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

[cncpc]

Cncpc, sorry, bud, now I am totally confused. Is your interpretation of 401.28(2) that anyone who does not have a pilot license is allowed to rent an airplane and then ask a PPL-holder to fly them in that airplane to where the renter wants? If that so, then how is that in principle different than a non-license holder approaching a PPL-holder and asking that PPL-holder to rent an airplane and fly the non-license holder to where the non-lincense holder wants, then sharing the cost of the rental with the PPL-holder?

Then, what do you mean by "starting a business by advertising?" I cannot think of any business where the cost of a service is shared by the service provider and the service recepient. Quite on the contrary, I see nothing in 401.28 which prevents a PPL-holder from running ads in the national newspapers (if he wants to) stating what his upcoming flight schedule is, and inviting people to join him and share the costs.

And here's another one for everyone to consider. Say, a PPL holder wants to fly from A to B to build hours. He invites a pax to tag along and share the costs, and the pax agrees. So far so good, TC is happy. Then, upon arriving to the aerodrome, it turns out that the weather at B is bad, but the weather at C and D is not so bad. The pilot starts thinking where to fly: C or D. The pax then says: "I'd love to see C, and I don't care about D." The pilot then flies to C with the pax, and back to A. The cost is then shared. Is there a 401.28(2) violation?

With all due respect, folks, do you really think that TC is against the cost of building hours being alleviated by a PPL-holder flying his friends and acquaintances where THEY want? After all, a PPL-holder is absolutely free to do so at his own expense, so the considerations of "safety," of which there (theoretically) would be more of in case of someone with a CPL license, are not applicable here at all. Then what do you think TC is afraid of? That someone will get their CPL while owing a few thousand dollars less to the banks and would get out of the debt a year or two sooner? Again, from the TC cases I've seen on the Internet, 401.28 (2) has been applied where PPL-holders were running what to TC looked like a commercial service. Someone please show me where TC went after a guy who asked someone he knows where they want to fly, took them there, and then shared the costs with them.

I've never read 401.28(2). I, and most of the people who been around for two to four decades have a pretty good understanding of what this is about. I think that it can be summed up by saying you have to know the difference between scratching your ass and ripping it to bloody shreds.

I've run commercial air services and I know that chisel charterers (CCers) can sometimes find themselves ratted out or punched out because the legal operator sees CCers stealing money from them by not incurring the expense of a legal setup and legal operation. We used to have this total dick at Quesnel openly running people out to a lodge at Tsacha Lake in a Cherokee 180. There were a lot of remarks passed there, but not to the authorities. People didn't tend to do that sort of thing in those days. The guy killed himself along with a good friend of mine after I left. The people he was taking were mostly Americans rich enough to fly to Quesnel and pay to charter out to Tsacha. I'd characterize that as ripping your ass to shreds.

On the other hand, I've known my own private pilot students, after graduation, renting and running somebody over to Edmonton for a funeral or whatever and having the whole rental paid for. In fact, we, as commercial operators, took the money directly from them rather than the renter pilot. No money went to the pilot. These people could never have afforded a charter in the same airplane. I characterize that as scratching your ass. Everybody does it, but try not to be seen in public.

So the first thing to understand, if you plan on doing this to time build, is that some commercial operators may be coming down your chimney if they find out. But only in certain circumstances. If the people you fly were never seriously going to be able to charter as an alternative, it really isn't money out of their pocket. If you're out advertising your "schedule", at a minimum they'll call TC enforcement, and at worst take a baseball bat to you. Advertising a "schedule" would be ripping to bloody shreds. No, you can't do that. Get that idea completely out of your head. Once again, scratching your ass in public, buried down to the second knuckle.

The second group who are against you are commercial pilots, especially the ones who can't find work. They want to characterize what you're doing as commercial work, and see you as stealing a pilot's job from them. Once again, depends on whether the pax are legitimate, funded, potential real charter passengers, or wouldn't fly at all if the economics weren't right as they would be in a cost sharing deal. You will find young commercial pilots up on the high horse with the holier than thou hat at full gallop sometimes in this type of thing. Some may be doing it themselves.

I flew 700 hours in the first year after I got my licence back in the 70's. Almost all of it was on four seat or six seat trips to Reno-Monterrey-Vancouver Friday night to Sunday night trips. Monday night on long weekends. We usually all chipped in either a fourth or a sixth. I went almost every weekend, not quite so frequent in the winter. The first one ended in an accident, no injuries, and Transport knew that everyone was sharing. They knew on many other occasions and never had a problem with it. I worked at Canfor in head office with about 200 other people and after the first trip, word of mouth went around very fast that you could do Reno return for under $100, and I usually had a full load by Wednesday. If I didn't, I went anyway and the cost went up. Cancelled on Friday mornings if the forecast would have made the flight problematic, and stayed on the ground and missed work if we couldn't get home. Sometimes the passengers paid for the aircraft and I paid them my share. I can't recall ever doing this on anything but the Reno run.

If I had thought this was illegal, I wouldn't have done it. I knew it wasn't illegal because Transport knew the details and raised no issue at all.

I haven't read the reg because I know the spirit of the law. That is, you can share the costs of an airplane if you are going somewhere and are aware that others may want to go along. If you're talking about stretching the spirit far beyond the breaking point so that it is interpreted that you, trying to build hours by something that is very against the law, as the Colonel points out, can make some half or quarter assed argument that gee, what's the problem, then you're not only going to get the law on you, you're the type of personality who is going to kill yourself and others. How will you know that? You find yourself talking about weather diversions and advertising schedules and huffing and puffing about why anyone wouldn't see that as ok.

It's always a good idea when props turn and aviators aviate. Its part of our business and economy. Applies to private aircraft and private pilots as well. The exception that Transport allows recognizes that and allows sharing types of operations. I doubt there is much if any enforcement if nobody complains or there isn't an incident, but please remember the kiyiing from atop those high horses when that Twin Comanche went down on the Coquihalla a few months back. But take it too far, and people will be able to identify you by the bloodstain on the back of your Dockers.

[Sun85]

cncpc, thank you for such a detailed response! You've said what I've suspected all along - that 401.28(2) is meant to prevent PPL-holders from running a commercial service, and not to stop people from sharing the costs of flying with someone they know.

That said, it's highly unlikely your arguments would hold water should TC start a case. First of all, you are writing: "I've known my own private pilot students, after graduation, renting and running somebody over to Edmonton for a funeral or whatever and having the whole rental paid for." This is very much prohibited by the LETTER (obviously, not the spirit, based on your experience) of 401.28 (2), because here flying the pax to the funeral is not incidental to the flight, meaning the pilot must have paid for all of the rental himself. And there is no difference to TC whether or not the pax could have afforded a flight with a commercial carrier or not. Thus, saying: "these people could never have afforded a charter in the same airplane" wouldn't be a legitimate defense in a 401.28(2) violation case.

I am still not quite sure why you believe advertising is bad. On the contrary, I see nothing in 401.28(2) against it. All TC appears to care about is that your flight should be for purposes other than carrying passengers, and, should you have any passengers, that should be incidental to the purposes of your flight. Whether you tell no one and they somehow found and joined you, or you told your wife and she told her sister who then told her office co-workers, or you placed an ad in Toronto Sun stating "on December 20th, 2012 at 10:00 AM, I am piloting a 4-seat airplane from Toronto to Winnipeg and invite anyone willing to share the cost of the rental to join me," what difference does it make? That you may end up flying with someone you don't know? But there is nothing in 401.28(2) prohibiting that. Or that you increase the chances of depriving AC or Westjet of a paying pax? Again, nothing in 401.28(2) prohibiting that either.

Thank you for enlightening me on the spirit of the law. The situation is (slightly) more clear now.

[photofly]

I am piloting a 4-seat airplane from Toronto to Winnipeg and invite anyone willing to share the cost of the rental to join me

I find it very amusing that while the CARs prohibit a chisel charter operation, they do appear to allow a chisel scheduled service.

I'm sure if you did that they'd try to shut you down, but I have no idea how.

[cncpc]

cncpc, thank you for such a detailed response! You've said what I've suspected all along - that 401.28(2) is meant to prevent PPL-holders from running a commercial service, and not to stop people from sharing the costs of flying with someone they know.

That said, it's highly unlikely your arguments would hold water should TC start a case. First of all, you are writing: "I've known my own private pilot students, after graduation, renting and running somebody over to Edmonton for a funeral or whatever and having the whole rental paid for." This is very much prohibited by the LETTER (obviously, not the spirit, based on your experience) of 401.28 (2), because here flying the pax to the funeral is not incidental to the flight, meaning the pilot must have paid for all of the rental himself. And there is no difference to TC whether or not the pax could have afforded a flight with a commercial carrier or not. Thus, saying: "these people could never have afforded a charter in the same airplane" wouldn't be a legitimate defense in a 401.28(2) violation case.

I am still not quite sure why you believe advertising is bad. On the contrary, I see nothing in 401.28(2) against it. All TC appears to care about is that your flight should be for purposes other than carrying passengers, and, should you have any passengers, that should be incidental to the purposes of your flight. Whether you tell no one and they somehow found and joined you, or you told your wife and she told her sister who then told her office co-workers, or you placed an ad in Toronto Sun stating "on December 20th, 2012 at 10:00 AM, I am piloting a 4-seat airplane from Toronto to Winnipeg and invite anyone willing to share the cost of the rental to join me," what difference does it make? That you may end up flying with someone you don't know? But there is nothing in 401.28(2) prohibiting that. Or that you increase the chances of depriving AC or Westjet of a paying pax? Again, nothing in 401.28(2) prohibiting that either.

Thank you for enlightening me on the spirit of the law. The situation is (slightly) more clear now.

If enlightment has happened, then it's worth the effort. However, it seems to me you want to persist in arguing against a scenario that doesn't fit your plan, and for one that does, but which is clearly illegal.

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.

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.

[jump154]

Just to reiterate...anyone can pay for a rental airplane. There is no requirement that person be a pilot. There will be a requirement that the pilot be checked out and meet the insurance requirements, but he pilot does not have to be the person who pays the bill.

The people on board the aircraft can that make any arrangement they want to partially reimburse the person who paid the bill. In this situation, no one pays the pilot.

The problem with this is although the Pilot is not getting any money - the regulation is worded "for hire or reward". In the case of a time-builder, the reward could be interpreted as the hours in the logbook and therefore this would not be allowed.

Not sure where I read this, may have been in one of the Colonel's articles - but to me looks enough of a case that if Transport wanted to get you on it they could.

[JDW]

we can come up with hypotheticals that supposedly blur the line until the cows come home. maybe im just very black and white but i believe that anyone with decent judgement skills can reason out what is illegal her and what is not

[photofly]

The problem with this is although the Pilot is not getting any money - the regulation is worded "for hire or reward". In the case of a time-builder, the reward could be interpreted as the hours in the logbook and therefore this would not be allowed.

For sure the FAA has taken that view; but there doesn't appear to be anything in writing from Transport Canada or any of the tribunals on the topic. It's important not to confuse different regulatory regimes.

This is the closest appeal case related to the topic that I can find:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca- ... assini.doc

It was, by comparison with the scenarios being discussed here, quite egregious.

EDIT: I am also highly entertained, having chanced across the Tribunal's judgement on appeal by a certain member of this online community concerning some low level aerobatics in marginal weather I'll leave it to anyone interested to search for it themselves.

[cncpc]

Just to reiterate...anyone can pay for a rental airplane. There is no requirement that person be a pilot. There will be a requirement that the pilot be checked out and meet the insurance requirements, but he pilot does not have to be the person who pays the bill.

The people on board the aircraft can that make any arrangement they want to partially reimburse the person who paid the bill. In this situation, no one pays the pilot.

The problem with this is although the Pilot is not getting any money - the regulation is worded "for hire or reward". In the case of a time-builder, the reward could be interpreted as the hours in the logbook and therefore this would not be allowed.

Not sure where I read this, may have been in one of the Colonel's articles - but to me looks enough of a case that if Transport wanted to get you on it they could.

Timebuilding is not a reward contemplated by the wording of the legislation. As you indicate, it is first necessary to designate the pilot as a "time builder". How do you do that? Can someone who has 5000 hours do the same thing without violating the law.

Reward means money or the equivalent of money, i.e. something that can be exchanged for money.

A person isn't an offender for the same act when he is pursuing an aviation career and the other actor had nothing better to do but fly somebody's airplane.

It is the offering of an aircraft that is the offence, not the offering of pilot services, although that is an offence if a fee is charged and the person has only a private licence.

About 10-12 years ago there was a 180 on floats that went in killing the pilot and two others at McIvor Lake outside Campbell River. I did the preliminary investigation for the family. It was a chisel charter. The pilot was a complete head case. He felt the law didn't apply to him. He killed two people. There's a whiff of him in some posts in this thread.

[photofly]

As you indicate, it is first necessary to designate the pilot as a "time builder". How do you do that? Can someone who has 5000 hours do the same thing without violating the law.

The FAA in an adjudication on a similar issue (PPLs towing gliders) suggested that the level of experience of the PPL was material to the determination of whether logging the flight time could be considered a reward. Extra hours logged by a high-time pilot who already had sufficient hours for a CPL would be less likely to be so, but each case should be judged on its merits.

The adjudication states:

One solution to this problem would be for private tow plane pilots not to log their time

See: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/hea ... incoln.pdf

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.

[cncpc]

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.

Why should they be equally happy to not log a flight if they have an opinion on a legal issue? Hours logged are not a reward in this country. End of story. Two people can't do the same thing and one be declared an offender because of his personal circumstances of low time. It is the act which creates an offence, not the status of the alleged offender.

The most obvious answer to your contention is that not logging a flight IS beyond doubt an offence.

No judge in this country is going to rule that writing in a logbook is a reward.

[photofly]

Hours logged are not a reward in this country. End of story. ....
No judge in this country is going to rule that writing in a logbook is a reward.

Regardless of whether you are always required to log flight time in Canada, which is another question, I didn't say they shouldn't log the flight. That was the FAA's written suggestion in the context of the US regulatory regime.

I did say that in their own minds, if logging the time isn't a reward to them, then the pilot should hypothetically be equally happy to fly it without logging the time. For someone whose general motivation for flying is to build time towards a CPL that's self-evidently not the case.

Regardless, I do admire your absolute confidence in your own judgement.

[cncpc]

Regardless, I do admire your absolute confidence in your own judgement.

Ha ha. Well, I wouldn't call it "absolute". I wouldn't go any farther than saying it's a reasonably informed, but not correct in all circumstances, opinion.

[Colonel Sanders]

Two people can't do the same thing and one be declared an offender

That is certainly the case in Canada. Both TC
and the Tribunal are quite happy with their
discriminatory application of the CARs - different
rules for different folks - and dismissed my
concerns about this, with respect to the Charter
of Rights, as "meaningless rhetoric"

I don't think they could have gotten away with
that in Federal Court - what the Tribunal does,
with respect to interpreting and applying the law,
is simply jaw-dropping at times - but I don't have
time to fix all the bad law in this country. I didn't
bother appealing that nonsense.

Did I ever tell you about the time that TC had
the Tribunal outlaw all aerobatics below 18,000
feet in Canada?

[cncpc]

Two people can't do the same thing and one be declared an offender

That is certainly the case in Canada. Both TC
and the Tribunal are quite happy with their
discriminatory application of the CARs - different
rules for different folks - and dismissed my
concerns about this, with respect to the Charter
of Rights, as "meaningless rhetoric"

I don't think they could have gotten away with
that in Federal Court - what the Tribunal does,
with respect to interpreting and applying the law,
is simply jaw-dropping at times - but I don't have
time to fix all the bad law in this country. I didn't
bother appealing that nonsense.

Did I ever tell you about the time that TC had
the Tribunal outlaw all aerobatics below 18,000
feet in Canada?

I do a fair bit of law work pro bono for people who are in civil law difficulty, mostly business related, outside my day job. I do know that there are horror studies with tribunals and their make it up as you go interpretation of law.

Certainly a proper court in this country wouldn't rule that logging time was a benefit for the very reason you couldn't convict one guy, and acquit another guy for doing the same thing just because the second guy didn't need the hours. That might happen in the aviation tribunal.

A court wouldn't accept that gaining flight time was a "reward" within the normal meaning of the law. A reward has to be expressed in terms of money or equivalent to money.

The real intent of the law here, and of Transport Canada enforcement is, or should be, to stop the offering of commercial air services to the public in defiance of the requirement to obtain an operating certificate. What friends and relatives do among themselves is not really the business of enforcement of this provision, even though it occasionally has fatal consequences for friends and relatives. We should not be that far along towards the nanny state. After all, we can get into a car with anyone we want, and pay for the gas when we do so.

What if that was how things were structured. Pay for the Avgas, not the plane. Pay for two days worth of insurance, but not for the plane. Pay the landing fees and hangerage, but not for the plane.

[tommywcom]

Don't mean to hijack this thread - but what if one owns the aircraft and has a commercial rating already - would the situation be different?

[grimey]

Don't mean to hijack this thread - but what if one owns the aircraft and has a commercial rating already - would the situation be different?

Yea, you'd be nailed for operating a commercial air service without an operating certificate.

[Beefitarian]

This thread is actually a pretty good discussion now in my opinion.

This in particular is interesting as it applies to a trip I took years ago. I went to Hooters in West Edmonton Mall for lunch with two buddies.

Timebuilding is not a reward contemplated by the wording of the legislation. As you indicate, it is first necessary to designate the pilot as a "time builder". How do you do that? Can someone who has 5000 hours do the same thing without violating the law.

Reward means money or the equivalent of money, i.e. something that can be exchanged for money.

A person isn't an offender for the same act when he is pursuing an aviation career and the other actor had nothing better to do but fly somebody's airplane.

Looks like I inadvertently broke the rule worse by trying not to break it. My thought was I'll pay for the plane rental since I was building hours at the time but they can buy me lunch. I figured no one could give me trouble for it since lunch was not very expensive compared to plane rental.

[photofly]

A court wouldn't accept that gaining flight time was a "reward" within the normal meaning of the law. A reward has to be expressed in terms of money or equivalent to money.

Remember that "hire and reward" is defined in the Aeronautics Act, as "any payment, consideration, gratuity or benefit, directly or indirectly charged, demanded, received or collected by any person for the use of an aircraft." That's a really wide definition, wider than you suggest would be normally the case in a court. And in this scenario the definition in the act would take precedence.

I'm not saying you're not right, but it doesn't seem clear-cut to me, and who wants to be the first person to find out, at the hands of a TC Inspector?

I've been reading some of the TATC decisions. The quality of some of the initial findings does appear to be ... varied.

[Beefitarian]

Personally this here slows me down a lot.

who wants to be the first person to find out, at the hands of a TC Inspector?

I'm honestly mildly concerned about getting in trouble over the hooters lunch and it was last century.

[photofly]

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.

hooters lunch

I'm sure that's in the CARs all by itself, somewhere.