PPLs playing CPLs

[thecontroller]

mmm.. interesting.

one the one hand, i cant see anything wrong with someone who owns a helicopter, asking a friend who has a PPL to fly him/his friends somewhere

but, if he's getting paid for it, then its against the law

consider this scenario:

a guy asks his CPL-holding friend to fly his own heli to ascot with some people in the back for a fee. is this legal? or does it need to be done under an AOC?

[helicopter-redeye]

Who is paying, or being paid, the fee?

The CPL flying a private aircraft being paid by the owner to do so or the people in the back paying a fee to the owner for the flight?

Or both?

[thecontroller]

the people in the back are paying the owner. and the owner is paying the pilot.

[perfrej]

A word from the other side of the fence..

Interesting discussion...

As a PPL(H) I would gladly ferry helicopters for free - no doubt about that. When I do I usually pay the air-fares to get to wherever the machine is and then back home. We all want hours, and I have four types to keep alive pending a CPL(H) to come at my 50th birthday (hope, hope).

I have never heard of an owner who asks a PPL-guy to "take some of his friends for a ride". What I have heard of is questionable "cost-sharing" ventures.

According to the regs it is OK to share costs, and I guess that a totally biased sharing situation would not hold up in court - like $1000 for you, $1000 for him and $1 for me. If four guys (or gals, for that matter) want to go skiing and use a helicopter for it, one of them holding a PPL(H), what's wrong with that? The important factor is that the PPL(H)-person should never ever try to give the impression that he is anything more than a private pilot who can't WORK as a pilot.

The good old "company pilot" rules say that if your main task is NOT flying the company jet, or helicopter, you can do it within the framwork of your employment. With just a PPL.

The really bad side of all this are - in my humble opinion - things like:

- A PPL posing as CPL

- Owners of charter companies (with PPL) who jumps in a takes an important flight when no employed pilot is available (has happened in Sweden)

- Taking on paying passengers without a valid AOC - PPL or CPL alike.

I don't beleive this is a major problem in my country. There are cases, sure, and I know of quite a few. But rest assured, the incident mentioned above and the press surrounding it has made the general public much more aware of factors such as AOC, CPL and rules&regs. The Swedish civil aviation authorites has info about this on their web-site (first page) with easily accessable lists of all valid AOC's.

I do get the impression that it is worse in the UK, though. How bad is it? Examples? Accidents?

All the best,

Happy CPL(H) in Sweden

[kissmysquirrel]

Believe this would require an AOC

[Whirlybird]

I just don't see how free flying constitutes hire or reward.

Look at it another way. I, as a car owner, ask a friend to use my car to take my friends to the races, since I can't go. The friend kindly agrees to do so. He spends all day doing it, for no pay. I and everyone else would consider him a really good friend. Nobody would say isn't it great that he's getting all this free driving....even if the car happened to be a Ferrari!

But if I, as a helicopter owner, ask my friend to fly my friends to the races, and he agrees to do so, everyone complains about him getting free flying. But how do you know he wants free flying? How do you know he isn't just being a good friend? What makes you assume everyone wants to waste a whole day, just to get airborne.

Sorry, but in my book "hire or reward" means just that, ie money or similar. I'm not a lawyer, but I really don't see how free flying can be called hire or reward. Logically it makes no sense. Just because we CPls don't like it doesn't mean it's illegal.

Flying Lawyer, where are you when we need you?

[Lunar]

Folks,

It's quite simple and a lot of you have already made the point. The PPL cannot fly for hire or reward, it is that simple. If he/she is getting paid, it's illegal, if they are not paying a pro-rata share of the cost of the flight, then it is illegal.

I spent a lot of time, money and gained some grey hair getting to where I am, and I would love to work in a country that had an authority that would do something about the problem.

Sadly, we all seem to work in countries where the authority responsable doesn't want to get involved, those who obey the rules, pay thousands (tens of thousands) and get inspected all the time and those who opt out get to do as they please.

It does make one wonder why we bothered to do it right?

Regards to all,

Lunar

[chester2005]

Payment in kind.

It was explained to me as , any PPL flying must be either , a cost sharing flight or self funded.

Anyone who is not paying for their flying is receiving " payment/benefit in kind"

IMHO this is against the law.

Chester

[helicopter-redeye]

Originally Posted by thecontroller

the people in the back are paying the owner. and the owner is paying the pilot.

Owner paying pilot (CPL) to fly aircraft - this is OK, right? Thats why you have a CPL license. To fly for payment [consideration] (payment does not have to be a monetary reward, but this gets into grey light, so lets leave that for Tudor)

Owner paying pilot (PPL) - ding! Illegal. Payment being made to non commercial pilot to fly aircraft. Period. Paragraph. Cue CAA action (rare).

People pay owner - ding! Thanks for playing, this needs an AOC as an aircraft is moving people who pay for the priviledge of being moved (it is a public transport flight - they paid and it is not a PPL cost sharing on a flight that was going to take place anyway and John & Peter said 'can we come and pay our share of the fuel costs'. The flight is moving PEOPLE WHO PAY for the priviledge without the approriate licence (AOC). It is an air taxi operation. Thus an offence is committed. Insurance may be invalidated. Prosecution ensues. This should be where the CAA should be putting their regulatory attentions rather chasing pilots who make occasional & accidental errors.

I think this sums it up?

h-r

[thecontroller]

i guess it depends on what you mean by "reward"

its its free AS350 time. then its reward

if its free R22 time, then its just like getting socks for christmas!

[helicopter-redeye]

I guess that's where it needs a proper legal opinion backup up by precedent & a hard look at the ANO & JAR Ops etc. There is then the issue of proof and evidence.

PPL's doing ferry flights for a flying school? ?? Is the 'free flying' payment in kind? Discuss.

The real issue (IMHO) is PPLs (and some CPLs, and FIs) doing public transport work outside of the AOC. This is just anarchy.

[EESDL]

No grey area...........

Whirly....suggest you look up the regs.....quite straight-forward I'm glad to say when it comes to classifications of private/commercial flight.
Read them in detail as getting miffed with seeing the CAA turning a blind eye to obvious violations - even when numerous experienced pilots report transgressions directly to CAA (N-reg Bell 'crashing' at York/Ascot and dropping off fare-paying pax)
In the same cat as pilot, commercial or private, hiring a helicopter to fly passengers at a reduced rate - not using anyone's aoc etc
Completely illegal, no grey area, absolutely black and white.
Trouble with such an operation is that you don't know who your passengers are talking too whilst waiting for you to turn up - they were actually bragging about the 'deal' they got and how some of their colleagues paid a similiar price to go by train!
The people I feel sorry for are the normal operators of the machine who get tarnished by this pilot's actions - even though it had nothing to do with them.

[Phugoid Phlue]

I thought the basics were that a PPL(UK) could share the cost of any flight with the passengers as long as the PPL payed an equal portion ie 4 seats (inc pilot) the PPL pays one quarter of the cost. It would be ok for the passengers to buy the PPL a beer or a coffee at the end of the day but anything much more would constitute gain eg buying the PPL a plasma TV or giving them cash.

I dont think you can fly twin without CPL so that rules out and grey areas with 109's or 355's!

Question is what happens when a PPL gets the chance to pos the A/C for maintenance at zero cost to them. Does that count? can they take someone with them and drop them off en route or at destination?

[airborne_artist]

I dont think you can fly twin without CPL

Are you sure?

[helicopter-redeye]

No, he's not sure. But he is wrong ....

The more worrying thing is how many people have so little idea of wright and rong [sic]. Is it this bad on our roads or has the Road Traffic Act sunk in yet?

h-r


But I guess was a 'safe' wrong rather than a 'unsafe/ dangerous/ illegal' wrong.

[airborne_artist]

The problem is that there are bound to be some people who think that Phugoid Phlue and his ilk are speaking the gospel truth. It's OK on PPrune because he'll get corrected, but elsewhere?



________

But it so depends on the stress in the sentence - say PP's "I don't..." and it can sound really quite certain, or totally unsure - whereas he could have just posed the Q "can you...?"

[Phugoid Phlue]

Hence the reason for the ? and the "think"

what is the gospel?. Seriously this affect us all.

Good thread and a good question.

PP

PS what is my "Ilk"??

[Impress to inflate]

Out of date, are you seriously saying I've ruined the thick end of £50,000 on a cpl(h) , put so much into gaining my ATPL(H) and all that effort when I could be flying professionaly for so some of the worlds biggest company's when a PPL would have done. What a feckwit I am ehh I shall be writing to OAT and Cabair and informing them to scrap there commercial courses because who needs a cpl anymore, and I will have a chat with the local CAA inspector and tell him he's wasting his time and my time on keeping professional standards has high as passable.

[Lunar]

Have these guys never heard of LASORS? It's online and it's free, so no excuse.

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...detail&id=1591

Lunar.

[VeeAny]

Whirly (and others with doubts)
I presume you are not aware fo the following document, which is in places about as clear as mud, but does kind of remove the doubt over free flying (IMHO) in that it is 'provision of goods or services' in reward for flying.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summar..._transport.pdf
(strange though that on my machine at least the last page is page 8 of 7).

I seem to remember PACO pointing to this or something similar a while ago, and there is a thread somewhere about the Public / Aerial work / Private Issue.
The best one I ever saw, was a likeable enough chap , who would take pax in his 206 wearing bars out of airfields and off to hotels for dinner. For no reward of course 'My Arse'. He was not subtle at all.

Pityful thing is that the CAA have an attitude towards CPLs (and PPLs) of 'if you do land there and it needed a permission from us and you don't have one we'll prosecute you, but we won't tell you if you need a permission until you've applied and paid for it'. And then when they're told about obvious wrong doings they seem to do nothing about it.

Although some things obviously do get done, herewith a list of recent CAA prosecutions, interesting that only 2 were illegal public transport. http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/503/Prosecutions.pdf
I am not advocating prosecuting everyone who makes a mistake, but persistent offenders, should have something done about them.



I think that FL is the man to clean up the grey areas, if he gets chance.
V.