Technically I do think so. But I personally don't have a problem with it at all, and would do it the same way. I don't think the CAA would mind either.

The discussion is about PPL's stealing CPL's business (income), that's what's the big problem.

We shouldnt be saying to ourselves, its all well and good until there is an accident and someone dies.
The fact is, people have died in the past because they have used PPL pilots to do aerial photography, AOC work etc.
Commercial Pilots have accidents aswell, but sending a low hour, unqualified pilot out to do your dirty work Is and Should be Crimminal!!

I used the point when someone else drew the analogy between murder and manslaughter when considering motive!


There are PPL holders who have received remuneration for flying - ask any jockey or broadcast comms engineer; it's rife but I have no proof!

Cheers

Whirls

I was not aiming the comment at you (or anybody for that matter). There was a lot of talk about the jury, but its very uncommon to hear of aviation prosecutions that are anything other than in a Magistrates Court.

h-r;)

I know you weren't h-r; my tongue was also in my cheek! Perhaps I should have used this smiley! :p

Cheers

Whirls

HR - I'm guilty as charged - I mentioned a jury - but as a figure of speech. Replace jury with "the Bench".

I think the fact that this thread has gone around and around for 5 pages is the answer. It is simply too difficult to prosecute.

Wow.This thread has really stirred up a s:mad: storm :ok:

Where is Flying Lawyer on this one?

I love the idea on name and shame but in reality I think it Pprune would be diving deep into Libel territory for hosting that one. := Not to mention that it would be abused more than used. I fear the vigilanty more than the PPL hopping around the darker side of the grey areas.

As with all laws, good or bad, are there for the guidance of wise men and the obeyance of fools.

I do like all the hypothetical senarios to justify what the pilot him/herself will know is either right or wrong. This I think will always remain an emotive topic because I feel that this problem will continue to exist within the aviation business.

NB

Legislation needs a flow chart
 

On page 2 of this post is an excerp from the law. Within it is the following,
- if any passengers or cargo are carried gratuitously in the aircraft on that flight -
Without tearing the legislation apart, does that mean that if anyone is carried for free, then it is a public transport flight??

Personally I don't have a problem with PPL's doing ferry flights, even if in reality it is hour building.
If it is a problem, then would the tax man see it as some form of undeclared income? It has value that you haven't paid out on...:sad:

So free flying equals valuable consideration, does it? Carried to its logical confusion this means....

1) A school reduces its prices if a PPL(H) student pays for 10 hours in advance - this is quite common. Isn't the school offering partially free flying?

2) a school offers lower prices for mid-week self fly hire. Free flying, even if only for a few minutes?

3) One school is cheaper than all the others. Free flying?

4) A PPL is asked to just fly a helicopter over to the pumps to pick up some fuel. He can't; it would be free flying.

5) Hmmm.....would going abroad to fly become illegal, I wonder, since it saves money and therefore some of the flying becomes effectively free?

Etc etc etc.

Mad? Of course.

I'm beginning to understand why Flying Lawyer has the good sense to lie low and stay out of this one. :( :( :(

1,2,3,5. NO. Legal, they are paying what the leaser thinks is appropriate for the a/c.
4, YES, not that it would bother me or, i should think, anyone else on this board. Illegal.

i think the real issue is not the skill of PPLs vs CPLs (i'd rather fly with a multi-thousand hour back-country Alaskan PPL than some newly-minted FI doing charter on the side), or the ferry/favor flights. the issue is that, regardless of safety, flying for money is a privilege, and one that must be earned. those that put in the required time, money, and effort get the rewards. those that do not should not. simple as that. it's like diamonds. sure i can get a ton for cheap(er) in Sierra Leone, and they're just as nice as the ones i get at the new york diamond exchange, but i'm undercutting the people who play by the rules and ensure that things are done the right way, without slave labor. (see, look, i'm comparing you CPLs to diamonds!)

Hi everybody,

Just to be quick:bored:
The powers that be apply their own individual interpritation of statutes at any given time when considering cases. That is to say, opinion and outcome will vary from case to case- hopefully after time an agreed standard judement will become evident ( unfortunately these too are open to challenge)

It is easy to take cases to the extreme to try and make the policies seem ridiculous, as seemingly all do.......however this is not allowed in court proceedings:oh:

From the justice of the peace view, valuable consideration can be seen to be incurred if one gets something for free, for which you should have paid:ok:

Clear as mud........my lord

Drawing a line...
 

Whirly's post illustrates a very interesting point, and that is where to draw the line. From some posts I gather that CPLs do not help their neighbors take out the trash - thus avoiding an issue with the local garbage collector's union...

Seriously, the important point, at least in my mind, and I do beleive that many would agree, is that real jobs with a helicopter should be performed by real pilots carrying the proper paperwork. Likewise, anyone paying to have a service performed by a helicopter should expect all papers to be correct and that real pilots perform the actual job. Absolutely no doubt.

In all areas of society there are gray zones. These areas exist because we are all different and have different interpretations. All clear.

Now, one thing that I have a problem with is statements where some kind of monopoly is assumed and wanted in an area, like for example the hour building thing; the fact that some people have to pay for their hours while others can get it in their uncle's helicopter for free makes neither of them "bad".

Some comments have stated that "flying for reward is a privilege that has to be earned" and that it is the invested money and effort that is the important thing. That may be so, but where do you put the guy born with a silver spoon (like money!), who learned how to fly really well in 7 hours, got his CPL(H) in 4 months and then moved straight to a high paying gig in the North Sea sector - an income he doesn't need. I smell jealousy...

My point is clear. PPL(H) pilots should not accept work for pay. Period. I respect professional pilots - why else would I want to become one at 50? On several occasions I have been asked by people to do things for pay with the helicopters I fly. Yes, I have flown a friend over his house so that he could take some nice photos of it from the air (no pay) - a thing he would otherwise not have been able to do because of the costs involved. And most of my friend and their friend have flown with me on various occasions on a cost share basis or for free.

Don't get caught in the same swamp as the software industry. You can't take the number of illegal copies and translate it into a sum of lost profits. Most people would not buy Photoshop at $900 if they had to pay for it. A few ferries, an aunt's 50th birthday flight, what have you. It's not serious work and it doesn't take your business away nor is it unsafe. Even us PPL(H) guys have to make quite a few autorotations, tail rotor failures etc on our PCs. Besides - any PPL can ask his instructor or PC examiner to please keep the excercise at CPL level, I do every time and it's worth it.

Again, hat off to all professionals, and nail the suckers that actually POSE as CPLs when they are not. They steal work and they break the law (and lie).

I rant... I love flying...

This thread could be likened to sharks in the middle of a frenzied feeding session. However I believe the sharks have actually dreamed up the shoal of food. There is in reality only a tiny number of fish in the shoal!
The thread so far has not managed to put forward any REAL evidence of a major (or even minor) drain on the work for CPLs.
There are clearly areas of grey within the law, but I have not seen anything that would point to PPLs 'stealing' work on rig flights, HEMS, Pipelines, survey,etc etc. So lets face it, we are now talking about a much much smaller portion of the heli industry in which there may be a problem, yet some of the contributors to the thread would have us believe that the theft of their work is prevalant.
In any group there will be the odd rogue and aviation is no exception, but this supposed problem has been posted up way beyond reallity.
However if you know of any grade of pilot (not just PPL) taking on work beyond their qualifications, then surely the remedy is is your hands.

If the remedy is in our hands, then what is that remedy?

Having re-read the posts, I can't remember seeing a mention of one of the biggest sections of sometimes considered illegal flying. The Good Old 'Trial lesson'. You know the one. The one where a woman comes along with 'darling' husband and kids, having been bought the 'trial lesson' for a birthday present.
She has no extra money so couldn't afford 20 Cigarettes or another alcopop, never mind take up flying.
Anyway, the instructor takes her flying for 0.5 or 1 hr whatever, she doesn't want to take the controls because she is slightly afraid. During the course of the flight she wants to take some pictures of her house (she just lives next to the airport).
So, is this illegal flying? Carrying a passenger who doesnt wish to learn to fly. Should this be done with an AOC? Public Transport cat a/c? :E

In all honesty I personally don't care. I don't fly anymore anyway.

You hit the nail right on the head here. Sight seeing tours require an AOC nowadays. Which I do think is not correct. In Austria for example they have an exception for AOC requirement for sight-seeing tours. It's much safer to do a sight-seeing tours without dual controls then having to have the duals in and flying with a nitwit and 2 'family members' in the back.

But this has nothing to do with the original thread, of course, because it's flown by FI's

It's a long time since I was involved with flight training, but I seem to recall that ref trial lessons, you only had to offer the "student" the option of taking the controls. If they refused, then fine you'd tried. If they then wanted to flyover their house, and take a picture....

As stated, it was some time ago and the two "A"'s - alcohol and alzheimers - may well have clouded my memory.

I suspect 'Trial Lessons' are often just a convenient and legal way of selling pleasure flights without an AOC, but let's not sidetrack from the topic.

kissmysquirrel What a wonderful impression it must give of our industry to any members of the public reading that attitude and language from a Flying Instructor, even a former FI.
Professional? :rolleyes:


H.

H,

FWIW, my thoughts entirely.

and

With an attitude like that to customers, I wonder if there's any connection between these two statements? :hmm:


Anyway, back to the thread...

The public can get on here?:eek:

Run, run for your lives..........:hmm: