PPLs playing CPLs
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, since Heliport has laid down the challenge, I can confirm that there are precisely no references to the phrase hire and/or reward in the ANO.
There is one reference to 'reward' and five to 'hire' in the ANO all unrelated to the question in point. Two of the references to 'hire' are in the word 'GloucestersHIRE'.
What it does say on the subject of PPL remuneration is as follows:
If this is correct then PPLs of all colours are banned from aerial work and public transport. If you've stuck with me this far then, you'll probably go 'well I knew that anyway', but remember I had to prove it using the actual words of the legislation.
The rules on public transport and aerial work have been debated in these columns many times, and I don't intend to rehash them. VeeAny has posted the CAAs summary of the rules, which is as helpful as they get. The essence of the rule though is 'valuable consideration' changing hands in respect of the flight. Valuable consideration is defined in the act as follows.
There is one reference to 'reward' and five to 'hire' in the ANO all unrelated to the question in point. Two of the references to 'hire' are in the word 'GloucestersHIRE'.
What it does say on the subject of PPL remuneration is as follows:
UK PPLH
(2) He shall not:
(a) fly such a helicopter for the purpose of public transport or aerial work other than aerial work which consists of:
JAA PPL(H)
(1) Subject to any conditions specified in respect of the licence, the privileges of the holder of a Private Pilot Licence (Helicopter) are to act, but not for remuneration, as pilot in command or co-pilot of any helicopter included in a type rating in Part XII of the licence engaged in non-revenue flights.
Now so far the situation looks clearer for the UK PPL than the JAA one. The UK PPL is banned from aerial work and public transport (save for the flying instructor exception). Now although aerial work and public transport is a can of worms, it is at least defined. The JAR PPL is only banned from flying for remuneration which is nowhere defined in the ANO. However, the term 'non-revenue flight' IS defined as follows(i) the giving of instruction in flying if his licence includes a flying instructor’s rating, flight instructor rating or an assistant flying instructor’s rating; or
(ii) the conducting of flying tests for the purposes of this Order;
in either case in a helicopter owned, or operated under arrangements entered
into, by a flying club of which the person giving the instruction or conducting the test and the person receiving the instruction or undergoing the test are both members;
(b) receive any remuneration for his services as a pilot on a flight other than remuneration for the giving of such instruction or the conducting of such flying tests as are specified in sub-paragraph (a).JAA PPL(H)
(1) Subject to any conditions specified in respect of the licence, the privileges of the holder of a Private Pilot Licence (Helicopter) are to act, but not for remuneration, as pilot in command or co-pilot of any helicopter included in a type rating in Part XII of the licence engaged in non-revenue flights.
‘Non-revenue flight’ means:
(b) in the case of a flight by a helicopter, any flight which the holder of a United Kingdom Private Pilot’s Licence (Helicopters) may undertake under paragraph (2)(a) and (b) of the privileges of that licence set out in Section 1 of Part A of Schedule 8 (ie not public transport or aerial work)
Excuse me ? We're trying to work out the meaning of a non-revenue flight in the context of a JAR PPL, and the definition refers to the UK PPL. Surely that can't be right ? A closer reading that makes more sense implies that it's the definition of the flight that's being imported (ie no public transport or aerial work) and that the reference to the UK license is just a bookmark for where the text can be found.If this is correct then PPLs of all colours are banned from aerial work and public transport. If you've stuck with me this far then, you'll probably go 'well I knew that anyway', but remember I had to prove it using the actual words of the legislation.
The rules on public transport and aerial work have been debated in these columns many times, and I don't intend to rehash them. VeeAny has posted the CAAs summary of the rules, which is as helpful as they get. The essence of the rule though is 'valuable consideration' changing hands in respect of the flight. Valuable consideration is defined in the act as follows.
‘Valuable consideration’ means any right, interest, profit or benefit, forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility accruing, given, suffered or undertaken under an agreement, which is of more than a nominal nature;
Now I don't know about you, but that looks pretty clear - free flying hours are without question a benefit. Worse still I could argue that the definition does indeed involve an assessment of the motivation of the pilot. If she's doing it for pleasure alone then the benefits I would argue are nominal. However if he's doing it to build hours then the benefit is far from nominal, it's what he would otherwise have paid for the flight.
Last edited by puntosaurus; 27th Nov 2006 at 09:56.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here's one for you....
I arrive one day at a summer fete in the UK. An R44 is doing "trips" 3 pax at a time, 20 minute circuits. The landing area is tight and shrouded by trees. There are hundreds of children and adult spectators and to fly to the landing site requires overflying a fairground (again fully populated with funseekers)
On his break I ask the pilot what his qualifications are. "I'm a PPL(H) and the wife is the one in the high vis doing the loading/offloading. Its my helicopter. Everything is donated to charity, I pay for everything to do with the flying and the charity gets all the money for the flight"
Where does this stand legally? I take it the fact he makes a loss on the day (if he does) means that he is within the law? He wore 3 gold bands on his shirt - so not many would question his experience or ability. However in the case of airmanship, this pilot clearly isn't as experienced as a CPL and if he got into difficulties there could be many lives at risk?
I arrive one day at a summer fete in the UK. An R44 is doing "trips" 3 pax at a time, 20 minute circuits. The landing area is tight and shrouded by trees. There are hundreds of children and adult spectators and to fly to the landing site requires overflying a fairground (again fully populated with funseekers)
On his break I ask the pilot what his qualifications are. "I'm a PPL(H) and the wife is the one in the high vis doing the loading/offloading. Its my helicopter. Everything is donated to charity, I pay for everything to do with the flying and the charity gets all the money for the flight"
Where does this stand legally? I take it the fact he makes a loss on the day (if he does) means that he is within the law? He wore 3 gold bands on his shirt - so not many would question his experience or ability. However in the case of airmanship, this pilot clearly isn't as experienced as a CPL and if he got into difficulties there could be many lives at risk?
Last edited by puntosaurus; 27th Nov 2006 at 08:28.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of damp and drizzle
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to muddy the waters a little more...
Something I've wondered about in the past, is as follows:
I, as a PPL, hire a helicopter to fly myself to a business engagement. For simplicity, let's say it's just me in the craft. I'm hiring from a 3rd party, completely unrelated to my employer or myself (beyond being someone I self-fly hire helicopters from). I fly myself to the meeting and back again, paying the hire company £X for the flight time. I then go back to my employer and claim the £X I've paid as travel expenses (assume I have a massively generous employer).
Is this a violation of my license? You could argue that my employer is paying for my flying time, so under the 'valuable consideration' test, I'm getting some valuable free hours. On the other hand, I'm taking responsibility for paying for the flight time; there is a reasonable expection that I'll be reimbursed further down the line, but presumably no guarantee. Also, my employer isn't paying me specifically to fly; they're simply reimbursing me what I spent getting from A to B.
Obviously this is completely theoretical, as I can't see any employer agreeing to pay for basically the most expensive means of transport when there are definately going to be (much) cheaper options. I'm just interested as to how the situation would fit into the private / commercial structure.
I, as a PPL, hire a helicopter to fly myself to a business engagement. For simplicity, let's say it's just me in the craft. I'm hiring from a 3rd party, completely unrelated to my employer or myself (beyond being someone I self-fly hire helicopters from). I fly myself to the meeting and back again, paying the hire company £X for the flight time. I then go back to my employer and claim the £X I've paid as travel expenses (assume I have a massively generous employer).
Is this a violation of my license? You could argue that my employer is paying for my flying time, so under the 'valuable consideration' test, I'm getting some valuable free hours. On the other hand, I'm taking responsibility for paying for the flight time; there is a reasonable expection that I'll be reimbursed further down the line, but presumably no guarantee. Also, my employer isn't paying me specifically to fly; they're simply reimbursing me what I spent getting from A to B.
Obviously this is completely theoretical, as I can't see any employer agreeing to pay for basically the most expensive means of transport when there are definately going to be (much) cheaper options. I'm just interested as to how the situation would fit into the private / commercial structure.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is one of the exemptions explained in the CAA's Summary of the meaning of Public Transport document. In essence subject to few caveats, you're OK.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is "Valuable Consideration"?
PPLs posing as CPLs is obviously illegal. Does it happen much? I doubt it, considering how hard it is for real low hours CPLs to get charter work. I wonder if the people who assure low hours CPLs on here that their qualification is worthless, are the same people complaining about huge amounts of charter work being done by PPLs! Get real folks. It just can't be happening that often. Occasional anecdotal evidence does not equal widespread abuse of the system.
Hire and reward - as Heliport says, never mentioned in LASORS, or the document VeeAny drew my attention to. "Valuable Consideration" is the phrase used. Is that clear and precise? Yeah, as mud! No wonder everyone puts their own interpretation on it. But having opinions doesn't mean they're right, especially in law.
Perhaps we should distinguish between two types of free flying here...
1) My helicopter needs to go for maintenance, or my aunt needs to get to her sick friend in Scotland; please can you fly the helicopter for me.
2) If you fly the helicopter, I'll give you some more free flying in exchange.
For the first of these, the PPL is simply helping out. The fact that he may or may not enjoy helping out is irrelevant. And nowhere, but nowhere, in the regulations does it say that a PPL is required to pay for his flying (cost sharing rules excepted).
In the second, there is clearly some valuable consideration being given.
Let's not muddy the already muddy waters further by using phrases such as "hire and reward" and then assuming that because we've used them, they're in the regs.
Hire and reward - as Heliport says, never mentioned in LASORS, or the document VeeAny drew my attention to. "Valuable Consideration" is the phrase used. Is that clear and precise? Yeah, as mud! No wonder everyone puts their own interpretation on it. But having opinions doesn't mean they're right, especially in law.
Perhaps we should distinguish between two types of free flying here...
1) My helicopter needs to go for maintenance, or my aunt needs to get to her sick friend in Scotland; please can you fly the helicopter for me.
2) If you fly the helicopter, I'll give you some more free flying in exchange.
For the first of these, the PPL is simply helping out. The fact that he may or may not enjoy helping out is irrelevant. And nowhere, but nowhere, in the regulations does it say that a PPL is required to pay for his flying (cost sharing rules excepted).
In the second, there is clearly some valuable consideration being given.
Let's not muddy the already muddy waters further by using phrases such as "hire and reward" and then assuming that because we've used them, they're in the regs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well I want to agree with you, but that's not how I read the rules.
Valuable consideration IS defined in the ANO, and is pretty wide ranging. Crucially it hinges on whether the consideration (whatever it is) is nominal. Purely my own interpretation, but an hourbuilders gain could never be described as nominal, whilst the pleasure of helping out a friend could well be. If it was an hourbuilder fetching your sick aunt it could be argued that it's illegal because of the valuable consideration received.
It wouldn't be the only piece of legislation that required an assessment of motivation. That's the essence of the distinction between murder and manslaughter isn't it ?
Valuable consideration IS defined in the ANO, and is pretty wide ranging. Crucially it hinges on whether the consideration (whatever it is) is nominal. Purely my own interpretation, but an hourbuilders gain could never be described as nominal, whilst the pleasure of helping out a friend could well be. If it was an hourbuilder fetching your sick aunt it could be argued that it's illegal because of the valuable consideration received.
It wouldn't be the only piece of legislation that required an assessment of motivation. That's the essence of the distinction between murder and manslaughter isn't it ?
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, it’s OK for a PPL with a few hundred hours and no intention of getting a commercial licence to do the ferry trips but the PPL who has 120 hours, is hour building and studying for ATPL(H) ground school, can’t? Where do you draw the line? Do 12 good men and true have to decide whether there is motive as they would in a murder/manslaughter trial?
Cheers
Whirls
Cheers
Whirls
Whirlygig,
You are extremely close to the truth.
It is commonly understood at the CAA that once rules are written, they can, and will, be interpreted. Your interpretation is as good any other (even though 'the other' might have written the rule that is subject to discussion). The same is also true for FL - he has no privilege in this discussion except for that which is accrued through knowledge of the regulation or understanding of previous rulings.
The final say on the meaning of any regulation rests with the Judiciary who, in most cases, have less technical knowledge than you and I. they will use their common sense and understanding to arrive at the true meaning.
Jim
You are extremely close to the truth.
It is commonly understood at the CAA that once rules are written, they can, and will, be interpreted. Your interpretation is as good any other (even though 'the other' might have written the rule that is subject to discussion). The same is also true for FL - he has no privilege in this discussion except for that which is accrued through knowledge of the regulation or understanding of previous rulings.
The final say on the meaning of any regulation rests with the Judiciary who, in most cases, have less technical knowledge than you and I. they will use their common sense and understanding to arrive at the true meaning.
Jim
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
I don't mind the CAA not taking an interest in free ferry flights for hours builders, I just wish they would take more of an interest in the illegal public transport which does go on.
Some time ago I handed them documented evidence of illegal public transport and it was all too difficult for them to deal with. I hope the situation has now changed with changes in personnel.
What beggars belief is the input of some one like Out of Date who thinks he can pass on the benefits of his huge experience to "Lesser mortals"!!! Come and join our party, see the standards required, see if an LPC at ATPL level is a swan around. If you have no instructional qualifications then shut the f
up. I am not an instructor and have no intentions of being one. I do however know that every 6 months a very highly qualified instructor will put me through the mill on every type I fly as well as a couple of instument rating renewals. I see too many people doing unbelievably stupid things because their mate Fred thinks its a good idea. When you ask, Fred has no more instructional ability than me, but has found himself a short cut to something without seeing all the implications.
JimL as usual has hit the nail on the head. However Jim, often no interpretation is needed. The illegal pt is often blatant and no effort is made to jump on the transgressors. As I said in an earlier post we pay a huge amount in ever increasing fees for the privelage of our AOCs and get little protection from the cowboys who spit in the face of the authority.
Rotorheads is supposed to be "A haven for professional helicopter pilots to discuss the things that affect them" Likewise our professional licenses confer on us privelages not given to those who choose to fly, but not follow our path. If you want to play our games then play by our rules, otherwise stay out of our way. You will no longer be tolerated.
Some time ago I handed them documented evidence of illegal public transport and it was all too difficult for them to deal with. I hope the situation has now changed with changes in personnel.
What beggars belief is the input of some one like Out of Date who thinks he can pass on the benefits of his huge experience to "Lesser mortals"!!! Come and join our party, see the standards required, see if an LPC at ATPL level is a swan around. If you have no instructional qualifications then shut the f
up. I am not an instructor and have no intentions of being one. I do however know that every 6 months a very highly qualified instructor will put me through the mill on every type I fly as well as a couple of instument rating renewals. I see too many people doing unbelievably stupid things because their mate Fred thinks its a good idea. When you ask, Fred has no more instructional ability than me, but has found himself a short cut to something without seeing all the implications.JimL as usual has hit the nail on the head. However Jim, often no interpretation is needed. The illegal pt is often blatant and no effort is made to jump on the transgressors. As I said in an earlier post we pay a huge amount in ever increasing fees for the privelage of our AOCs and get little protection from the cowboys who spit in the face of the authority.
Rotorheads is supposed to be "A haven for professional helicopter pilots to discuss the things that affect them" Likewise our professional licenses confer on us privelages not given to those who choose to fly, but not follow our path. If you want to play our games then play by our rules, otherwise stay out of our way. You will no longer be tolerated.
Interesting to see that by far the biggest fine levied (on the CAA Prosecution list above) is for illegal PT :
Flying an American registered helicopter and carrying fare
paying passengers without the permission of the Secretary of
State
Fine £3800
There are apparently several more of these going through the CAA legal machine at the moment.
Flying an American registered helicopter and carrying fare
paying passengers without the permission of the Secretary of
State
Fine £3800
There are apparently several more of these going through the CAA legal machine at the moment.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) My helicopter needs to go for maintenance, or my aunt needs to get to her sick friend in Scotland; please can you fly the helicopter for me.
Hands up who on this board says this is a commercial flight and the aircraft and Fred are both operating illegally.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
QDM - I fully agree, it's a no-brainer. Some here seem to think that if instead of the £65/hr Cub, you had a £750/hr newly-minted Oki-Koki 9000 twin-turbine helicopter, then it would be "commercial" because of the benefit to a low hours pilot in getting "high-value" hours in the logbook.
I don't agree, as it's not possible to give a future value on those hours. Fred may have no interest in hours building for a CPL/ATPL, for example, but Jack might - so if you can't contact Fred and so call Jack, does it mean it's commercial - I don't think so.
I don't agree, as it's not possible to give a future value on those hours. Fred may have no interest in hours building for a CPL/ATPL, for example, but Jack might - so if you can't contact Fred and so call Jack, does it mean it's commercial - I don't think so.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Belgium
Age: 61
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's one for you....
I arrive one day at a summer fete in the UK. An R44 is doing "trips" 3 pax at a time, 20 minute circuits. The landing area is tight and shrouded by trees. There are hundreds of children and adult spectators and to fly to the landing site requires overflying a fairground (again fully populated with funseekers)
On his break I ask the pilot what his qualifications are. "I'm a PPL(H) and the wife is the one in the high vis doing the loading/offloading. Its my helicopter. Everything is donated to charity, I pay for everything to do with the flying and the charity gets all the money for the flight"
Where does this stand legally? I take it the fact he makes a loss on the day (if he does) means that he is within the law? He wore 3 gold bands on his shirt - so not many would question his experience or ability. However in the case of airmanship, this pilot clearly isn't as experienced as a CPL and if he got into difficulties there could be many lives at risk?
I arrive one day at a summer fete in the UK. An R44 is doing "trips" 3 pax at a time, 20 minute circuits. The landing area is tight and shrouded by trees. There are hundreds of children and adult spectators and to fly to the landing site requires overflying a fairground (again fully populated with funseekers)
On his break I ask the pilot what his qualifications are. "I'm a PPL(H) and the wife is the one in the high vis doing the loading/offloading. Its my helicopter. Everything is donated to charity, I pay for everything to do with the flying and the charity gets all the money for the flight"
Where does this stand legally? I take it the fact he makes a loss on the day (if he does) means that he is within the law? He wore 3 gold bands on his shirt - so not many would question his experience or ability. However in the case of airmanship, this pilot clearly isn't as experienced as a CPL and if he got into difficulties there could be many lives at risk?
After reading AIC79/2005, regarding Charity flights, ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL
http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4W114.PDF
One of the point is :
Maximum 3 flights per pilot, per day
Then in regard to the landing site, (Appendix 1 to Annex 3), this wasn't acceptable either.
Another rule is that:
Prospective passengers must be made aware that flights do not fully comply with commercial air transport regulations.
And one needs permission from the CAA.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the illegal aspects are not actually to do with the pilot being a PPL - that bit is OK surely?
If the CAA determine the outcome of these PPL/CPL/Aerial Work/Public transport cases in front of a sworn jury, then I might have a little more faith in them but somehow I get the feeling that the CAA act as prosecution, judge and jury!
Cheers
Whirls
If the CAA determine the outcome of these PPL/CPL/Aerial Work/Public transport cases in front of a sworn jury, then I might have a little more faith in them but somehow I get the feeling that the CAA act as prosecution, judge and jury!
Cheers
Whirls
Last edited by Whirlygig; 27th Nov 2006 at 13:30. Reason: Cold little hands resulted in omission of letters!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Belgium
Age: 61
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirls,
If you read the AIC, there are hour requirements for the pilot. But yes, he can be a PPL, but only 3 flights per day.
The guy was wearing a white shirt with 3 stripes and you can hardly say he wasn't posing a commercial pilot which is against this rule.
Prospective passengers must be made aware that flights do not fully comply with commercial air transport regulations.
Hillerbee
If you read the AIC, there are hour requirements for the pilot. But yes, he can be a PPL, but only 3 flights per day.
The guy was wearing a white shirt with 3 stripes and you can hardly say he wasn't posing a commercial pilot which is against this rule.
Prospective passengers must be made aware that flights do not fully comply with commercial air transport regulations.
Hillerbee
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The guy was wearing a white shirt with 3 stripes and you can hardly say he wasn't posing a commercial pilot which is against this rule.
Better red than ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where does the jury come in? These are 'minor' offences and surely would be addressed summararily by a Magistrates Court rather than on indictement in a Crown Court.
Less chance of getting off that way ....
h-r
Less chance of getting off that way ....
h-r
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scenario
Ok I know alot of you are Pro Pilots with either a CPL or PPL and Im just a learner with under 10 hrs TT but I have been reading this thread with great interest so I thought of a possible scenario.
"Im a back country pilot that has fallen from my quad and broken a leg I get taken to hospital by helicopter where they fix me up and plaster my leg, now I own my own R22 or S300 and only have a PPL but the guy down the road also has a PPL(H) and I call him up and say mate do you think you could bring the R22/S300 up and take me home I will give ya 2 dozen beers if you do, he agrees and picks up my heli and flys into the hospital and ferries me home"
Now would that be considered a mate helping a mate or flying for reward.
"Im a back country pilot that has fallen from my quad and broken a leg I get taken to hospital by helicopter where they fix me up and plaster my leg, now I own my own R22 or S300 and only have a PPL but the guy down the road also has a PPL(H) and I call him up and say mate do you think you could bring the R22/S300 up and take me home I will give ya 2 dozen beers if you do, he agrees and picks up my heli and flys into the hospital and ferries me home"
Now would that be considered a mate helping a mate or flying for reward.