public transport/ aerial work and police flying (UK)
Thread Starter
public transport/ aerial work and police flying (UK)
I would appreciate some help from any ppruners with better current knowledge than me of UK police ops and aerial work.
I've been studying the following document (and the ANO) and I cannot see why UK police air support units with their own directly employed pilots and policemen as passengers must be "public transport" operations. Surely its aerial work? (Like the directly employed electricity inspection operations)
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summar..._transport.pdf
(...and if its aerial work then there would be no age 60 single pilot limitation? .........on the other hand there wouldn't be an FTL!)
Also does anyone know if the insurance companies hike up owners’ premiums (in an ageist way!) for post age 60 pilots doing aerial work?
Regards, BT (age 55 )
I've been studying the following document (and the ANO) and I cannot see why UK police air support units with their own directly employed pilots and policemen as passengers must be "public transport" operations. Surely its aerial work? (Like the directly employed electricity inspection operations)
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summar..._transport.pdf
(...and if its aerial work then there would be no age 60 single pilot limitation? .........on the other hand there wouldn't be an FTL!)
Also does anyone know if the insurance companies hike up owners’ premiums (in an ageist way!) for post age 60 pilots doing aerial work?
Regards, BT (age 55 )
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
It wouldn't have taken much for the CAA to have granted certain exemptions for PAOC holders with regard to this. Again it inevitably brings up discussion of whether or not Police Observers are crew or pax.
Most often, police aircraft are used to "make inspections" of items on the ground, after all. A few collars, which hopefully will be felt shortly afterwards.
Most often, police aircraft are used to "make inspections" of items on the ground, after all. A few collars, which hopefully will be felt shortly afterwards.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,149
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
It's true that the ANO does not distinguish between crew and "passengers", but since the CAA has not formally asked for any exemptions to JAR OPS (as far as I am aware), I would suggest that JAR OPS should take precedence (but don't quote me in court!). Flights with observers only are indeed "private" flights, but if you charge between forces, there needs to be some formal structure. That was the original reason for the PAOC system I believe.
WPD works for other electricity companies, but they are at least in the same group (loosely!) so only about 1% of the flights are public transport. They would be better off without an AOC.
Phil
WPD works for other electricity companies, but they are at least in the same group (loosely!) so only about 1% of the flights are public transport. They would be better off without an AOC.
Phil
Tightgit
Bertie, I think the relevant part is;
'An AOC holder is almost bound to be an air transport undertaking'
Although I admit we hold a 'P'AOC rather than an AOC! As you well know, most, if not all Police Helicopters in the UK also occasionally carry casualties and often carry other passengers (look at the list of CAA approved passengers in the PAOM).
'An AOC holder is almost bound to be an air transport undertaking'
Although I admit we hold a 'P'AOC rather than an AOC! As you well know, most, if not all Police Helicopters in the UK also occasionally carry casualties and often carry other passengers (look at the list of CAA approved passengers in the PAOM).
