Legal question!

[Lost Lake]

A question. Can a private pilot fly a commercially registered airplane for a company to perform non revenue camp work and supplies, ie, fuel, motors, camp work. If they can, what is the CP's responsibility? Do they need tdg training? Anything other considerations?

Thanks for any advice.

[Capt. Underpants]

You answered your own question when you said "commercially registered airplane".

No.

[godsrcrazy]

You answered your own question when you said "commercially registered airplane".

No.

I have to disagree. I believe you can. The registration has nothing to do with category of pilot unless you are performing revenue flights. This is like saying you cannot fly an aircraft until it is registered to you. Transport has up to 180 days to change the registration of an aircraft. This would mean if a private person buys an aircraft that was commercial registered then you cant fly it.

I have seen Private pilots ferry aircraft that are commercial registered.

[digits_]

Yes you can. Not sure why there would be a chief pilot involved though. In that case you are operating under an AOC I assume? Your COM probably has some clause as to who can fly the company airplanes.


Flying school airplanes are usually commercially registered as well. You don't need a CPL to fly those.

[Bede]

Are you getting paid to fly? See CAR 401.28.

You also need to think about things like insurance.

Non rev rarely has any bearing on commercial air services as those costs are built into the revenue structure. For example, a lodge can’t provide “free” air travel to a fishing spot.

[Heliian]

No, you cannot do "camp work". That's work.

We had a provision in our manuals to allow a licensed pilot on type (private or otherwise) to perform ferry flights and ferry flights only, no passengers or supply runs.

[Onesie]

Pretty sure there is a business model in place for this lodge... and it doesn't involve casually taking a plane out for a spin to refuel outboard engines with a PPL. If you are looking for an "OK" and hoping it is a gray area... it's not.... but if you feel like working for free.. call Joe Chow at skydive Toronto... but even then you need a CPL.

Flying schools have a different type of insurance.. you know? The kind where a PPL can rent and fly a plane. Pretty sure your typical air carrier AOC insurance arrangement doesn't allow a PPL into the mix.

[digits_]

No, you cannot do "camp work". That's work.

We had a provision in our manuals to allow a licensed pilot on type (private or otherwise) to perform ferry flights and ferry flights only, no passengers or supply runs.

By that logic, ferry flights are also "work".

Look at it this way, a mechanic is hired to fix up a camp. Instead of going by canoe or chartering a plane, he decides to fly himself. No CPL required. It's when other people are on board, that things need to evolve towards a CPL.

Or look at it another way. If this is deemed to be commercial work, then what operator certificate is required? If you are convinced it is a commercial operator, then just the pilot having a CPL doesn't cut it, you would need a whole operation. I'm pretty sure not every camp using airplanes for maintenance has an AOC. Are they all operatin illegally? Possible but unlikely.

[Heliian]

No, you cannot do "camp work". That's work.

We had a provision in our manuals to allow a licensed pilot on type (private or otherwise) to perform ferry flights and ferry flights only, no passengers or supply runs.

By that logic, ferry flights are also "work".

Look at it this way, a mechanic is hired to fix up a camp. Instead of going by canoe or chartering a plane, he decides to fly himself. No CPL required. It's when other people are on board, that things need to evolve towards a CPL.

Or look at it another way. If this is deemed to be commercial work, then what operator certificate is required? If you are convinced it is a commercial operator, then just the pilot having a CPL doesn't cut it, you would need a whole operation. I'm pretty sure not every camp using airplanes for maintenance has an AOC. Are they all operatin illegally? Possible but unlikely.

No, because it was written into the air taxi manual. The OP mentions a commercially registered aircraft already under an OC. NOT private lodge, private plane shenanigans, where you can do anything until the wings fall off.

[photofly]

A commercially registered airplane exists only in the context of a Commercial Air Service with an Operating Certificate and an approved operations manual. If the pilot is an employee of the company then if he were to fly a company airplane that would be for "hire and reward" - his salary - so, clearly, no.

A company flying only its own goods around is not operating a commercial air service and doesn't need an operators certificate; but then it doesn't need (and can't have) a commercially registered aircraft, so the question doesn't really make sense.

If the aircraft is large, turbo-jet powered, or pressurized and turbine-powered with more than six seats then it needs to be operated under a private operator's certificate. But that's still not a commercially registered aircraft.

[digits_]

Devil's advocate, but assume we have an employee in the company who is required to maintain the camp (clean, maintenance, fix, maybe guide the customers etc). This guy happens to have a PPL.

You are saying he can't fly the plane in this situation:

A commercially registered airplane exists only in the context of a Commercial Air Service with an Operating Certificate and an approved operations manual. If the pilot is an employee of the company then if he were to fly a company airplane that would be for "hire and reward" - his salary - so, clearly, no.

but he can fly the plane in this situation:

A company flying only its own goods around is not operating a commercial air service and doesn't need an operators certificate; but then it doesn't need (and can't have) a commercially registered aircraft, so the question doesn't really make sense.

I think what it boils down to in your explanation: if you have a commercially registered airplane with an AOC, does that mean you can *only* fly it under that AOC, or can you also fly it for other activities not covered by the AOC?

For example, I own a company that has a 703 AOC. Can my neighbour with a PPL fly the plane for fun?
There are companies that have airplanes operating under different categories (FTU, 702 and 703 for example). This leads me to believe that multiple activities are allowed.

[photofly]

As an employee with a PPL he/she/it can't fly any airplane - whatever its registration - for hire and reward, so no, in either situation.

In the second situation a PPL could fly the plane if he was a director of the company, or a volunteer (and not hours-building).

Yes, you can fly an aircraft outside of activities for which you need an AOC, if the insurance permits.

[digits_]

As an employee with a PPL he/she/it can't fly any airplane - whatever its registration - for hire and reward, so no, in either situation.

I disagree. The purpose of the flight is to go fix something in a camp. The flight itself does not influence the pay of the employee. He is paid to fix the camp, not to fly the airplane.

A copy from the CARs, with my emphasis:

Aeroplanes and Helicopters — Reimbursement of Costs Incurred in respect of a Flight
[SOR/2005-320, s. 4(F)]

401.28 (1) The holder of a private pilot licence shall not act as the pilot-in-command of an aeroplane or helicopter for hire or reward unless the conditions set out in subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5), as applicable, are met.

(2) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement for costs incurred in respect of a flight if the holder

(a) is the owner or operator of the aircraft;

(b) conducts the flight for purposes other than hire or reward;

(c) carries passengers only incidentally to the purposes of the flight; and

(d) receives a reimbursement that

(i) is provided only by the passengers referred to in paragraph (c), and

(ii) is for the purpose of sharing the costs of fuel, oil and fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight, as applicable.

(3) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement from the holder’s employer for costs incurred in respect of a flight if the holder

(a) is employed on a full-time basis by the employer for purposes other than flying;

(b) conducts the flight on the employer’s business and the flight is incidental to the execution of the holder’s duties; and

(c) receives a reimbursement that

(i) in the case of an aircraft owned by the holder, is paid at a rate based on distance travelled or number of hours flown and that does not exceed the total of the holder’s direct operating costs and the fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight, or

(ii) in the case of a rental aircraft, does not exceed the total of the holder’s rental costs, direct operating costs and the fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight.

(4) [non profit/volunteering stuff, not applicable]

(5) [farming stuff, not applicable]

He can even get paid extra if the PPL pilot uses his own airplane!

[photofly]

If the employer tells the holder to move stuff between one camp and another by air it's not incidental to the holder's duties; it has just become part of the holder's duties.

He can get paid extra up to the cost of reimbursement, for using his own plane, but (for example) for transporting himself; he can't get paid extra to transport goods for his employer.

Incidental would to be transport the holder himself to another site to accomplish something other task.

Do you really imagine TC is going to be ok with a business saying "we don't empoy a pilot, we employ a painter and decorator with a private pilot licence who flies stuff around for us while we actually pay him for painting and decorating." Seriously?

[digits_]

If the employer tells the holder to move stuff between one camp and another by air it's not incidental to the holder's duties; it has just become part of the holder's duties.

He can get paid extra up to the cost of reimbursement, for using his own plane, but (for example) for transporting himself; he can't get paid extra to transport goods for his employer.

Incidental would to be transport the holder himself to another site to accomplish something other task.

Do you really imagine TC is going to be ok with a business saying "we don't empoy a pilot, we employ a painter and decorator with a private pilot licence who flies stuff around for us while we actually pay him for painting and decorating." Seriously?

Well... yes. Isn't that exactly what OP is asking? They employ someone to do tasks around the camp. He is not hired to fly stuff from A to B. He is hired to fix and maintain things It seems logical that the guy has to get to the camp with his tools and supplies. So they give him a plane to use. That seems to fall well within the scope of the highlighted paragraphs.

Why else would that exemption be in there?

If he is transporting food for clients, then I agree, he can't do that with his PPL. If he is transporting spare parts to fix a stove or a fridge himself, then he can do that.
If he is hired as a cook, he could fly over there in the plane.

Basically, if you are using the plane like an average employee would use his car, you can do the flight it with a PPL.
If you'd need a taxi or a delivery van, you most likely would need a CPL.

[photofly]

Taxi, car, van or otherwise, an employee can fly their own tools and stuff around. As soon as they are asked to start transporting supplies around, supplies that have nothing to do with them other than they've been asked to move them, supplies for other people to use, then no. In the original question ("fuel, motors, camp work") that seems a pretty clear no, unless the fuel and motors are something they are going to use in a work task for which they're paid.

As for whether they can use the airplane - I guess that would depend on whether the COM said that aircraft was restricted to the company OC, and on the insurance.

[leftoftrack]

so we all agree then

[DonutHole]

If the employer tells the holder to move stuff between one camp and another by air it's not incidental to the holder's duties; it has just become part of the holder's duties.

He can get paid extra up to the cost of reimbursement, for using his own plane, but (for example) for transporting himself; he can't get paid extra to transport goods for his employer.

Incidental would to be transport the holder himself to another site to accomplish something other task.

Do you really imagine TC is going to be ok with a business saying "we don't empoy a pilot, we employ a painter and decorator with a private pilot licence who flies stuff around for us while we actually pay him for painting and decorating." Seriously?

the other task is unloading the supplies at the destination

[confusedalot]

Fly a commercially registered plane, yes, flying school planes are also commercially registered.

Camp "work" flying, no, since you need a CPL to fly for hire.

If you are going to your or your friends private camp, that's another story. Lots of private pilots fly up to their personal cottages for example with their stuff.

Now, renting a plane from, say, a 702 or 703 operator is a good question, but I suspect that would not work on it's own. I really don't know if an operator like that can rent out their planes for non commercial purposes. A flying school can however, they do it all the time.

[photofly]

There's nothing in any of the CARs restricting who an operator can rent an airplane to; there are the leasing regualations, of course, but I don't think they come into play.

For flight schools, there's no rule or piece of paper that says a school "may" rent planes; rental activities to licensed pilots are simply outside the FTU rules and TC doesn't have oversight over them. I don't see anything in Part VII that restricts aircraft hire either.