air law question
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: MEL
air law question
Quite confuse!
You hold a private pilot licence and are employed in another capacity by a company which owns a single engine aircraft (with a seating capacity of six). If no charge is made or remuneration received by you or the company ,one situation in which you may act a pilot in command is :
a.when carrying company goods for sale
b.when using the aircraft for aerial advertising
c.when carrying a photographer hired by the company to take photographs
d.on a company business trip with other company employees
correct answer is B,but i think is D
How do you think?
thank you for your help!!
You hold a private pilot licence and are employed in another capacity by a company which owns a single engine aircraft (with a seating capacity of six). If no charge is made or remuneration received by you or the company ,one situation in which you may act a pilot in command is :
a.when carrying company goods for sale
b.when using the aircraft for aerial advertising
c.when carrying a photographer hired by the company to take photographs
d.on a company business trip with other company employees
correct answer is B,but i think is D
How do you think?
thank you for your help!!
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
From: in the mist
Initially I would have thought options B and C are classified as aerial work and therefore require a commercial licence. However.....
D sounds plausible as you are not being paid for flying the aircraft (presumably you're being paid for other services to the company). But, use of the company aircraft (with company paying the bills) may be regarded as renumeration (like a company car). Which would require you to have a commercial licence again.
A is a little grey. Technically you could say that is the job of a cargo pilot and therefore a revenue flight, again requiring a commercial licence.
Option B doesn't state that you are being paid for the aerial advertising so this may be the caveat that makes B correct. Does sound wooly though.
Good luck!
D sounds plausible as you are not being paid for flying the aircraft (presumably you're being paid for other services to the company). But, use of the company aircraft (with company paying the bills) may be regarded as renumeration (like a company car). Which would require you to have a commercial licence again.
A is a little grey. Technically you could say that is the job of a cargo pilot and therefore a revenue flight, again requiring a commercial licence.
Option B doesn't state that you are being paid for the aerial advertising so this may be the caveat that makes B correct. Does sound wooly though.
Good luck!
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
From: UK
Ok, may be wrong, however surely non of the above.
My reasoning being, that since you are not paying the share of the maintenance/flight costs then the company is paying for your flight time.
Surely that counts as being commercial ... then again may be wrong ...
Si
My reasoning being, that since you are not paying the share of the maintenance/flight costs then the company is paying for your flight time.
Surely that counts as being commercial ... then again may be wrong ...
Si
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
From: UK
c and d are fine. No third party is paying to use the aircraft - no revenue is being generated. Private.
b. Hmm. You'd need a CAA exemption to tow a banner, so you'd find out there.
What other advertising is there? Just flying around in company livery is advertising, but must be Private.
a. tricky. in theory if you aren't employed as a pilot (and, I dare say, don't act as one regularly) and the company owns the aircraft, and the use is the company's alone without any hire or remuneration then it is Private - ie all of the above could be argued as private, but...hauling goods...If the boss said, hey Fred, just pop over to Hull in the Cessna with that mended hard-drive is that PT? How is that any different to asking you to take the Jag? But have a problem with an aircraft full of boxes and it begins to look a bit different. The CAA's legal people are pretty devious at interpreting things for themselves...
b. Hmm. You'd need a CAA exemption to tow a banner, so you'd find out there.
What other advertising is there? Just flying around in company livery is advertising, but must be Private.
a. tricky. in theory if you aren't employed as a pilot (and, I dare say, don't act as one regularly) and the company owns the aircraft, and the use is the company's alone without any hire or remuneration then it is Private - ie all of the above could be argued as private, but...hauling goods...If the boss said, hey Fred, just pop over to Hull in the Cessna with that mended hard-drive is that PT? How is that any different to asking you to take the Jag? But have a problem with an aircraft full of boxes and it begins to look a bit different. The CAA's legal people are pretty devious at interpreting things for themselves...
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,627
Likes: 2
From: UTC +8
Cannot be "D" unless you are the owner of the company with a private pilot's license, because the trip is not recreational but a "business trip" and you are in fact on the company payroll as an employe. During the flight you are "at work," you are on the payroll.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 1
From: AEP
Non commercial flying
Depending on specific national laws of some countries, generally speaking, a private pilot can operate an aircraft as pilot in command, provided that the operation of the aircraft is not commercial, that is, no charge is made for the flight. Example is an aircraft salesman, demonstrating an aircraft in flight to a potential client. His salary should not be derived from flying, nor should there be any charge to the customer for a flight in that aircraft. Company goods or personnel can be flown in that aircraft.
xxx
I have known an aerial photographer who has a PPL, who rents airplanes to make pictures of estates for sale. He does not derive his income from the flying of the aircraft, but from the aerial pictures he sells to real estate companies.
xxx
A PPL holder can share the expenses of aircraft operations (with passengers) if the aircraft is not operated commercially -
xxx
xxx
I have known an aerial photographer who has a PPL, who rents airplanes to make pictures of estates for sale. He does not derive his income from the flying of the aircraft, but from the aerial pictures he sells to real estate companies.
xxx
A PPL holder can share the expenses of aircraft operations (with passengers) if the aircraft is not operated commercially -
xxx
