Is this a commercial operation or not?

Ogee · Post by **Ogee** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:02 pm

Well, anything is possible, Widow.

Workers Compensation does cover death or injury of working pilots and passengers who are flying in connection with their work. I'd don't think aerial photography such as this gets into the fine details like this.

Pilots are generally covered for liability by the aircraft owners insurance.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:56 pm

Ogee wrote:Pilots are generally covered for liability by the aircraft owners insurance.

Does that mean that the liability insurance coverage requirements for a private rental are the same as the liability insurance coverage requirements for a commercial operation?

Ogee · Post by **Ogee** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:20 am

Transport Canada requires a minimum liability coverage on an aircraft. I don't know if its different for a private or a commercial aircraft, but I do know that all aircraft must have liability coverage, just like all cars have to be insured.

Liability insurance is cheaper for a private aircraft than it is for a commercial aircraft.

The TC minimum insurance level is just that, a minimum. Many owners carry much higher limits for liability, and some customers of commercial carriers demand very much higher limits, depending on the "value" of the passengers in the eyes of the customers.

C-FABH · Post by **C-FABH** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:09 am

tired of the ground wrote:I think if you take your buddies for a flight, no-one is going to get pissy. You are going anyways and they can share your cost. The problem is you weren't planning on circling over some guys farm or whatever for 30 mintues.

I believe that's called "sightseeing" - just as if you orbited the downtown core of Toronto with your family or buddies as pax. Maybe?

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:22 pm

Ogee
I believe that you are confusing ours with the rules in the US. There is absolutely no requirement to "hold out" or publicize your air service in Canada. I believe that it should be a criterium, but it isn't. You can be charged with operating a commercial air service if you meet the definition of a "commercial air service" in Aeronautics Act. TC can do what they want since the definition is so loose.

If you really got that info (def. of a commercial air service) from TC, please post it, everyone here needs to see it and be able to use it as a clear TC based interpretation (in the event they need it to defend their actions).

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:31 pm

From the Aeronautics Act

"commercial air service" means any use of aircraft for hire or reward

and

"hire or reward" means any payment, consideration, gratuity or benefit, directly or indirectly charged, demanded, received or collected by any person for the use of an aircraft"

Definitions

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:59 pm

So when someone "RENTS" an airplane for personal use is it against the law to take pictures from the airplane?

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:31 pm

No of course not. "I reason" does it for a living. It only becomes an issue if you are also transporting a person other than a crew member (iE an equipment operator or photographer), then it becomes aerial work, that is if you are receiving "hire and reward" (whatever that is) for the operation of the aircraft.

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:33 pm

And by the way, you can just read the rules, they are not that complicated. I am really surprised at the level of understanding regarding this issue.

If anything is confusing to me, it is the meaning of "hire and reward", the rest seems straight forward.

2R · Post by 2R » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:46 pm

Which particular CAR does not allow flight below 500 feet ???
I have had months where i have never been above three hundred for the entire month

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:48 pm

This all started with this.....

I was approached by a friend that would like me to rent an airplane from a local flight school and carry a photographer to take pictures for some promotional material for his company. I would not get paid

Then it went downhill from there.

However some good points have been made and any Canadian citizen has reason to worry about being charged and fined by TCCA for the simple reason they can do whatever they feel like and you are basically screwed as there is no real protection from their Kangaroo court mentality.

Fortunately I have never been charged with any offense but having charged them and won I chose not to fly in this bananna republic run by the storm trooper mentality that is TCCA.

However it will be interesting if I do start to fly in Canada again and they charge me and fine me for some trumped up charge and I then tell them to take it out of the money they owe me.

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:07 pm

Yah I know it was a fairly simple question, and I didn't feel it was worth responding to, until I read the misinformation being posted for the poor guy.

I then thought to explain my understanding of what constituted "commercial" in this country, and got even more factually incorrect information for responses. I have been through these sections of the CARs a few times so know where to find the info.

And as I told you once before, I will be very interested to see what happens when you start up your "aircraft-rental-but-not-flight-training" thing. It should be interesting

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:08 pm

2R wrote:Which particular CAR does not allow flight below 500 feet ???
I have had months where i have never been above three hundred for the entire month

Hijack
Start another thread.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:38 pm

And as I told you once before, I will be very interested to see what happens when you start up your "aircraft-rental-but-not-flight-training" thing. It should be interesting

I don't think I will have any problems for several reasons, such as what I will be doing is not against the law.

I have clearly and with witnesses informed the Director General Transport Canada that I will be doing this and challenged him to find some way they can stop me knowing I will bring the news media into it and by doing so produce the documentation that this conversation did in fact take place.

I very much doubt the coc.suckers will be willing to open this can of worms.

But if they do I am willing to go to jail rather than submit to these parasites.

The issue for me is simple, they would not allow me to operate a legal flight training business, so I will do it anyhow.

Remember my record in aviation is flawless, Nowzek and Preuss are the ones who have perverted the rule of law.

FL_CH · Post by **FL_CH** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:19 pm

So let's say my rich dad pays for all my flying. He pays the $20k it takes my slow ass to get the PPL. Then, he asks me to take him up for a spin around downtown, and I do so. In the end, of course, he pays for the flight.

Is this a commercial operation now, that requires an OC?

I mean, we can argue that:
- I was rewarded with 'free flight time'
- The passenger was the reason for the flight
- I provided a commercial service of sightseeing

So I can get charged with violation of 401.28?

Doesn't being 'hired' or providing a 'commercial service' have anything to do with contract, responsibility, and wages?

All-in-all, if it's such a big problem, pay for the flight yourself, and make the money fall from the sky in an envelope or smth

Ogee · Post by **Ogee** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:55 am

hornblower wrote:Ogee
I believe that you are confusing ours with the rules in the US. There is absolutely no requirement to "hold out" or publicize your air service in Canada. I believe that it should be a criterium, but it isn't. You can be charged with operating a commercial air service if you meet the definition of a "commercial air service" in Aeronautics Act. TC can do what they want since the definition is so loose.

If you really got that info (def. of a commercial air service) from TC, please post it, everyone here needs to see it and be able to use it as a clear TC based interpretation (in the event they need it to defend their actions).

No, I didn't get the "holding out" bit from Transport Canada, but that was the wording from years ago. You may be right and it may have been changed. But I did call them in Vancouver and ask directly about taking aerial photos on spec and then selling them (or throwing them away if nobody wanted to buy them). THAT isn't a commercial air service.

Ogee · Post by **Ogee** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:06 am

hornblower wrote:I have been through these sections of the CARs a few times so know where to find the info.

And as I told you once before, I will be very interested to see what happens when you start up your "aircraft-rental-but-not-flight-training" thing. It should be interesting

I'm not sure that the offense of operating an illegal commercial air service is defined solely in the CARS. It used to be an offense under the Aeronautics Act. And the regs used to be issued pursuant to the Act. Probably still is that way, I'm just not up on it. Tonight at least.

Years ago, you didn't need any type of license to rent an airplane to a licensed pilot. I remember guys like Joe Haines at Peace Arch Flying Club at Langley ( the old Texan TV man who ran the cafe at Langley) renting out a 172 and an old bulb nose 210 for years, and all that was legal. If you had a private license, you could rent either aircraft and get your own instructor and do your commercial or your IFR with those aircraft a fair bit cheaper than at the schools next door.

Then maybe 15 years ago I heard a story that you couldn't do that anymore, that they were considering rentals to licensed pilots a commercial air service. The story was that you could get some bare bones type of OC to do so, just minimal paperwork, but nonetheless paperwork. I doubt that you needed a chief pilot or ops manager, but you probably needed a maintenance letter or your own AMO.

I never really heard of anyone setting one up and I guess the business just kind of went to the schools, because they could already do it with their existing OC's or whatever it is they have.

Used to be you could rent Turbo 210's, Lances', Bugsmashers, 310's, Aztecs, and the like easily and cheaply in BC. e.g. Turbo 210, $75 hour wet. Aztec $80 hour wet.

Now you're lucky to get a Seneca under $300 an hour.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:11 am

Then maybe 15 years ago I heard a story that you couldn't do that anymore, that they were considering rentals to licensed pilots a commercial air service

Can anyone give me the link to that regulation?

There is no need to even hold a valid pilots license to fly with a licensed pilot legal on type and give advice...like being a consultant..

The only problem is finding clients willing to pay you your consultants fee.

I won't have that problem.

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:22 am

Cat Driver wrote:
But if they do I am willing to go to jail rather than submit to these parasites.

At your age . you'll probable be ok in prison. You know, dropping the soap and all. LOL

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:17 am

I very much doubt there will ever be much risk of my having to go to jail because of TCCA marktheone.

Nowzek and Preuss may be low life thugs but like all of their ilk self preservation is part of their DNA.