Start Freight Service?

[tommywcom]

Do I need an OC if I want to buy a plane (say a twin) and start a freight service? I would imagine carrying passengers would for sure require an OC though ...

If an OC is not required, is there anything else needed aside from a commercial pilot license?

[cdnpilot77]

I assume that you are wanting to have some revenue for the freight that you carry and you would not be doing it just for the fun of it at your expense....so the answer is yes, you need an OC it is a commercial service

[niss]

Actually I was going to ask a similar question.

With a PPL if you own the a/c you are allowed to receive compensation for oil and gas only if your pax are incidental to the flight, but you are not allowed to advertise that you will take people if they pay for gas etc.

If you have a CPL and an a/c are you now allowed to advertise the fact that you can take people who are not incidental? Can you charge to cover the costs of the a/c with out an OC?

Does having a CPL open it up anymore than a PPL does?

[cdnpilot77]

Read CARS 702/703, it is clearly stated in there.

[straightpilot]

Wow.

[niss]

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... htm#401_28

Aeroplanes and Helicopters - Reimbursement of Costs Incurred in Respect of a Flight

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.
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)

(2) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement for costs incurred in respect of a flight if the holder
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)

(a) is the owner or operator of the aircraft;
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)

(b) conducts the flight for purposes other than hire or reward;
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)

(c) carries passengers only incidentally to the purposes of the flight; and
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)

(d) receives a reimbursement that
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)

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

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

My question is that with a CPL do they still have to be incidental, or if I have a CPL can I say: "Hey, do you want to go flying, we can split on the gas & oil?"

[cdnpilot77]

my understanding is that As long as you are not charging over their "share" of the actual costs then it is perfectly fine and no OC required. If you are looking to make a profit and have any type of business as stated by the OP as a "freight company" you most definitly need an OC...stand to be corrected.

[CFMartin]

Niss, A commercial pilot license only allows you to exercise the priviledges itemized in CAR 401.30. While you may fly for hire or reward with a CPL, carrying passengers or cargo for money still constitutes a "air transport service", as defined in CAR 101.01, for which you require a AOC, in accordance with CAR 700.02(1), unless you are conducting one of the specific activities and meet the conditions specified in CAR 700.02(3) to 700.02(4).

The notion of profitability is not covered under the Aeronautics Act or the regulations: If you look at the definition of "Hire or reward" in the Aeronautics Act, it could entail any sum of money beyond the specific allowances of CAR 401.28.

I would suggest that you contact your TC office before conducting any such activities.

[C-FABH]

Niss,

Do you know anything about the ad I saw on Kijiji earlier? It seems to have been deleted by the original poster...

Something about transporting three passengers to Barrie in a "stylish" clapped out 1960s Cherokee?

[niss]

Certainly wouldn't.

I don't have my CPL yet and my question was purely academic/curiosity.

Besides, God knows I could never get 3 pax up as well.

[azimuthaviation]

Niss, A commercial pilot license only allows you to exercise the priviledges itemized in CAR 401.30. While you may fly for hire or reward with a CPL, carrying passengers or cargo for money still constitutes a "air transport service", as defined in CAR 101.01, for which you require a AOC, in accordance with CAR 700.02(1), unless you are conducting one of the specific activities and meet the conditions specified in CAR 700.02(3) to 700.02(4).

Not necessarily. If someone owns a private aircraft and wants it moved he can pay a CPL to do it. Likewise he can pay a CPL to fly his people in his plane so long as theyre not paying, I think??

But as far as the first poster is concerned he will require an AOC but as a 702 operator i would imagine that would not be a very involved process since passengers arent being carried.

[CFMartin]

process is essentially the same in regards to a 702 or 703 AOC and future requirements.

[cncpc]

Many years ago I built up about 600 hours between private and commercial by sharing rental costs on aircraft, mostly going Vancouver to Reno and SFO on a weekend. Four seats, split four ways, six seats, six ways. Yes, you could rent a six seater in those days. I remember an Aztec being $80 wet. I checked with TC then, and it was legal, as long as the cost was split by the number of seats.

I don't think the reg was as clear then, but the issue then was receiving a benefit, directly or indirectly. The key fact was that it was a rental airplane, and that the rental expense was being exactly defrayed by the passengers, who probably could have approached the renter as a group, as long as they had a pilot and he or she wasn't an employee of the renter. Now it seems to be restricted to fuel and oil, but I seriously doubt whether splitting rental costs would be considered a commercial air service. It's operating a commercial air service that is the issue. And, I've been reimbursed by my employer back then for expenses of renting an airplane to do my work, same as a car rental would be.

[cncpc]

Niss, A commercial pilot license only allows you to exercise the priviledges itemized in CAR 401.30. While you may fly for hire or reward with a CPL, carrying passengers or cargo for money still constitutes a "air transport service", as defined in CAR 101.01, for which you require a AOC, in accordance with CAR 700.02(1), unless you are conducting one of the specific activities and meet the conditions specified in CAR 700.02(3) to 700.02(4).

Not necessarily. If someone owns a private aircraft and wants it moved he can pay a CPL to do it. Likewise he can pay a CPL to fly his people in his plane so long as theyre not paying, I think??

But as far as the first poster is concerned he will require an AOC but as a 702 operator i would imagine that would not be a very involved process since passengers arent being carried.

I think you can get done even as a CPL for flying someone else's aircraft when passengers are illegally being carried for hire. I guess they would have to prove you knew what the arrangement was between the owner and the passengers.

[azimuthaviation]

Now it seems to be restricted to fuel and oil

Only if they happen to be going to Reno the same day as you.

[azimuthaviation]

Niss, A commercial pilot license only allows you to exercise the priviledges itemized in CAR 401.30. While you may fly for hire or reward with a CPL, carrying passengers or cargo for money still constitutes a "air transport service", as defined in CAR 101.01, for which you require a AOC, in accordance with CAR 700.02(1), unless you are conducting one of the specific activities and meet the conditions specified in CAR 700.02(3) to 700.02(4).

Not necessarily. If someone owns a private aircraft and wants it moved he can pay a CPL to do it. Likewise he can pay a CPL to fly his people in his plane so long as theyre not paying, I think??

But as far as the first poster is concerned he will require an AOC but as a 702 operator i would imagine that would not be a very involved process since passengers arent being carried.

I think you can get done even as a CPL for flying someone else's aircraft when passengers are illegally being carried for hire. I guess they would have to prove you knew what the arrangement was between the owner and the passengers.

I should have made clearer that the passengers were not paying customers. For instance, a well to do family buys a Navajo or Malibu etc. and hires a CPL to fly them to their golf trips and the like.

[Big Pistons Forever]

What you can and can not do is always governed by what part of the CARs applies to the specific flight in question. What license you hold only matters with respect to what part of the CARs applies to the specific flight in question, or in other words what license does that specific part of the CARs require for the flight crew position being occupied.

The possible options are as follows:

CAR 602 .........private operations
CAR 604..........private operations requiring a private operations certificate ( ie turbine business aircraft)
CAR 406..........flight training
CAR 702..........specialty operations (ie photo, survey, fire fighting etc)
CAR 703..........air taxi
CAR 704..........commuter airline (ie 19 seats or less)
CAR 705..........airline operations with large aircraft.

You as the pilot needs to know what part of the CAR regulates your flight in order to make sure you are complying with the regulations. For example a flight school with a FTU Operating certificate and a 703 OC could operate a sightseeing flight under either CAR 406 or CAR 703. The requirements as to who and how the same flight is operated are significantly different under 406 versus 703 and it is the PIC
who is ultimately responsible.

And now I am going to (again) rant. If you are working towards, or allready hold a CPL, understanding the CARs which is the rule set which governs your profession is not some theory you memorize for the exam and then forget, It is required to properly do your job

[LousyFisherman]

And now I am going to (again) rant. If you are working towards, or allready hold a CPL, understanding the CARs which is the rule set which governs your profession is not some theory you memorize for the exam and then forget, It is required to properly do your job

Except the CARS are impossible to understand.
TC will give you different interpretations depending on which office and person.
Lawyers will point out the contradictions. In fact the definition of receiving a benefit ended up in appeals court, the second highest in the land.And there are still some grey areas around the definition of benefit.

As my lawyer stated to me, if I choose the time and the destination I can accept up to one half (C150 2 seater) of my OPERATING costs. He stated it is UNCLEAR if I can accept money for my engine and propeller reserve as a judge MIGHT NOT agree. Since the cost to fight an accusation is so much higher than the money involved, it seems best not to find out.

He would not even comment on the question do I receive a benefit by booking hours and gaining experience!

So how is a pilot who has no legal training supposed to understand a legal document when the regulators and lawyers who are specifically paid to understand it cannot?

YMMV
LF

[System Message]

LousyFisherman, just so you know it was designed to be that way so that anyone can be charged with any crime anytime.
On an interesting note the aviation regulations, the income tax act, and the firearms act are the exact same document with the words aircraft, currency, and instrument of death substituted as needed.

[Cat Driver]

TCCA operating under CARS is like dealing with the Mafia, except they are a Mafia that can evade accountability under our justice system.

There is an appeal venue available, just remember the members of the tribunal just may have a closer relationship to the employees of TCCA than they may have to you.

Canada is just another third world country run by uncountable bureaucrats protected by their own rule of law mindset.

I'll take Africa any day when it comes to getting fair treatment from the authorities.

For me it is simple, if approached by any employee of TCCA to protect myself I will refuse to communicate or co-operate with them.

They can charge me with whatever they want and go fu.k them self.

Any of you TCCA types want to test me I'm easy to find as I will be at the Pitt Meadows Airport quite frequently.

Best way for you to test this is try ramp checking me.....you are not going to like the results, that I can guarantee you.

. .:

Canadian license # AA38841

[photofly]

I should have made clearer that the passengers were not paying customers. For instance, a well to do family buys a Navajo or Malibu etc. and hires a CPL to fly them to their golf trips and the like.

TC is fairly clear that is *not* permitted.

See http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/s ... 0-1755.htm

Part VII, Section 700.02 of the CARs Requirements for Air Operator Certificate (AOC) clearly states that:

No person shall operate an air transport service unless the person holds and complies with the provisions of an Air Operator Certificate that authorizes the person to operate that service.

Part I, Section 101.01 of the CARs defines air transport service2 as a commercial air service that is operated for the purpose of transporting persons, personal belongings, baggage, goods or cargo in an aircraft between two points;

A commercial air service3 is defined in the Aeronautics Act as any use of aircraft for "hire or reward".

Hire or reward4 is subsequently defined as any payment, consideration, gratuity or benefit, directly or indirectly charged, demanded, received or collected by any person for the use of an aircraft.

The salient point that any payment or benefit, received by any person - including the pilot - makes the flight commercial.

That answers the original question too - yes, you need an OC to run a freight service.

[AOW]

I should have made clearer that the passengers were not paying customers. For instance, a well to do family buys a Navajo or Malibu etc. and hires a CPL to fly them to their golf trips and the like.

TC is fairly clear that is *not* permitted.

See http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/s ... 0-1755.htm

Part VII, Section 700.02 of the CARs Requirements for Air Operator Certificate (AOC) clearly states that:

No person shall operate an air transport service unless the person holds and complies with the provisions of an Air Operator Certificate that authorizes the person to operate that service.

Part I, Section 101.01 of the CARs defines air transport service2 as a commercial air service that is operated for the purpose of transporting persons, personal belongings, baggage, goods or cargo in an aircraft between two points;

A commercial air service3 is defined in the Aeronautics Act as any use of aircraft for "hire or reward".

Hire or reward4 is subsequently defined as any payment, consideration, gratuity or benefit, directly or indirectly charged, demanded, received or collected by any person for the use of an aircraft.

The salient point that any payment or benefit, received by any person - including the pilot - makes the flight commercial.

So all of those 604 operators who pay their pilots are breaking the law because they don't have a 704 OC?

yes, you need an OC to run a freight service.

No arguments here.

[photofly]

So all of those 604 operators who pay their pilots are breaking the law because they don't have a 704 OC?

I don't know what kind of OC you need, but according to that TC page, if you are paying your pilot and you don't have an OC, then yes, you're in contravention. I can't see any other way to interpret that fairly specific guidance, can you?

[cdnpilot77]

So all of those 604 operators who pay their pilots are breaking the law because they don't have a 704 OC?

I don't know what kind of OC you need, but according to that TC page, if you are paying your pilot and you don't have an OC, then yes, you're in contravention. I can't see any other way to interpret that fairly specific guidance, can you?

That is not correct. It is not a commercial service that takes revenue in exchange usage of the airplane. Therefore no OC required.

[AOW]

That is not correct. It is not a commercial service that takes revenue in exchange usage of the airplane. Therefore no OC required.

Exactly! And by extension, the privately owned navajo/malibu/etc. that has a professional pilot hired by the owner to fly their family/employees does not require an AOC or POC. Now with the new 604 rules, many other airplanes, such as King Air 90/100/200's are exempt from the POC rules, so expect to see more private owners looking for professional pilots!