photographer is bein carried). Therefore - is seems to be simple (sorry) but this is a Public Transport Flight and threfore needs an AOC.
In answer to mickjoebill......I give up. Its all a load of B*^*Cks. I just get my head around it then I read it again in another context and it all goes to pot. I hate the CAA. I wish I was a Lawyer and not just an engineer!
I still stand by my reconing above on Aerial Photography though but what happens when it's all operated by a company - god knows. It took my 2 months to get this far!
Jesus........
