Employee with PPL flying for the Company

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Either way though, I would ask Transport Canada, and get it in writing if you can. It's the only way to be sure.

You will not get a "permission slip" from TC. They all know the rules about "officially induced error", and CASI's are not lawyers and are not qualified to give legal opinions. Unfortunately you have to interpret the regulations yourself, with (if you need it) help from a lawyer, whom you will have to pay. That's what lawyers are for.

You're right. I amend my previous statement. PRpilot, ask a lawyer familiar with Canadian aviation law. It's the only way to be (reasonably) sure.

[Bede]

Either way though, I would ask Transport Canada, and get it in writing if you can. It's the only way to be sure.

I take it you've never tried this. That's not how it works. Civil servants aren't in the business of providing the public with legal advice and even if they did, trying to defend a contravention by "officially induced error" is almost always a losing proposition.

Edit: sorry question answered previously. I think we posted on top of each other.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

If so, the flying part of the job is incidental

I don't think that's relevant. If it's part of your job, you're being paid for it, and you need a CPL. It may be that you could achieve the same ends by various other means, but that doesn't mean it's not what you're being paid for.

Possibly, but it could also be done outside of work hours on a cost reimbursement/sharing basis. At this point it's legally very muddy I think. Even more muddy if the OP is salaried and work hours are flexible ("Hey boss, I'm taking a three hour lunch to fly a few folks out.")

We really could use a lawyer around these parts...

[Bede]

If so, the flying part of the job is incidental

I don't think that's relevant. If it's part of your job, you're being paid for it, and you need a CPL. It may be that you could achieve the same ends by various other means, but that doesn't mean it's not what you're being paid for.

I don't think that you're correct, but I am willing to be persuaded. If CAR 401.28 allows an employee with a PPL to receive reimbursement for an aircraft that they own or rent, is it not reasonable that they're also allowed to fly said aircraft, or if the aircraft is company owned, fly the company aircraft without reimbursement, provided the conditions in sub (3) are met?

Now for no other reason than an intellectual exercise, assume a PPL flew a company aircraft on a full time basis. For the extents of this internet discussion, the pilot flew company employees from point A to point B. What CAR would they be contravening? (hint: look up hire or reward definition in AA and the answer is not quite as clear as you'd think). (Please no one get any idea's- it's just an exercise in statutory interpretation).

[Bede]

We really could use a lawyer around these parts...

There are. They just don't go advertising it around.

[ahramin]

When I was a CPL working for a non aviation company and the subject of using an airplane for getting out to Maidstone I called TC and asked them about it. The inspector walked me through the rules so that I understood what was and was not legal.

[photofly]

I don't think that you're correct, but I am willing to be persuaded. If CAR 401.28 allows an employee with a PPL to receive reimbursement for an aircraft that they own or rent, is it not reasonable that they're also allowed to fly said aircraft, or if the aircraft is company owned, fly the company aircraft without reimbursement, provided the conditions in sub (3) are met?

Now for no other reason than an intellectual exercise, assume a PPL flew a company aircraft on a full time basis. For the extents of this internet discussion, the pilot flew company employees from point A to point B.

(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

If you fly a company aircraft on a full time basis, it would be difficult to argue that you're employed "on a full-time basis by the employer for purposes other than flying". When are you doing these other purposes, if you're flying full-time?

If you're on an irregular, occasional basis flying to a meeting, and you happen to take someone with you to the meeting, I'd say that's ok. When it becomes a regular ocurrence that you're ferrying people around, I'd say that's pushing the point.

[Bede]

Photofly,

yep I agree. Sorry I though you were arguing something differently in a previous post.

[photofly]

Besides, those are the rules for reimbursement for costs incurred. If it's a company airplane we're not talking about reimbursement, we're talking about direct payment (salary). Looking at it more closely the "incidental to the purposes" permissive clause doesn't come in to play.

Go back to

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.

If you're on an irregular, occasional basis flying to a meeting, and you happen to take someone with you to the meeting, I'd say that's ok.

I think I've changed my mind. Because it's salary and not reimbursement, I don't think even that is ok, because none subsections (2)-(5) apply to salary. I"m going back to - if it's on company time, and it's a company airplane - you need a CPL.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

If you're on an irregular, occasional basis flying to a meeting, and you happen to take someone with you to the meeting, I'd say that's ok.

I think I've changed my mind. Because it's salary and not reimbursement, I don't think even that is ok, because none subsections (2)-(5) apply to salary. I"m going back to - if it's on company time, and it's a company airplane - you need a CPL.

But it's not on company time. I took an extended lunch break, or I left work early today, and borrowed the company plane! Just happened to take a few friends along for the ride!

I would be willing to be convinced if a company owned plane is involved - because that fact alone implies that it's part of my job. If it's my plane though, I'm not convinced. If I'm paid hourly and not earning wages for the time period in question, it's kosher, but it's de facto impossible to do that in a more flexible, salaried position? That does not compute.

[viccoastdog]

We would also want to fly employees to get to job sites and/or meetings as well.

Here's an engineering company that had a plane and flew employees to meetings.Except this employee had a CPL (and was an executive in the company). I wonder if the employee-passengers felt compelled to fly in what was an overweight, out of C of G plane, that wasn't properly maintained, operated contrary to the CARs, and was flown by a pilot evidently not trained to a standard expected in a commercial air service.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... w0068.html

[digits_]

We would also want to fly employees to get to job sites and/or meetings as well.

Here's an engineering company that had a plane and flew employees to meetings.Except this employee had a CPL (and was an executive in the company). I wonder if the employee-passengers felt compelled to fly in what was an overweight, out of C of G plane, that wasn't properly maintained, operated contrary to the CARs, and was flown by a pilot evidently not trained to a standard expected in a commercial air service.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... w0068.html

I doubt the problem here was the lack of having an AOC...

I think a lot of pilots overestimate the importance the public puts on having a CPL or an AOC. Lots of my non-pilot friends at least would have no problem hopping in an airplane with a PPL holder. They compare it to a commercial taxi service vs a guy giving you a ride. That would probably only hold up for "small" airplanes (eg, everything smaller than a 737), but that is what we are talking about here.

[scdriver]

We would also want to fly employees to get to job sites and/or meetings as well.

Here's an engineering company that had a plane and flew employees to meetings.Except this employee had a CPL (and was an executive in the company). I wonder if the employee-passengers felt compelled to fly in what was an overweight, out of C of G plane, that wasn't properly maintained, operated contrary to the CARs, and was flown by a pilot evidently not trained to a standard expected in a commercial air service.

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... w0068.html

I doubt the problem here was the lack of having an AOC...

I think a lot of pilots overestimate the importance the public puts on having a CPL or an AOC. Lots of my non-pilot friends at least would have no problem hopping in an airplane with a PPL holder. They compare it to a commercial taxi service vs a guy giving you a ride. That would probably only hold up for "small" airplanes (eg, everything smaller than a 737), but that is what we are talking about here.

I think to a lot of the public, the difference between a guy holding a PPL and CPL is negligible. They just see it as you having a "pilot's licence" in both situations. After all, I'm sure most of us have taken plenty of people flying with a PPL

[PRpilot]

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts on this. I'm going to kick this down the road for now. In the meantime, I'll just worry about regaining my currency and flying rentals for personal development and for fun.

- For aerial photography, why not use a drone? They're cheaper, safer, and can hover in place for easier shots I would think.

While that is true, I'm trying to find ways of getting myself into the air. This initially seemed like a good way to do that.

[viccoastdog]

[/quote]

I doubt the problem here was the lack of having an AOC...

[/quote]

The company had the 604 equivalent of an AOC...a POC issued by the then CBAA. That - and the fact this pilot held a CPL instead of the OP's PPL - is not the point.

[PilotDAR]

While that is true, I'm trying to find ways of getting myself into the air. This initially seemed like a good way to do that.

Around here, that is understood. However, around here, the experienced pilots contributing have been there, and paid their own way, there's no way around it.

It is a reality that flying is getting more expensive, and less available, and that is not going to change. Nothing in our society is pointing toward flying becoming less costly. All the people involved in keeping a plane flying expect to be paid a living wage. Everyone who makes parts for airplanes has higher costs, and is passing them on to the airplane owner. The legacy airplanes are aging, and defects are becoming apparent, which are costly to fix. Airplanes are poor for the environment, so society is going to assure that we have to pay our share of those costs, and airport land is not getting cheaper.

On the other hand, TC regulates flying to meet the expectations of the public for perceived safety, rather than pilot cost savings. TC will do nothing to get you into the air, if they think that you do not meet the minimums of license, currency, and recency. If you do meet those for the flight you propose, they'll still do nothing to get you into the air, they just won't prevent you. After an accident, TC often receives recommendations form the TSB. Those recommendations never say that TC is being too demanding of pilots for licensing, currency, and recency.

The only two "give's" I can think of which TC has offered to get pilot's flying at a lesser costs are the recreational pilot permit, and owner maintenance airplanes - it's something, and it seems to work, though neither of those have anything to do with a pilot being paid to fly the plane.

When I learned to fly, other pilots were mumbling about the cost to fly, I accepted the costs as being what it was, and paid for what I could. I was lucky enough to meet some very generous pilots, who took me along from time to time right seat. Though it was not "loggable" time, I built experience, so when I could afford to fly, my skills grew rapidly.

My best advice to get yourself into the air at a lesser cost, is to be at the airport when someone who might invite you is there to invite you. Your investment in your time, and perhaps effort toward a flying club. It's worked for many people here, pumping gas on the weekend, washing airplanes, mowing grass, and helping an owner put the cowls back on.

Otherwise, if you can't be at the airport to meet pilots and build experience, involve yourself, and read here. But, in a forum of pilots who have paid their way with their last buck from time to time, there's little traction for trying to eek out paid flying on a PPL when the regulations point away from that pretty clearly.

[valleyboy]

Thats what insurance is for.

Ya missed the point -- I think photofly gets it. Nothing to do with rules or insurance at all, the impact of an incident goes far deeper than that. It's life changing.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The rules that apply.

The principal difference between a PPL and CPL privilege's is the CPL allows you to "engage in a coomercial air service" as per CAR 401.30 (c)

401.30 (1) Subject to subsection (3), the holder of a commercial pilot licence — aeroplane may, by day or night,

(a) exercise the privileges of a private pilot licence — aeroplane;

(b) exercise the privileges of a VFR OTT rating;

(c) while engaged in providing a commercial air service by means of an aeroplane of a class and type in respect of which the licence is endorsed with ratings, act as...PIC...SIC

The definition of "commercial air service" is in the interpretation section of the Aeronautics Act

commercial air service means any use of aircraft for hire or reward; (service aérien commercial)

"hire and reward" is also defined in the AA

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; (rémunération)

So the test for whether or not a CPL is required for any particular flight is whether or not a "commercial air service " is being operated

[rookiepilot]

I'd be curious what an insurance company would say about this.

[Squaretail]

I'd be curious what an insurance company would say about this.

While if you asked them they would likely say no, as it seems to be their standard answer, in reality I have yet to see an insurance company not pay out even when it seemed obvious that the pilots were engaged in activity which their insurance clearly didn't cover.

[photofly]

To be fair, do you make a study of insurance payouts?

[Squaretail]

To be fair, do you make a study of insurance payouts?

No, I do not. I am merely expressing what I have observed, take it for what you paid for it.

[photofly]

I didn't mean to be contentious, but I personally know of aviation insurance claims that have been denied, and when payouts have occurred, they're subject to non-disclosure agreements. I also know a respected pilot who does a decent sideline in being an expert witness for (and against) insurance companies who are trying not to payout on claims. So yes, insurance companies trying to get out of paying out is a thing.

And frankly, as a policy holder, I don't really want my underwriter paying out on claims that aren't inside the coverage: the payouts come from my policy premiums, and those have gone up quite far enough in the last two years.

[Squaretail]

And frankly, as a policy holder, I don't really want my underwriter paying out on claims that aren't inside the coverage: the payouts come from my policy premiums, and those have gone up quite far enough in the last two years.

I agree with you. Any time I have had to question rate hikes you get that same line about how many pay outs have been made. But I also know of a lot of claims that have been paid out when I think to myself "they paid out for that?!" Guys flying without licenses. Guys engaged in some of the activities discussed here. And its refreshing to know that if you know of claims being refuted on a valid basis. I just haven't seen it in practice.

[photofly]

Sometimes one hears about claims that should have been paid, that have been denied. That's not a good thing.