AOC or 'Private'
Thread Starter
AOC or Private
I hear there has been a recent court case confirming that a lease of an aircraft without pilot, then seperately hiring the pilot , is not public Transport. The AOC operators for years have argued that an flying where money changes hands is PT, but if you HP a heli and fly it yourself that cannot be AOC work ? I would guess that half of all UK aviation , for money, is operated on the lease method so why dont we just scrap AOC,s and have everybody on a level playing field ? I have heard of the CAA ( campaign against aviation ) looking at these people but am not aware of any being taken to court. Any definitive answers ?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,159
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Here are my thoughts, which may need revising:
Public, or Commercial, Air Transport is defined in the ANO as being where valuable consideration is given (or promised) for the carriage of passengers or cargo on a flight (it actually says in the aircraft on that flight, but you know what I mean). Aerial work is anything else for which valuable consideration is given, including instruction, but, if only the pilot gets paid, it is a private flight. The definition also covers anyone or anything that may be carried free on that flight, not being employees of an air transport undertaking that may be operating it (although it looks as if it's worded otherwise, company directors and anyone working on behalf of the CAA, such as Authorised Persons and TREs, are employees for this purpose).
Thus, if you carry a passenger (say, a friend) on a check flight who is not an employee or a director of your Company, it will be regarded as Public, or Commercial, Air Transport, even though valuable consideration is not promised or given. If the valuable consideration allows a particular person to fly an aircraft, then that is also Public Transport (unless it's being bought on HP or a conditional sale agreement, or is a single-seater below 910 kg). Presumably this is meant to cover self-fly hire, or maybe trial lessons, since the phrase used is "fly the aircraft" rather than "fly in the aircraft". If valuable consideration is not given, or the aircraft is a club glider with club members on board, it is a private flight.
However, these clauses are the only ones to affect the average professional. Otherwise, in broad terms, you are allowed to win prizes in air races (up to certain limits) and recover direct costs and a pro rata contribution to the amount of hours flown every year if you go to air shows and the like. If a payment is made to a (registered) charity (with CAA permission) that allows someone (maybe a prizewinner) to fly, that is a private flight. Equal contributions to the direct costs of a flight borne by the pilot if up to four persons (including the pilot) fly in an aircraft are exempt, but direct costs do not mean HP payments, insurance, hangarage..... There must also have been no advertising for that flight, except in the confines of a flying club, in which case all passengers (over 18) must be members. It also helps if the pilot is seen not to be employed as such (this situation is what anyone else would call "cost-sharing"). A similar situation exists where a pilot reclaims direct expenses paid out on behalf of an employer. There are other exemptions, such as joint or company owned aircraft (that is, chargebacks between companies and subsidiaries). Remunerated parachute dropping (and positioning for it) is regarded as aerial work.
In fact, a flight is private for racing, contests or flying displays, positioning for them or returning from them to the usual base, if the valuable consideration does not exceed the direct costs and a contribution to annual costs, based on the time flown, or prizes not above £500 per race or contest, except with permission in writing from the CAA. Such prizes do not constitute remuneration for services as a pilot. The same applies to a registered charity, not the operator of the aircraft, and with permission in writing from the CAA.
The flight is also private if the only valuable consideration is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the PIC (i.e. expenses), with no more than 4 people carried and bearing equal portions of the cost, and no advertising or promotion done beforehand, except inside a flying club, and the people concerned are all members.
Valuable Consideration
Let's have a closer look at the words "valuable consideration" as an example of not-so-good drafting. The word "consideration" means money or something of money's worth that is more than merely nominal. It is legal expression referring to something that is used to bind a contract, even the chocolate wrappers sent in to a manufacturer to obtain a free gift.
The word "consideration" by itself would have been enough, but somebody saw fit to add "valuable" in front of it, which changes the position somewhat, because now everybody has to rush around trying to decide what that particular word means and subsequently how valuable should consideration be to qualify for the ANO?
The actual definition there comes from the 19th Century, which reads:
"any right, interest, profit or benefit, forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility accruing, given, suffered or undertaken pursuant to an agreement, which is of more than a nominal nature."
Try this instead:
"Money or money's worth, which is more than merely nominal (i.e. chocolate wrappers), including the release of debts, meaning money or anything capable of being turned into money, possibly including some services which cannot."
The real problem with this, though, lies with insurance. You may (or may not) know that there is no such thing as a "contract" of insurance, because you are betting; in this case, that you crash your aircraft before a certain date. The insurance people, of course, are betting that you don't (or is it the other way round?). The trouble is that insurance companies are well known not to pay if they can get away with it, so if they can prove that you were doing illegal public transport, you may well find that your insurance is invalid as well, not to mention being caught for third-party liability in some cases. Anyway, back to the subject. The ANO (Art 6) says that an Air Operator's Certificate is needed for all flights that may come under the definition of public transport:
"an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom shall not fly on any flight for the purpose of public transport, otherwise than under and in accordance with the terms of an air operator's certificate granted to the operator…."
Article 6 was originally Article 3A of the ANO 1960, and was inserted as an afterthought to it to cover AOCs that would be unenforceable during the time gap until section 1 (2) (a) of the coming Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act 1960 came into force on 30 March 1961. This section was later repealed by the 1972 Act, so from that time the ANO could no longer legally make provisions for an AOC with enforceable terms. In other words, an AOC is not made by statutory instrument - the 1982 Act says that only statutory instruments can establish enforceable terms; in other words, no enforceable law (that is, by criminal proceedings) can be made below the level of a statutory instrument, which of course an AOC is not. AOC terms are laid down by the CAA, which cannot issue SIs.
By the way, the term "operator" above has been held by leading counsel to include the pilot (any person with the management for the time being of an aircraft is regarded as being the operator). Reference to Road Transport Acts shows that if it had been intended that a "driver" was not to be an "operator", then the proper wording was available for aviation.
Actually, the imposition of public transport conditions is only permitted by the enabling Act (of the ANO) where the aircraft is used for a commercial, industrial or gainful purpose (specifically Sect 60 (3) (f)). What it says is that:
"An Air Navigation Order may contain provision as to the conditions under which passengers and goods may be carried by air and under which aircraft may be used for other commercial, industrial or gainful purposes".
Quite a mouthful, but the use of the word "other" in conjunction with the Rules of Interpretation of Statute infers that "conditions" may only be imposed when aircraft are being used for gainful, etc. purposes. As these rules are meant to be enforceable by criminal proceedings, they become penal situations, and as such must be strictly construed in accordance with the enabling statute. So what may be relevant as to what is or is not Commercial Air Transport is not the presence of any consideration, but, if there is, whether the aircraft is being used for a commercial, industrial or gainful purpose. Therefore, all you really have to do is pin down who the user is and see what his use of the aircraft is to see whether Commercial Air Transport or Aerial Work conditions might apply.
Since, in most circumstances, light aircraft are chartered to a sole user, most "charter" flights could in fact be called private flights (if it were not for the ANO) unless the aircraft is actually being used during flight for commercial, industrial or gainful purposes.
The user (that is, the hirer) is using the aircraft for his own purposes (unless buying and selling is going on in the back) and the "operator" is the pilot. Whoever hires out the aircraft to the user could be held to be their agent in respect of maintenance and all the other things needed to keep the aircraft flying. If passengers are being carried for separate fares, on the other hand, then the aircraft is being used in that way by the person with the right to the money collected. But beware! The terms of an AOC could be enforceable if made as the terms of an Air Transport Licence. If an aircraft is being used for the carriage for reward (er, sorry, valuable consideration) of passengers or cargo, the CAA may apply air transport licensing even if the aircraft is not being used for anything resembling Commercial Air Transport or commercial or other gainful purposes.
All that being said, what about the situation where you're asked to do a job and you're not sure what's going on? Do you feel up to actually asking for a certificate to say a flight is not Commercial Air Transport? This is plainly impractical, so you need to know a few ins and outs to protect yourself (please note the intention is not to enable you to fly illegally!).
A workable CAT flight (ANO definition) must have the following:
An Air Operator's Certificate issued to "the operator"
The crew must have current licences (e.g. CPL/ATPL) and be type rated, base/line checked, etc. in accordance with the operator's Operations Manual (indeed, the whole flight must be conducted under it).
The aircraft must have a (current) Transport Category C of A or equivalent, Certificates of Maintenance Review and Release to Service, Technical Log (with Deferred Defect Sheet), Passenger Briefing Leaflets and all legally required equipment (Fire extinguishers, placards, etc.).
You may be able to get around these requirements by ensuring that the person hiring the aircraft does so with a separate contract than the one he hires you with, and you'll be better off if you can also prove that you weren't paid, or at least you were an employee of the hirer's organisation (if you do this, you may have to show that the enabling Act only permits an Air Navigation Order to make different pilot licensing provisions according to whether the person concerned is actually employed or merely engaged in a flight crew capacity). You could also get base and line checked by a proper company and put it through their books, but don't forget you must use their Ops Manual and other documentation.
Finally, you could resort to drastic measures and form a company for a short time with nothing in its memorandum and articles of association about gainful use of aircraft or hiring them out by the hour. There is a Common Law rule that you cannot buy or hire from yourself, which is the basis upon which co-ownership groups and non-profit members clubs are run in every walk of life. However, the ANO says that any agreement between such organisations, or members of them (even within the same group), in respect of a situation where valuable consideration would normally be expected, would be considered as if it had been given anyway. This is notwithstanding any rule of law as to such transactions; in other words, the Common Law purports to be specifically overridden, yet it is not clear from the enabling Act that the ANO is permitted to do this, that is, put Common Law into abeyance.
An unincorporated non-profit members' club can be created for a specific purpose or occasion and exist for one flight or a day only, being dissolved once it has served its purpose. They should pay for their own operating costs to avoid the inference of valuable consideration. For instance, it should not be too difficult for some parachutists to form a club for the day to hire an aircraft.
Any good?
Phil
Public, or Commercial, Air Transport is defined in the ANO as being where valuable consideration is given (or promised) for the carriage of passengers or cargo on a flight (it actually says in the aircraft on that flight, but you know what I mean). Aerial work is anything else for which valuable consideration is given, including instruction, but, if only the pilot gets paid, it is a private flight. The definition also covers anyone or anything that may be carried free on that flight, not being employees of an air transport undertaking that may be operating it (although it looks as if it's worded otherwise, company directors and anyone working on behalf of the CAA, such as Authorised Persons and TREs, are employees for this purpose).
Thus, if you carry a passenger (say, a friend) on a check flight who is not an employee or a director of your Company, it will be regarded as Public, or Commercial, Air Transport, even though valuable consideration is not promised or given. If the valuable consideration allows a particular person to fly an aircraft, then that is also Public Transport (unless it's being bought on HP or a conditional sale agreement, or is a single-seater below 910 kg). Presumably this is meant to cover self-fly hire, or maybe trial lessons, since the phrase used is "fly the aircraft" rather than "fly in the aircraft". If valuable consideration is not given, or the aircraft is a club glider with club members on board, it is a private flight.
However, these clauses are the only ones to affect the average professional. Otherwise, in broad terms, you are allowed to win prizes in air races (up to certain limits) and recover direct costs and a pro rata contribution to the amount of hours flown every year if you go to air shows and the like. If a payment is made to a (registered) charity (with CAA permission) that allows someone (maybe a prizewinner) to fly, that is a private flight. Equal contributions to the direct costs of a flight borne by the pilot if up to four persons (including the pilot) fly in an aircraft are exempt, but direct costs do not mean HP payments, insurance, hangarage..... There must also have been no advertising for that flight, except in the confines of a flying club, in which case all passengers (over 18) must be members. It also helps if the pilot is seen not to be employed as such (this situation is what anyone else would call "cost-sharing"). A similar situation exists where a pilot reclaims direct expenses paid out on behalf of an employer. There are other exemptions, such as joint or company owned aircraft (that is, chargebacks between companies and subsidiaries). Remunerated parachute dropping (and positioning for it) is regarded as aerial work.
In fact, a flight is private for racing, contests or flying displays, positioning for them or returning from them to the usual base, if the valuable consideration does not exceed the direct costs and a contribution to annual costs, based on the time flown, or prizes not above £500 per race or contest, except with permission in writing from the CAA. Such prizes do not constitute remuneration for services as a pilot. The same applies to a registered charity, not the operator of the aircraft, and with permission in writing from the CAA.
The flight is also private if the only valuable consideration is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the PIC (i.e. expenses), with no more than 4 people carried and bearing equal portions of the cost, and no advertising or promotion done beforehand, except inside a flying club, and the people concerned are all members.
Valuable Consideration
Let's have a closer look at the words "valuable consideration" as an example of not-so-good drafting. The word "consideration" means money or something of money's worth that is more than merely nominal. It is legal expression referring to something that is used to bind a contract, even the chocolate wrappers sent in to a manufacturer to obtain a free gift.
The word "consideration" by itself would have been enough, but somebody saw fit to add "valuable" in front of it, which changes the position somewhat, because now everybody has to rush around trying to decide what that particular word means and subsequently how valuable should consideration be to qualify for the ANO?
The actual definition there comes from the 19th Century, which reads:
"any right, interest, profit or benefit, forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility accruing, given, suffered or undertaken pursuant to an agreement, which is of more than a nominal nature."
Try this instead:
"Money or money's worth, which is more than merely nominal (i.e. chocolate wrappers), including the release of debts, meaning money or anything capable of being turned into money, possibly including some services which cannot."
The real problem with this, though, lies with insurance. You may (or may not) know that there is no such thing as a "contract" of insurance, because you are betting; in this case, that you crash your aircraft before a certain date. The insurance people, of course, are betting that you don't (or is it the other way round?). The trouble is that insurance companies are well known not to pay if they can get away with it, so if they can prove that you were doing illegal public transport, you may well find that your insurance is invalid as well, not to mention being caught for third-party liability in some cases. Anyway, back to the subject. The ANO (Art 6) says that an Air Operator's Certificate is needed for all flights that may come under the definition of public transport:
"an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom shall not fly on any flight for the purpose of public transport, otherwise than under and in accordance with the terms of an air operator's certificate granted to the operator…."
Article 6 was originally Article 3A of the ANO 1960, and was inserted as an afterthought to it to cover AOCs that would be unenforceable during the time gap until section 1 (2) (a) of the coming Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act 1960 came into force on 30 March 1961. This section was later repealed by the 1972 Act, so from that time the ANO could no longer legally make provisions for an AOC with enforceable terms. In other words, an AOC is not made by statutory instrument - the 1982 Act says that only statutory instruments can establish enforceable terms; in other words, no enforceable law (that is, by criminal proceedings) can be made below the level of a statutory instrument, which of course an AOC is not. AOC terms are laid down by the CAA, which cannot issue SIs.
By the way, the term "operator" above has been held by leading counsel to include the pilot (any person with the management for the time being of an aircraft is regarded as being the operator). Reference to Road Transport Acts shows that if it had been intended that a "driver" was not to be an "operator", then the proper wording was available for aviation.
Actually, the imposition of public transport conditions is only permitted by the enabling Act (of the ANO) where the aircraft is used for a commercial, industrial or gainful purpose (specifically Sect 60 (3) (f)). What it says is that:
"An Air Navigation Order may contain provision as to the conditions under which passengers and goods may be carried by air and under which aircraft may be used for other commercial, industrial or gainful purposes".
Quite a mouthful, but the use of the word "other" in conjunction with the Rules of Interpretation of Statute infers that "conditions" may only be imposed when aircraft are being used for gainful, etc. purposes. As these rules are meant to be enforceable by criminal proceedings, they become penal situations, and as such must be strictly construed in accordance with the enabling statute. So what may be relevant as to what is or is not Commercial Air Transport is not the presence of any consideration, but, if there is, whether the aircraft is being used for a commercial, industrial or gainful purpose. Therefore, all you really have to do is pin down who the user is and see what his use of the aircraft is to see whether Commercial Air Transport or Aerial Work conditions might apply.
Since, in most circumstances, light aircraft are chartered to a sole user, most "charter" flights could in fact be called private flights (if it were not for the ANO) unless the aircraft is actually being used during flight for commercial, industrial or gainful purposes.
The user (that is, the hirer) is using the aircraft for his own purposes (unless buying and selling is going on in the back) and the "operator" is the pilot. Whoever hires out the aircraft to the user could be held to be their agent in respect of maintenance and all the other things needed to keep the aircraft flying. If passengers are being carried for separate fares, on the other hand, then the aircraft is being used in that way by the person with the right to the money collected. But beware! The terms of an AOC could be enforceable if made as the terms of an Air Transport Licence. If an aircraft is being used for the carriage for reward (er, sorry, valuable consideration) of passengers or cargo, the CAA may apply air transport licensing even if the aircraft is not being used for anything resembling Commercial Air Transport or commercial or other gainful purposes.
All that being said, what about the situation where you're asked to do a job and you're not sure what's going on? Do you feel up to actually asking for a certificate to say a flight is not Commercial Air Transport? This is plainly impractical, so you need to know a few ins and outs to protect yourself (please note the intention is not to enable you to fly illegally!).
A workable CAT flight (ANO definition) must have the following:
An Air Operator's Certificate issued to "the operator"
The crew must have current licences (e.g. CPL/ATPL) and be type rated, base/line checked, etc. in accordance with the operator's Operations Manual (indeed, the whole flight must be conducted under it).
The aircraft must have a (current) Transport Category C of A or equivalent, Certificates of Maintenance Review and Release to Service, Technical Log (with Deferred Defect Sheet), Passenger Briefing Leaflets and all legally required equipment (Fire extinguishers, placards, etc.).
You may be able to get around these requirements by ensuring that the person hiring the aircraft does so with a separate contract than the one he hires you with, and you'll be better off if you can also prove that you weren't paid, or at least you were an employee of the hirer's organisation (if you do this, you may have to show that the enabling Act only permits an Air Navigation Order to make different pilot licensing provisions according to whether the person concerned is actually employed or merely engaged in a flight crew capacity). You could also get base and line checked by a proper company and put it through their books, but don't forget you must use their Ops Manual and other documentation.
Finally, you could resort to drastic measures and form a company for a short time with nothing in its memorandum and articles of association about gainful use of aircraft or hiring them out by the hour. There is a Common Law rule that you cannot buy or hire from yourself, which is the basis upon which co-ownership groups and non-profit members clubs are run in every walk of life. However, the ANO says that any agreement between such organisations, or members of them (even within the same group), in respect of a situation where valuable consideration would normally be expected, would be considered as if it had been given anyway. This is notwithstanding any rule of law as to such transactions; in other words, the Common Law purports to be specifically overridden, yet it is not clear from the enabling Act that the ANO is permitted to do this, that is, put Common Law into abeyance.
An unincorporated non-profit members' club can be created for a specific purpose or occasion and exist for one flight or a day only, being dissolved once it has served its purpose. They should pay for their own operating costs to avoid the inference of valuable consideration. For instance, it should not be too difficult for some parachutists to form a club for the day to hire an aircraft.
Any good?
Phil
Thread Starter
err thanks a lot for that...i assume you must be a lawyer!! I think in amongst all the legal babble you said that airoplanes ( i fail to understand the distinction ) leased for a flight with seperate pilot could be seen to be private. In a nutshell as i said earlier, if 50% of all commercial UK flying is illegal why is nobody stopping it ? The answer can only be that it is NOT in fact illegal and cannot be taken to court. The insurance issue is seperate, the insurance company would have to prove the flight was illegal in order not to pay out...has anyone out there been prosecuted by the CAA for operating a proper lease agreement flying business?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,159
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Sorry about that - I was short of time and all I could do was a cut and paste. Thanks, heliport for cutting the cr*p!
The flight isn't PT, but there is an undertaking on an AOC to operate any aircraft on it under PT conditions, so you might fall of that one.
The operator, or the person who, for the time being, has the management of the aircraft, in this case, is the person who leases the aircraft and pays the pilot (make sure you can prove it!).
Is the pilot only going to be flying one passenger, i.e. the person leasing the machine? If not, are the others paying anything?
The reason why nobody is stopping anything is because you can drive a coach and horses through the whole lot of it. Under JAR OPS, you can take up to 6 passengers before, during and after an aerial work flight. Since the UK has not officially asked for any exemptions from JAR OPS, I hold that it all applies and could possibly supercede the ANO, so if you make sure you do any of the following:
agriculture, construction, photography, surveying, observation and patrol, search and rescue, aerial advertising, etc.
you ought to be OK.
It's the "etc" bit in the definition of aerial work that is interesting!
Phil
PS I'm not a lawyer, but I do have a law degree
The flight isn't PT, but there is an undertaking on an AOC to operate any aircraft on it under PT conditions, so you might fall of that one.
The operator, or the person who, for the time being, has the management of the aircraft, in this case, is the person who leases the aircraft and pays the pilot (make sure you can prove it!).
Is the pilot only going to be flying one passenger, i.e. the person leasing the machine? If not, are the others paying anything?
The reason why nobody is stopping anything is because you can drive a coach and horses through the whole lot of it. Under JAR OPS, you can take up to 6 passengers before, during and after an aerial work flight. Since the UK has not officially asked for any exemptions from JAR OPS, I hold that it all applies and could possibly supercede the ANO, so if you make sure you do any of the following:
agriculture, construction, photography, surveying, observation and patrol, search and rescue, aerial advertising, etc.
you ought to be OK.
It's the "etc" bit in the definition of aerial work that is interesting!
Phil
PS I'm not a lawyer, but I do have a law degree
Thread Starter
Therefore, at the risk of sounding pedantic, if a non AOC owner leases an a/c to a person who is not charging passengers or receiving any payment himself and that person contracts his own pilot....it is not PT...........in other words 95% of all commercial charters could be done this way.....that would increase the number of legal sites to operate from dramatically !! Seems abit unfair on the AOC boys tho, they need around 500 metres of unosstructed land to take of from in a single!! Whole system seems B****CKS to me....is there a CAA man out there??!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Serious danger of putting my foot in it here, because this is not my field, but if the passengers are paying for transit, then there must be an AOC involved taking responsibility for the flight. I know there are a lot of subtleties per pacos post but that's the gist of it isn't it ?
Re the case that nigelh posits, it's not public transport because no-one is paying for passage. But most people would not be happy to charter on that basis, nor would most charterers, and more importantly neither would their insurers.
Re the case that nigelh posits, it's not public transport because no-one is paying for passage. But most people would not be happy to charter on that basis, nor would most charterers, and more importantly neither would their insurers.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nigelh
I haven't heard about any court case but I did hear the CAA recently investigated a flight because of a report - allegedly by someone at Air Harrods.
It turned out someone had leased the helicopter to take his friends away for a shooting weekend and employed the pilot separately. As I understand the regs, it was therefore a private flight.
The CAA investigated the complaint but nothing came of it. The CAA Enforcement people tried to question the guy who leased the helicopter about it. From what I've heard, he told them he was happy with the helicopter, chose the pilot because he'd flown with him previously and had confidence in him, and was far too busy to waste time speaking to them.
puntosaurus
If the aircraft is maintained to public transport standards and the pilot is a commercial pilot, what do you see as the problem(s)?
I'm not expressing an opinion, just interested in your thoughts.
I haven't heard about any court case but I did hear the CAA recently investigated a flight because of a report - allegedly by someone at Air Harrods.
It turned out someone had leased the helicopter to take his friends away for a shooting weekend and employed the pilot separately. As I understand the regs, it was therefore a private flight.
The CAA investigated the complaint but nothing came of it. The CAA Enforcement people tried to question the guy who leased the helicopter about it. From what I've heard, he told them he was happy with the helicopter, chose the pilot because he'd flown with him previously and had confidence in him, and was far too busy to waste time speaking to them.
puntosaurus
If the aircraft is maintained to public transport standards and the pilot is a commercial pilot, what do you see as the problem(s)?
I'm not expressing an opinion, just interested in your thoughts.
Guest
Posts: n/a
No problem at all with the scenario you've quoted, especially if there was no complaint. The core issue is that people know what they're getting into, and who is responsible.
I guess the assumption is that there's a degree of detachment between a paying customer and the operator, and the authorities take the view that the paying public need to be protected by the AOC structures (quality management, ops manuals, SOPs etc). If it's non-paying I guess the attitude is that you make your own choices.
Edited
I had another thought on this one. When I've done charity flights in the past, the Letter of Authorisation from the CAA obliged me to tell the punter that this was a private flight conducted to different standards than public transport work. It seems to me that the flights you are talking about here out to have the same requirement, but since no authorisation is required, there is no opportunity to impose such an obligation.
Having said that, no one ever asked any follow up questions so I think the subtleties are lost on the general public.
I guess the assumption is that there's a degree of detachment between a paying customer and the operator, and the authorities take the view that the paying public need to be protected by the AOC structures (quality management, ops manuals, SOPs etc). If it's non-paying I guess the attitude is that you make your own choices.
Edited
I had another thought on this one. When I've done charity flights in the past, the Letter of Authorisation from the CAA obliged me to tell the punter that this was a private flight conducted to different standards than public transport work. It seems to me that the flights you are talking about here out to have the same requirement, but since no authorisation is required, there is no opportunity to impose such an obligation.
Having said that, no one ever asked any follow up questions so I think the subtleties are lost on the general public.
Last edited by puntosaurus; 25th Jul 2005 at 07:43.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,159
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Yes, as soon as a passenger (other than the hirer) starts paying money or other benefits for transit, an AOC should be in force.
This happened at the Silverstone before last at Battersea, and it was even more complicated with N reg 109s. It was supposed to be private, but a passenger let slip that thay had paid for their trip
Phil
This happened at the Silverstone before last at Battersea, and it was even more complicated with N reg 109s. It was supposed to be private, but a passenger let slip that thay had paid for their trip
Phil
Thread Starter
Thankyou for that! So we all agree that if there is one hirer and other pax are not paying in any form, the a/c is leased for the hours and pilot paid seperately, it IS a private flight. I believe it HAS to be G reg also. Still not heard from the CAA !!
From the obvious depth of knowledge of some on this thread, the general consensus appears to be that a flight is PRIVATE if a person leases a helicopter from Party A and selects his own pilot from say, Party B. PACO states this is provided that the person can prove that the helicopter was leased in.
My question to the house is therefore; In UK Law, what constitutes a lease agreement?
JJ
My question to the house is therefore; In UK Law, what constitutes a lease agreement?
JJ
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a room full of CAA legal bods looking at this area of the ANO. Trouble is, they are powerless to do anything until the JAR/EASA/Whatever body sorts itself out.
I would say that the pilot you hire must ask some pertinent questions about the flight(s). He is, in law, the Commander and responsible for everything that happens in flight.
So - he has an ass and a hard-earned license to protect.
We all know that there are a load of UK-based N machines doing dodgy stuff without an AOC, we all know that some of them are doing illegal aerial work - and we all know that there are a number of PPLs out there who are employed as butlers by wealthy owners.
As ever, all fine until the ship hits the fan.
I would say that the pilot you hire must ask some pertinent questions about the flight(s). He is, in law, the Commander and responsible for everything that happens in flight.
So - he has an ass and a hard-earned license to protect.
We all know that there are a load of UK-based N machines doing dodgy stuff without an AOC, we all know that some of them are doing illegal aerial work - and we all know that there are a number of PPLs out there who are employed as butlers by wealthy owners.
As ever, all fine until the ship hits the fan.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think the ownership/leasing issue is a red herring from the pilot's perspective. If he/she knows the passengers are paying then the pilot needs to see an AOC cert and know under whose SOPs/Ops Manual he/she is working.
I don't know if freelance pilots routinely do their work under a contract with their employer, but it would seem to be prudent to have something written (even an email) which says what the job is and some small print about it being the employers responsibility to inform the pilot if valuable consideration for transit is changing hands.
I don't know if freelance pilots routinely do their work under a contract with their employer, but it would seem to be prudent to have something written (even an email) which says what the job is and some small print about it being the employers responsibility to inform the pilot if valuable consideration for transit is changing hands.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: suffolk uk
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fascinating stuff.
Who can answer this one?
I do a lot of aerial camera work. Fitting the camera system renders the aircraft's C of A downgraded to aerial work category only yet the CAA and most AOC holders insist that the flight is conducted to full PT standards.
Can this be legally enforced?
Who can answer this one?
I do a lot of aerial camera work. Fitting the camera system renders the aircraft's C of A downgraded to aerial work category only yet the CAA and most AOC holders insist that the flight is conducted to full PT standards.
Can this be legally enforced?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Fitting the camera system renders the aircraft's C of A downgraded to aerial work category only"
Mmmmm - the ANO states that any aircraft involved in aerial work must be Certified for Public Transport. I've never heard of a "downgrade" to aerial work category.
Surely it's either PT or not ?
There is also a theory (based on ANO drafting) that an AOC holder cannot conduct Aerial Work.
Mmmmm - the ANO states that any aircraft involved in aerial work must be Certified for Public Transport. I've never heard of a "downgrade" to aerial work category.
Surely it's either PT or not ?
There is also a theory (based on ANO drafting) that an AOC holder cannot conduct Aerial Work.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: suffolk uk
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Headsethair,
That's what it says in the AAN for the equipment.
That means that you can only fly in accordance with Aerial Work rules e.g. operator must be "employed" by the Operator. For most companies this means you are breaking one law or another!
I agree with the earlier comments to the effect that there are few prosecutions because the Law is so unclear and virtually unenforceable.
That's what it says in the AAN for the equipment.
That means that you can only fly in accordance with Aerial Work rules e.g. operator must be "employed" by the Operator. For most companies this means you are breaking one law or another!
I agree with the earlier comments to the effect that there are few prosecutions because the Law is so unclear and virtually unenforceable.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncle Ian – (U.K only.) You will find in the Flight Manual Supplement the category in which the mount has been certified. For example the Wescam film system on the AS 355/350 is certified for Aerial Work. If you fit a Tyler Major mount to an AS 355 it is certified under Transport Category. (Passenger.) Therefore if the Tyler was fitted the aircraft remains in the Transport category. (No problem, nothing to do) If you have fitted the Wescam the aircraft has been downgraded to Aerial work. You then have to go a bit deeper into the A.N.O. and see that exemptions from Articles 8(1) and 9(2) are required. (How sad I am I for knowing this?) The wording in the exemption issued by the CAA (once you have asked for it) will bring the aircraft back up to Public Transport category with the mount fitted. This then covers you to operate with passengers, ie. Director, producer and all the others who want to get in the way of you carrying some extra fuel before the sun disappears behind the clouds.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: suffolk uk
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that Ed thrust.......I've obviously been breaking the law for many years.
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".
As the ANO only defines those on board an aircraft as passengers or crew (and goes on to define crew in a way that excludes some persons necessary for the completion of the task in hand) the regulators use the device of calling directors etc "passengers" to make reality fit their fantasies.
I have no difficulty in operating within the constraints of PT for all the camera work I do but I refuse to do so whenever possible simply because the law is, once again, an ass.
It seems as if JAR will do much to resolve the problems caused by the ANO but I wait with great interest to see.
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".
As the ANO only defines those on board an aircraft as passengers or crew (and goes on to define crew in a way that excludes some persons necessary for the completion of the task in hand) the regulators use the device of calling directors etc "passengers" to make reality fit their fantasies.
I have no difficulty in operating within the constraints of PT for all the camera work I do but I refuse to do so whenever possible simply because the law is, once again, an ass.
It seems as if JAR will do much to resolve the problems caused by the ANO but I wait with great interest to see.