Having people "contribute" to CPL training by flying them?

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6605
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Post by Beefitarian »

It was a lousy dry hamburger, I'll tell you that. I was good and had sprite. Fun trip, there was no Hooters in Calgary back then and the server's name tag said, "Chewie" I don't think she was a real wookie.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Sun85
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:42 am

Re: Having people "contribute" to CPL training by flying the

Post by Sun85 »

cncpc wrote: In the funeral case, you are missing the point. A commercial air service involves providing an airplane and crew. When a renter pilot pays for the airplane himself or herself, he must make his conduct conform to the law when it comes to charging others for flight. There is a model in which that can be done. It is the equal expenses/incidental to the flight model. Inherent in that model is the idea that the passengers/potential victims know the pilot on a personal basis or through some medium by which they can assess competence, i.e. someone who has flown with the pilot before, and can speak to abilities, experience, etc. That is the ideal. I grant that it may not always happen.

With this example, it is the passengers who pay for the rental. They find their own pilot who meets the renting agency's requirements. He or she is not the originator of the transaction. However, it is very likely that one or all of the passengers will have personal knowledge of the pilot and be able to make a knowledgeable assessment of the risk they are taking, and paying for taking. Nobody seems to dispute that a company can pay the entire rental expense of an airplane they need an employee to fly for some company purpose, most likely his own transport to some work site, etc. That employee might well be a private pilot. How then is it different if a group of people, not organized as a company, do the same thing.
Cncpc, what you say is clearly based on your vast experience in the industry, and I really like what I see, because I plan on doing exactly that - flying people who at least somewhat know me, and have a general idea whether I am out to kill them, or to have a good time flying a plane.

I hope you agree with me that a pilot agreeing to fly his friends upon their request, renting an airplane, and chipping in 1/4 of the cost is no more in violation of the spirit of 401.28(2) than a pilot spending ZERO by flying folks on a plane they've rented. I can't see where the fact that the plane was rented by the friends of the pilot (with him sharing 1/4 of the cost) is NOT an offense, while a situation where the pilot rents the plane himself (at his friends' request) and then pays that same 1/4 is going to be in trouble with TC. Are we in agreement here, cncpc?
cncpc wrote: What the law seeks to discourage is such flights in which the pilot is the originator/organizer and where the passengers have no or little information on his licencing, abilities, or experience. I can't imagine a more clear example of that than responding to an ad such as the poster above describes. If the passengers know you, you don't need to put an ad in the paper. If you do need to, you are doing the very thing TC will jump all over.
Cncpc, you've said you haven't read 401.28 (2), so I take it you are speaking from your experience and knowledge of the industry, since if we take 401.28 literally, then there's absolutely nothing anywhere in 401.28 indicating that the passengers should have at least some knowledge of the person they are flying with. As well, there is nothing in 401.28 prohibiting any advertising, whether by word, by print, or by any other means.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Sun85
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:42 am

Re: Having people "contribute" to CPL training by flying the

Post by Sun85 »

photofly wrote:If anyone considers that the hours logged are not a "reward" then they should be equally happy to carry out the flight and not log the flight.
Photofly, I think this can be taken further. If time building is a reward, then why not staying current? The guy with 5,000 hrs would certainly benefit financially by flying for free to maintain currency, as opposed to having to fly his own plane, let alone renting one. Or how about simply experiencing the joy of flight? Is this a reward? Sure is, and with financial implications to boot, as it is substantially cheaper to enjoy flying when you are doing it for free, as opposed to renting a plane, or even burning fuel and running the engine in your own aircraft. Or what about creating goodwill with the people you fly, so they are more likely to do something for you in the future, such as invite you to a party where you hope to meet the right people to advance your business, for example. The last one may be stretching it a bit, but I hope you see the point - there are almost always financial rewards, direct or indirect, involved in piloting an airplane and having someone else foot the bill or share the cost. Why such desire to go after time-builders, then? Like I said above, I seriously doubt TC is aiming to ensure that time-builders owe as much money as possible after getting to the 200 hr mark, and take as long as possible to pay off their debt. Then what is it? What is the PURPOSE of 401.28 (2)? From the TC cases I've read, and from what Cncpc is saying, it appears TC is trying to stop PPL-holders from running a commercial service and then hiding behind excuses as to why they do what they do. Yes, it is very unfortunate that TC worded 401.28 (2) the way they did, but perhaps they thought that otherwise the chisel charter operators would be able to get away from enforcement. We just don't know (especially since there is no interpretation of that section by TC), but we are thinking human beings, and know right from wrong, and reasonable from unreasonable. Thus, when your friends come to you and ask you to rent a plane and take them on a ride where they would share the cost of the rental, it appears to me that the spirit of 401.28 is certainly not violated.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Having people "contribute" to CPL training by flying the

Post by photofly »

Sun85 wrote:there's absolutely nothing anywhere in 401.28 indicating that the passengers should have at least some knowledge of the person they are flying with.
Indeed, and there are some TATC cases that touch on cost sharing. Nothing particularly relevant to hours building, but no discussion of whether the passengers need to be known to the pilot (sometimes they're not). It's just all about making sure the costs are calculated right and divided up fairly and, that (I quote) "the pilot is part of the group". If not ... ZAP! violation!
Sun85 wrote:Photofly, I think this can be taken further. .... I hope you see the point - there are almost always financial rewards, direct or indirect, involved in piloting an airplane ... Why such desire to go after time-builders, then? Like I said above, I seriously doubt TC is aiming to ensure that time-builders owe as much money as possible after getting to the 200 hr mark, and take as long as possible to pay off their debt. Then what is it? What is the PURPOSE of 401.28 (2)?
I do see the point. I'm not sold on the argument, but the FAA obviously believes it, and someone at TC might try to advance it, and put it up in front of a tribunal if challenged. Reading some of the TATC cases, there are sillier arguments advanced. Really.
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Having people "contribute" to CPL training by flying the

Post by cncpc »

Sun85 wrote:
cncpc wrote: In the funeral case, you are missing the point. A commercial air service involves providing an airplane and crew. When a renter pilot pays for the airplane himself or herself, he must make his conduct conform to the law when it comes to charging others for flight. There is a model in which that can be done. It is the equal expenses/incidental to the flight model. Inherent in that model is the idea that the passengers/potential victims know the pilot on a personal basis or through some medium by which they can assess competence, i.e. someone who has flown with the pilot before, and can speak to abilities, experience, etc. That is the ideal. I grant that it may not always happen.

With this example, it is the passengers who pay for the rental. They find their own pilot who meets the renting agency's requirements. He or she is not the originator of the transaction. However, it is very likely that one or all of the passengers will have personal knowledge of the pilot and be able to make a knowledgeable assessment of the risk they are taking, and paying for taking. Nobody seems to dispute that a company can pay the entire rental expense of an airplane they need an employee to fly for some company purpose, most likely his own transport to some work site, etc. That employee might well be a private pilot. How then is it different if a group of people, not organized as a company, do the same thing.
Cncpc, what you say is clearly based on your vast experience in the industry, and I really like what I see, because I plan on doing exactly that - flying people who at least somewhat know me, and have a general idea whether I am out to kill them, or to have a good time flying a plane.

I hope you agree with me that a pilot agreeing to fly his friends upon their request, renting an airplane, and chipping in 1/4 of the cost is no more in violation of the spirit of 401.28(2) than a pilot spending ZERO by flying folks on a plane they've rented. I can't see where the fact that the plane was rented by the friends of the pilot (with him sharing 1/4 of the cost) is NOT an offense, while a situation where the pilot rents the plane himself (at his friends' request) and then pays that same 1/4 is going to be in trouble with TC. Are we in agreement here, cncpc?
cncpc wrote: What the law seeks to discourage is such flights in which the pilot is the originator/organizer and where the passengers have no or little information on his licencing, abilities, or experience. I can't imagine a more clear example of that than responding to an ad such as the poster above describes. If the passengers know you, you don't need to put an ad in the paper. If you do need to, you are doing the very thing TC will jump all over.
Cncpc, you've said you haven't read 401.28 (2), so I take it you are speaking from your experience and knowledge of the industry, since if we take 401.28 literally, then there's absolutely nothing anywhere in 401.28 indicating that the passengers should have at least some knowledge of the person they are flying with. As well, there is nothing in 401.28 prohibiting any advertising, whether by word, by print, or by any other means.
Yes, I'd say we are in agreement, Sun.

I'm not here to win an argument with anybody over this issue. The first thing is that this is very poor legislation. It can be arbitrarily applied, and seems to have been according to the Colonel.

I do know that there is a view, which I disagree with, to the effect that a paying passenger in an airplane deserves a higher standard of safety than someone who might have paid less. I believe that every person in an airplane deserves the best standard of safety possible, even if they paid nothing for the flight. Does enforcement of this reg improve safety. Probably sometimes it does, sometimes not. It certainly does when Type A's like the guy at McIvor Lake set out to deliberately operate an illegal commercial air service.

Perhaps this is a good way of evaluating whether you are doing something that the law could become involved in. Years ago, I lived in Ireland and one day the radio was interviewing a guywho had been the leader of the IRA before the Provos. He was asked a question that had to do with how IRA members knew each other, given that they were organized in cells with no contact with each other directly. The question was, how did a person know they actually were in the IRA? His answer was "If you think you're in the IRA, you are."

That's a pretty good way to look at this thing we're talking about. If you think you're doing something illegal, you probably are. If you go ahead and do it, you certainly are.

Some folks on here may well think they may be doing something illegal, but are looking for support for the idea they aren't.

It's all very subjective, and the problem is worsened by the crackpot nature of aviation tribunal decisions.

One of the posters above described the language of the reg as very broad. A court may well find the same thing, and would interpret it to mean the intention of Parliament in making the regulation, and would consider the supposed protection of citizens against arbitrary prosecution and punishment.
---------- ADS -----------
 
jump154
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:50 pm

Re: Having people "contribute" to CPL training by flying the

Post by jump154 »

photofly wrote:Seriously, read the TATC appeals. I'm astonished at the number of times someone decided to buzz a boat, or a house, or flip a roll or two on the way back from crop spraying - only to discover that the owner, occupant or sightseer just happens to be a TC inspector out for a sail, or sitting in his or her back garden on a day off. Maybe the inspectors just have magnetic personalities.
Couple of years ago there was a letter in our local paper, asking if anyone happened to get the registration of a ligth aircraft seen flying low over town on a Sat afternoon. The writer? A TC inspector who lives in town who saw the aircraft while out cycling and didn't get the Reg.

hooters lunch
I'm sure that's in the CARs all by itself, somewhere.
If TC don't get you the wife will!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Sun85
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:42 am

Re: Having people "contribute" to CPL training by flying the

Post by Sun85 »

jump154 wrote: Couple of years ago there was a letter in our local paper, asking if anyone happened to get the registration of a ligth aircraft seen flying low over town on a Sat afternoon. The writer? A TC inspector who lives in town who saw the aircraft while out cycling and didn't get the Reg.
There is probably no radar coverage for your town, but, in general, is it not possible to go to the nearest tower and check the radar records to see which plane was flying in a particular area at a certain time?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: Having people "contribute" to CPL training by flying the

Post by Colonel Sanders »

?

News flash: this is not implemented

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_traffi ... tem#Mode_S

Many aircraft do not even have mode C (altitude
encoding) transponders. Not all of them are selected
ALT during flight. Even if they were, all ATC would
know is that the VFR aircraft that they were not
talking to, was squawking 1200 :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
jump154
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:50 pm

Re: Having people "contribute" to CPL training by flying the

Post by jump154 »

Sun85 wrote:
jump154 wrote: Couple of years ago there was a letter in our local paper, asking if anyone happened to get the registration of a ligth aircraft seen flying low over town on a Sat afternoon. The writer? A TC inspector who lives in town who saw the aircraft while out cycling and didn't get the Reg.
There is probably no radar coverage for your town, but, in general, is it not possible to go to the nearest tower and check the radar records to see which plane was flying in a particular area at a certain time?
Errm, nope. Georgetown, ON. right under the western approaches to CYYZ. You can legally fly under 2000, 2500 or 1700 depending which part of town you are over without talking to anyone. Don't even need a transponder as you are under 6000'.
---------- ADS -----------
 
grimey
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2979
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: somewhere drunk

Re: Having people "contribute" to CPL training by flying the

Post by grimey »

Sun85 wrote:
jump154 wrote: Couple of years ago there was a letter in our local paper, asking if anyone happened to get the registration of a ligth aircraft seen flying low over town on a Sat afternoon. The writer? A TC inspector who lives in town who saw the aircraft while out cycling and didn't get the Reg.
There is probably no radar coverage for your town, but, in general, is it not possible to go to the nearest tower and check the radar records to see which plane was flying in a particular area at a certain time?
Assuming there's an secondary surveillance radar there, rather than just a primary, and that the pilot had a mode S transponder on the plane, and the transponder is on, yea.
---------- ADS -----------
 
AhmetSalim
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:06 pm

Re: Having people "contribute" to CPL training by flying them?

Post by AhmetSalim »

If you are a CPL licensed, will you be able advertise for air tour services? Can you charge passengers for a sightseeing tour by renting an aircraft from local airport? Or do you still need to Air Operator Certificate?
I was planning to do it, I was not aware of any certifications..
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Having people "contribute" to CPL training by flying them?

Post by PilotDAR »

You'll need an OC. Certainly the OC holder you're renting from is not intending that you use their plane, on their insurance to fly for hire for yourself.
---------- ADS -----------
 
scdriver
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 3:09 pm

Re: Having people "contribute" to CPL training by flying them?

Post by scdriver »

Since this old thread has already been revived, I will jump in. When I was time building in a rental plane for my CPL, I had on quite a few times when other members of the club (older members) were going places and since they didn't need the time, they would pay for the rental and all that and I would come along, fly and log the time. Pretty sure this is totally legal and a sweet way for some free time in the book.

PS, as someone else mentioned I think it's absolutely hilarious that the CARs seem to allow for a chisel sched business
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”