AOC's and low level.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nottingham uk
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOC's and low level.
Just browsing through the topics on other threads and noticed the one about aerial work etc. Would this cover flying a small helicopter over a built up area twice a day and broadcasting traffic reports or would an AOC be required?
Also heard that Jet rangers and I believe a long ranger have been going back and forth all day up the Tyne in Newcastle low level, approx 800-1000'. Naughty!!
Speaking of which, has anyone checked out Eagle helicopters website and read all of the garbage thats written there? What a joke. I think someone was drunk when they wrote it.
Also heard that Jet rangers and I believe a long ranger have been going back and forth all day up the Tyne in Newcastle low level, approx 800-1000'. Naughty!!
Speaking of which, has anyone checked out Eagle helicopters website and read all of the garbage thats written there? What a joke. I think someone was drunk when they wrote it.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also heard that Jet rangers and I believe a long ranger have been going back and forth all day up the Tyne in Newcastle low level, approx 800-1000'. Naughty!!
News helicopters around here fly at nothing above 500, usually more like 300 feet! And there are 6 of them that fly every day.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Here, There and Everywhere!!
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God they really like slaging off other helicopter companies on their website!!!
Are they trying to scare the ****e out of customers with their repeated cancellation charges or what!!!
Muppets!!!
Are they trying to scare the ****e out of customers with their repeated cancellation charges or what!!!
Muppets!!!
Not enough $$$ ...
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing like telling it like it is. 
I actually think the content of the site, poor grammar and spelling and all, is refreshingly straightforward and plain. No weasel words, no mucking around, just straight to the point, here we are, no apologies, take it or leave it.
It could be toned down a little, but overall I like it.
However, there is a size limit, we can not handle passenger over 16 stones, there is just not enough room ! So please make sure the passenger is of normal size, we get the odd "elephant" and there's no way they will fit in with other passengers on board.
It could be toned down a little, but overall I like it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Back to the original question, as far as I can see an AOC is only required for public transport work (ANO Part II, Article 6), so as long as no-one is paying for passage no AOC is required. It is as you say, aerial work if payment (other than payment solely for the pilot) is made for the flight (ANO Part XI, Article 130(1)).
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,159
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Wrong! See the other thread (AOC or Private) where there is a long excruciating explanation.
if you carry someone for free who is not part of the organisation that "owns" the helicopter, the flight is PT. The question of payment does not come into it.
The ANO does not allow aerial work because it does not define "persons essential to the operation" clearly enough. if you are not crew, you are a passenger, so the rules apply.
However, JAR Ops is more specific. Again see the other thread about AOCs
Also check out Art 115 if the aircraft is foreign
Phil
if you carry someone for free who is not part of the organisation that "owns" the helicopter, the flight is PT. The question of payment does not come into it.
The ANO does not allow aerial work because it does not define "persons essential to the operation" clearly enough. if you are not crew, you are a passenger, so the rules apply.
However, JAR Ops is more specific. Again see the other thread about AOCs
Also check out Art 115 if the aircraft is foreign
Phil
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fair enough, happy to admit defeat. After some laborious research, I agree it does all come down to the definition of passenger being anyone who isn't crew.
The reporter is presumably not crew, and therefore is defined as a pax, and would not be carried unless payment was made (even though the payment is for the service not the carriage) - ergo Public Transport and AOC. Not sure the employee thing has anything to do with it though.
For those still wrestling with this can I offer the following from the CAA which certainly helped me cut through the impenetrable ANO. It's called Summary of the Meaning of Public Transport and Aerial Work.
As far as I can see the only way for coning angel's newshound to get round the AOC requirement is for the pilot to do the reports.
The reporter is presumably not crew, and therefore is defined as a pax, and would not be carried unless payment was made (even though the payment is for the service not the carriage) - ergo Public Transport and AOC. Not sure the employee thing has anything to do with it though.
For those still wrestling with this can I offer the following from the CAA which certainly helped me cut through the impenetrable ANO. It's called Summary of the Meaning of Public Transport and Aerial Work.
As far as I can see the only way for coning angel's newshound to get round the AOC requirement is for the pilot to do the reports.
Last edited by puntosaurus; 27th Jul 2005 at 16:39.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: wishing I were over there
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
possibly the operator could define 'crew' themselves seeing as it's so vague.
eg an airline can define crew or non-operating crew for a gen-dec.
so if its ariel work can't the radio guy be classified as 'non operating crew essential to the primary task' (news reporting). that way you've made an attempt to address the pronlme and the worst case is the CAA saying...nice try, don't do it again.
better still why not get a lawyer to make a written arguement to them for a derrogation for that particular operation..
FS
eg an airline can define crew or non-operating crew for a gen-dec.
so if its ariel work can't the radio guy be classified as 'non operating crew essential to the primary task' (news reporting). that way you've made an attempt to address the pronlme and the worst case is the CAA saying...nice try, don't do it again.
better still why not get a lawyer to make a written arguement to them for a derrogation for that particular operation..
FS
Guest
Posts: n/a
That's a good idea. ANO 129 defines crew as flight crew plus others, and flight crew as "those members of the crew of the a/c who respectively undertake to act as pilot, flight navigator, flight engineer, and flight r/t operator". Define your reporter as the navigator and you're in the clear.
I can't see if you need a special qualification to be a flight navigator so to be even more secure get your reporter a FRTOL license (should only take a week or so) and call him the r/t operator. Then he can patch his reports back via a VHF company frequency !
I can't see if you need a special qualification to be a flight navigator so to be even more secure get your reporter a FRTOL license (should only take a week or so) and call him the r/t operator. Then he can patch his reports back via a VHF company frequency !
Just checked out Eagle Helicopters website and I am utterly disgusted!
Someone perviously mentioned that they must have been drunk when they wrote that... it wouldn't be hard to believe!
A spotty faced teenager at the controls of a Robinson... of course how could I forget... Robinson's are simply a little helicopter to get you started! B@llocks! I was quite proud of the fact that I started flying commercially in my late teen's, I believe I have every right to smack the bugger who wrote that garbage!
One thing they should be succesful in... losing customers!
Appologies but I am venting some steam after my encounters with that website.
TiP
Someone perviously mentioned that they must have been drunk when they wrote that... it wouldn't be hard to believe!
A spotty faced teenager at the controls of a Robinson... of course how could I forget... Robinson's are simply a little helicopter to get you started! B@llocks! I was quite proud of the fact that I started flying commercially in my late teen's, I believe I have every right to smack the bugger who wrote that garbage!
One thing they should be succesful in... losing customers!
Appologies but I am venting some steam after my encounters with that website.
TiP
