Fined for carrying fare paying pax in an N reg
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fined for carrying fare paying pax in an N reg
In view of recent threads discussed in this forum this might be of interest, the case was heard earlier this week.
A UK helicopter pilot has just been prosecuted under Article 113 of the ANO for operating helicopter flights in an N-registered helicopter carrying paying passengers. He pleaded not guilty with the defence that as a “freelance pilot” and the holder of a UK Airline Transport Pilot’s Licence he was entitled to earn remuneration/charge valuable consideration for public transport flights in an N-registered aircraft. The Magistrates didn’t agree and convicted him on all 4 counts. He was fined £950 for each of 4 offences and ordered to pay £1,000 towards the prosecution costs.
A UK helicopter pilot has just been prosecuted under Article 113 of the ANO for operating helicopter flights in an N-registered helicopter carrying paying passengers. He pleaded not guilty with the defence that as a “freelance pilot” and the holder of a UK Airline Transport Pilot’s Licence he was entitled to earn remuneration/charge valuable consideration for public transport flights in an N-registered aircraft. The Magistrates didn’t agree and convicted him on all 4 counts. He was fined £950 for each of 4 offences and ordered to pay £1,000 towards the prosecution costs.
A license conversion course in the USA would have been cheaper than that.
If he held an FAA Commercial or ATP....has right to live/work in the UK...and it is an N-registered aircraft...would he have been clean then? Or...would the aircraft have to be on an FAA 135 Certificate as well?
Sounds to me like one who wishes to do public transport flying in the UK will be doing it under UK CAA rules....not US rules. Privately owned aircraft....haulling owner/guests only is another kettle of fish then my first scenario would be legal would it not? The 135 Certificate is for air taxi (public transport) flying....not private flying.
If he held an FAA Commercial or ATP....has right to live/work in the UK...and it is an N-registered aircraft...would he have been clean then? Or...would the aircraft have to be on an FAA 135 Certificate as well?
Sounds to me like one who wishes to do public transport flying in the UK will be doing it under UK CAA rules....not US rules. Privately owned aircraft....haulling owner/guests only is another kettle of fish then my first scenario would be legal would it not? The 135 Certificate is for air taxi (public transport) flying....not private flying.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fined for carrying fare paying pax in an N reg
Even if he did have all the above in the first case then he would still not have been legal without obtaining permission from the Dept for Transport, even if a part 135 existed as non EU operators cannot generally operate A-B flights within Europe.
Even hauling owner and guests is iffy if payment is made to him as he is then operating for Aerial work and would need DfT permission again.
If it is to or from anywhere other than a licensed aerodrome or heliport, a non-UK AOC holder from the EU cannot operate without their Permission either.
Even hauling owner and guests is iffy if payment is made to him as he is then operating for Aerial work and would need DfT permission again.
If it is to or from anywhere other than a licensed aerodrome or heliport, a non-UK AOC holder from the EU cannot operate without their Permission either.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"why are there N-reg aircraft operating in other countries?"
Well - how far back in history do you want to go ? In modern times it's because some people in the UK believe it to be a cheaper way of operating than using "G" or any other European registration.
However, FAA don't like it because they can't stretch their fingers to regulate and inspect. And local regulatory bodies don't like it because........sorry, I've bored myself again......zzzzzzzz....old subject......
Well - how far back in history do you want to go ? In modern times it's because some people in the UK believe it to be a cheaper way of operating than using "G" or any other European registration.
However, FAA don't like it because they can't stretch their fingers to regulate and inspect. And local regulatory bodies don't like it because........sorry, I've bored myself again......zzzzzzzz....old subject......
Good news. The sooner 'N' reg are denied access to the internal commercial market the better. There is barely enough for the locals.
Why can't they toe the line like normal domestic operators, instead of doing it the sly way?
Old Heliman: Thought you'd retired
Why can't they toe the line like normal domestic operators, instead of doing it the sly way?
Old Heliman: Thought you'd retired
TC,
With the way aviation is going in the UK....there will be less and less in the future. One or two more rules and user fees and the whole system will grind to a screeching halt ...then where will you be?
We could begin to list all the ills of the archaic system you suffer under but that has been done so many times it becomes boring to even begin.
Instead of turning one's nose into the air....one might consider putting one's own house in order.
With the way aviation is going in the UK....there will be less and less in the future. One or two more rules and user fees and the whole system will grind to a screeching halt ...then where will you be?
We could begin to list all the ills of the archaic system you suffer under but that has been done so many times it becomes boring to even begin.
Instead of turning one's nose into the air....one might consider putting one's own house in order.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Harwich
Age: 65
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This sounds a bit like the kind of thing GAMTA were/are keen to prevent - they're fixed wing but similar principle applies. Bizjet comes over from the US with pax, flies said pax round Europe on a days-long jolly, no problem. Same bizjet flies over from the US with same pax, drops them off and then starts picking up other fare-paying pax and flying them round Europe - problem. (Is it called 'cabotage'?)
Atleast the jets could argue that they've atleast been to the States!!!!!!
Let's not dilute the point by discussing 'cabotage' - these 'N' plate choppers have not seen the West side of the Atlantic since they were built - and most of them weren't even built in the US of A!!!!!
Anyone aware of insurance implications for 'fare-paying' passengers on N-plates operating over here - and what about if the bu77er bumps into my G-plated AOC machine????
Let's not dilute the point by discussing 'cabotage' - these 'N' plate choppers have not seen the West side of the Atlantic since they were built - and most of them weren't even built in the US of A!!!!!
Anyone aware of insurance implications for 'fare-paying' passengers on N-plates operating over here - and what about if the bu77er bumps into my G-plated AOC machine????
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only remarkable thing about Old Heliman`s original post is that the CAA actually had the strength of mind and resolve to proceed with the prosecution. Illegal public transport is a subject against which every AOC operator in the UK is very keen to see the CAA act with much greater vigour and determination. Hitherto, the Authority appears to have been dragging its heels presumably for fear of embarrassing failure in court. At one stage the impression was given by spokesmen for the Authority that unless the offence was committed with CAA personnel actually on board they were powerless to act!
Illegal public transport has wide ranging implications in terms of validity of insurance cover for passengers, property owners along the route not to mention the pilot himself and his dependants. The prospect of posthumous law suits should cause every `freelance` pilot to consider his actions very carefully.
The CAA should be wholeheartedly encouraged to focus their admittedly overstretched resources on the pursuit and prosecution of the perpetrators such as the joker refrred to by Old Heliman.
Illegal public transport has wide ranging implications in terms of validity of insurance cover for passengers, property owners along the route not to mention the pilot himself and his dependants. The prospect of posthumous law suits should cause every `freelance` pilot to consider his actions very carefully.
The CAA should be wholeheartedly encouraged to focus their admittedly overstretched resources on the pursuit and prosecution of the perpetrators such as the joker refrred to by Old Heliman.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flimflam
Unlikely if the Battersea incident was 2 years ago.
Snarlie
Why is that remarkable?
The CAA had the "strength of mind and resolve" as you call it to prosecute Dennis Kenyon for giving famil flights to the new owner of an N reg without DfT permission. The CAA always go for easy targets and trivial offences. Pprune is littered with examples.
Hear, hear. 
It's always been a mystery to me why they don't do something about the examples we and they know about.
?
Was he joker?
Was it a 'bad' case or something petty?
Old Heliman knows but he's not telling us.
Could that be because it was something minor rather than the CAA doing something about the illegal public transport operators we all know about and would like to see stopped?
I don't know - just curious.
H.
Unlikely if the Battersea incident was 2 years ago.
Snarlie
The only remarkable thing about Old Heliman`s original post is that the CAA actually had the strength of mind and resolve to proceed with the prosecution.
The CAA had the "strength of mind and resolve" as you call it to prosecute Dennis Kenyon for giving famil flights to the new owner of an N reg without DfT permission. The CAA always go for easy targets and trivial offences. Pprune is littered with examples.
Illegal public transport is a subject against which every AOC operator in the UK is very keen to see the CAA act with much greater vigour and determination.
It's always been a mystery to me why they don't do something about the examples we and they know about.
'perpetrators such as the joker refrred to by Old Heliman'
Was he joker?
Was it a 'bad' case or something petty?
Old Heliman knows but he's not telling us.
Could that be because it was something minor rather than the CAA doing something about the illegal public transport operators we all know about and would like to see stopped?
I don't know - just curious.
H.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reply to TC....Soon TC and counting
In reply to flimflam, no it wasn't the Battersea thing a couple of years ago, much more recent.
In reply to heliport
Was he joker?
Was it a 'bad' case or something petty?
Old Heliman knows but he's not telling us.
Could that be because it was something minor rather than the CAA doing something about the illegal public transport operators we all know about and would like to see stopped?
I don't know - just curious
1. Can't comment on his sense of humour
2. It was several flights that were public transport and the pax would have had no valid insurance nor the normal safety 'guarantees' that come with flying with an AOC operator. So no it wasn't petty.
3. Believe it or not the CAA does try to do what it can about illegal PT flights whether they are G-reg or other reg. The problem is the legislation is such that unless (a) you actually catch someone at it and then (b) the pax are willing to help by confirming they paid for a flight, it is nigh on impossible to get a conviction. The Flight Ops guys in Belgrano have always tried to get someone to do a ramp check in the past if the info is good enough but rarely does it get that good.
In reply to flimflam, no it wasn't the Battersea thing a couple of years ago, much more recent.
In reply to heliport
Was he joker?
Was it a 'bad' case or something petty?
Old Heliman knows but he's not telling us.
Could that be because it was something minor rather than the CAA doing something about the illegal public transport operators we all know about and would like to see stopped?
I don't know - just curious
1. Can't comment on his sense of humour
2. It was several flights that were public transport and the pax would have had no valid insurance nor the normal safety 'guarantees' that come with flying with an AOC operator. So no it wasn't petty.
3. Believe it or not the CAA does try to do what it can about illegal PT flights whether they are G-reg or other reg. The problem is the legislation is such that unless (a) you actually catch someone at it and then (b) the pax are willing to help by confirming they paid for a flight, it is nigh on impossible to get a conviction. The Flight Ops guys in Belgrano have always tried to get someone to do a ramp check in the past if the info is good enough but rarely does it get that good.
The Veloceraptor of Lounge Lizards
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From here the view is lovely
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last!!
The financial penalty in this case was rairly hefty. Hopefully some of the smart a
es who have abused the system for so many years will take note and stop taking the P . For those of us who go by the AOC rules the use of N reg helicopters in the manner in which this one was used has been a source of great anger, most of it directed at CAA flight ops.
Unfortunately I bet the aircraft owner will pay the fine. It would be very unlikely that the owner would not know what his aircraft was being used for.
Well done CAA. For once a bouquet from one of your biggest critics.
The financial penalty in this case was rairly hefty. Hopefully some of the smart a
es who have abused the system for so many years will take note and stop taking the P . For those of us who go by the AOC rules the use of N reg helicopters in the manner in which this one was used has been a source of great anger, most of it directed at CAA flight ops.Unfortunately I bet the aircraft owner will pay the fine. It would be very unlikely that the owner would not know what his aircraft was being used for.
Well done CAA. For once a bouquet from one of your biggest critics.
Is it fiddle music I hear?
I smell smoke....cannot see any flames yet!
I smell smoke....cannot see any flames yet!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with 'Snarlie' - you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Finally the CAA appears to have dealt with this very serious issue appropriately. Unfortunately, the CAA seem to spend the majority of their time, constantly trying to trip up legitimate AOC companies with various issues of none conformity. Most of which, generally amount to producing a piece of paper that covers the CAA’s proverbial, in the event of anything going wrong. We all operate in a highly competitive market and I’m glad that they have targeted the illegal P/T that we all know goes on!
I sympathise with the freelance pilot, to an extent. It may be that he was unaware of the passengers’ position and was told to operate the trip on behalf of the aircraft owner. Perhaps he is employed on a freelance basis and operates trips on behalf of the owner on a frequent basis and was unlucky to be prosecuted?
That said, I’m glad it’s happened and if it prevents other owners operating P/T flights in their machines in the future – so be it!!
Finally the CAA appears to have dealt with this very serious issue appropriately. Unfortunately, the CAA seem to spend the majority of their time, constantly trying to trip up legitimate AOC companies with various issues of none conformity. Most of which, generally amount to producing a piece of paper that covers the CAA’s proverbial, in the event of anything going wrong. We all operate in a highly competitive market and I’m glad that they have targeted the illegal P/T that we all know goes on!
I sympathise with the freelance pilot, to an extent. It may be that he was unaware of the passengers’ position and was told to operate the trip on behalf of the aircraft owner. Perhaps he is employed on a freelance basis and operates trips on behalf of the owner on a frequent basis and was unlucky to be prosecuted?
That said, I’m glad it’s happened and if it prevents other owners operating P/T flights in their machines in the future – so be it!!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EEDSL
So you ask the owner if the associates he asks you to fly have paid him anything towards the cost of the flight?
Do you specify all forms of valuable consideration as well as cash?
So you ask the owner if the associates he asks you to fly have paid him anything towards the cost of the flight?
Do you specify all forms of valuable consideration as well as cash?
Lets see....
I am flying a guy's helicopter...he takes all sorts of strangers with him...or he sends me and the helicopter out to fetch some folks from one place and take them to another.
I am now supposed to look at the passengers and say..."Hey Coke Bottle, you paying for this trip....or are you getting squired around in hopes you will spend some money with my boss?"
If the Boss Fellah says "Fetch"....all I want to know is who, what, when, where, and how.....the "Why" is the Boss Fellah's business not mine.
I am flying a guy's helicopter...he takes all sorts of strangers with him...or he sends me and the helicopter out to fetch some folks from one place and take them to another.
I am now supposed to look at the passengers and say..."Hey Coke Bottle, you paying for this trip....or are you getting squired around in hopes you will spend some money with my boss?"
If the Boss Fellah says "Fetch"....all I want to know is who, what, when, where, and how.....the "Why" is the Boss Fellah's business not mine.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let us assume that a company operates it's own fleet of aircraft - including helis. There is no AOC involved - all the flights are deemed private because they are either flying staff, customers or suppliers around.
It's when you look at the AOC definition of "valuable consideration" that you start to question whether these flights conform with the law.
If a potential supplier is flown apparently FOC, and then that supplier gives a large discount to the company - could this not be construed as "valuable consideration."
In the CAA Summary of The Meaning of Public Transport - which has just been updated and I give the link below - much is made of "valuable consideration" :
".......This term has a very wide meaning, including the provision of goods and services. "
So, to come back to "N" flights and "fare-paying passengers", surely we should be talking about valuable consideration ? It's still not within the law and the CAA were right to prosecute - but doesn't it question the Ops of our mythical large manufacturer ?
CAA http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summar..._transport.pdf
Post edited to remove material which could identify the company you suggest might be carrying out illegal PT flights.
You were very quick to complain recently when people said the helicopter operated by your company infringed the Regs on occasions - even though they didn't give the registration or name your company.
Heliport
It's when you look at the AOC definition of "valuable consideration" that you start to question whether these flights conform with the law.
If a potential supplier is flown apparently FOC, and then that supplier gives a large discount to the company - could this not be construed as "valuable consideration."
In the CAA Summary of The Meaning of Public Transport - which has just been updated and I give the link below - much is made of "valuable consideration" :
".......This term has a very wide meaning, including the provision of goods and services. "
So, to come back to "N" flights and "fare-paying passengers", surely we should be talking about valuable consideration ? It's still not within the law and the CAA were right to prosecute - but doesn't it question the Ops of our mythical large manufacturer ?
CAA http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summar..._transport.pdf
Post edited to remove material which could identify the company you suggest might be carrying out illegal PT flights.
You were very quick to complain recently when people said the helicopter operated by your company infringed the Regs on occasions - even though they didn't give the registration or name your company.
Heliport
Last edited by Heliport; 7th Feb 2006 at 12:30.