Warbird and historic aircraft rides....Exemption from CARS

[fleet16b]

You don't "operate" under an AMO. AOC and AMO's are a different things.

I'm sure you'll have no problem finding a local AMO to give you a hand. Yes, it will cost you money - money that you will have to translate into a price for your rides. That's the "price" of the exemption.

For most groups the price is already reduce to attract the limited amount of the public that is interested in vintage aircraft rides. Again, as has been said, any added costs has large repercussions of non-profit groups

This crying about CPL vs PPL and insurance....

Nobody is "crying". Simply discussing the situation and questioning why it is what it is

Look, if I called my insurer - "I have a PPL and this airplane and these hours" - they'll reply with a said rate & coverage amounts.
Yay - okay...insurer says I can fly with passengers. Actually, more correctly - my insurer will cover those passengers in the event of bad things.

If I call said insurer - "I have a PPL, this airplane, and would like to provide pre-arranged, for profit rides" - They'd laugh at me in the face.....

Really? then how have these groups been operating with PPL pilots up until recently ? Do you think they have been operating with no coverage? If they are then they are crazy

Listen, everyone knows the rules now being enforced but part of the problem is that for years now TC has allowed these vintage groups to give rides using PPL Pilots and the groups have relied on this situation to stay afloat.
There is nothing wrong with challenging / questioning TC on this rule . Especially if it has already been proven something else works.
As has been said, for the most part when it comes to giving rides in vintage aircraft PPL-CPL it doesn't really matter - and that has been proven by what has been happening until recently . It has been going on with no issues .Much of the complaining has come from CPL pilots themselves. I get it why should some PPL be allowed to have a privilege that they had to spend time and money to get.
Well times/situations change. Hell. I remember the big controversy over the RPP . Flying Schools, PPL and CPL guys were saying that people were going to be falling out of the sky left and right . Didn't happen and the RPP has proven both safe and successful. Why did the RPP come about? A) because it was becoming unaffordable for people to learn to fly B) because the PPL course is both expensive and being filled with way too much training. General Aviation recognised this and TC worked with them to find an alternative.
The same holds true for this current situation. Its already a proven fact that qualified PPL Pilots can safely conduct passenger rides for hire . So the argument that its unsafe to allow qualified PPL Pilots this privilege is a moot point. As for the Ins Companies, if TC deemed qualified PPL Pilots able to carry passengers then they would get on board too.

[fleet16b]

Its quite the dilemma for some organizations .
At present here in Ontario with this change , only CWH and VWC are able to operate ride programs legally
Other groups like CHAA are suffering greatly from this . They for one rely heavily on this revenue to keep afloat. Having spoken with them, its putting the future of the organization in jeopardy.
Not so much an issue for individual owners like myself , though it would be nice to have an exception to offset the costs instead of just breaking even.

In my reading, CHAA's issue is the lack of Commercial Operator's Certificate, which this exemption deals with. They also, according to their September newsletter, have an issue with maintenance that they are attempting to also get an exemption for. They either need to become an AMO or use an AMO to service the planes. They already use CPL's for the flights, so they are good on that part of it.

Yes, had dinner with some of the CHAA guys last night and the shortage of CPL pilots has been dealt with .
They have not been able to increase the number of CPLs in the group but are working out a process with the existing ones to cover all the paid flights that are in cue.
However, the AMO issue has not. I am told that they will continue to operate as they have until the end of this season. At which time there will be discussion on how to go forward and the future of the group.

[PilotDAR]

There is nothing wrong with challenging / questioning TC on this rule

Is true, a well thought out challenge furthers understanding for everyone involved, and that's a good thing. It doesn't always mean that the basis of the challenge should cause a change though.

Much of the complaining has come from CPL pilots themselves. I get it why should some PPL be allowed to have a privilege that they had to spend time and money to get. Well times/situations change.

I think that a complaint of that nature from a CPL makes good sense. It is the same scenario as that when the maintainers of Canada, who had earned AME licenses expressed objection to owner maintenance being enacted. Their complaint had merit. A compromise was reached, and worked. I imaging that same thing has happened here, a compromise, but it did not extend as far as crossing the line upon which PPLs could fly pax for hire. It's not just TC and Canada who apply this regulation, it is world wide. With the exception of a few things like owner maintenance (thank you TC), TC is not going to go against the ICAO regulations. That's why the RPP is not a license, ICAO does not need to recognize it at all, just as OM aircraft. But, you're not going to ever see a recreational commercial pilot permit issued by TC!

[fleet16b]

There is nothing wrong with challenging / questioning TC on this rule

Is true, a well thought out challenge furthers understanding for everyone involved, and that's a good thing. It doesn't always mean that the basis of the challenge should cause a change though.

Much of the complaining has come from CPL pilots themselves. I get it why should some PPL be allowed to have a privilege that they had to spend time and money to get. Well times/situations change.

I think that a complaint of that nature from a CPL makes good sense. It is the same scenario as that when the maintainers of Canada, who had earned AME licenses expressed objection to owner maintenance being enacted. Their complaint had merit. A compromise was reached, and worked. I imaging that same thing has happened here, a compromise, but it did not extend as far as crossing the line upon which PPLs could fly pax for hire. It's not just TC and Canada who apply this regulation, it is world wide. With the exception of a few things like owner maintenance (thank you TC), TC is not going to go against the ICAO regulations. That's why the RPP is not a license, ICAO does not need to recognize it at all, just as OM aircraft. But, you're not going to ever see a recreational commercial pilot permit issued by TC!

All good points
As for the RPP , TC dropped the ball on that one when they did not push for ICAO recognition
There is no reason why a holder of that license should not be able to cross borders
I have even spoken to the FAA regarding it and they couldn't care less if you cam across with it .
But I will bet your insurance would be void if you did
Sorry about the thread drift

[goingnowherefast]

My only objection to this exemption is the pilot experience requirements. They do make sense for pilots of the Lancaster, DC-3s, B-25, Spitfire, Mustang, etc. However nobody needs 2500hrs to fly a Chipmunk, Tiger Moth or a Harvard.

We can argue the merits of a CPL all day. The 'C' stands for Commercial and we've sufficiently beaten that horse to death. However it's a reasonable assumption that operators and insurance companies will do an adequate job of controlling pilot experience. There's a reason freshly minted career pilots don't start as King Air captains or go straight into a turbo Otter and it isn't any TC regulation.

As for the maintenance requirements, I don't have sufficient knowledge in this area to make a strong argument. Perhaps partner with an AMO, utilizing the museum's volunteer mechanics to work on the aircraft under the AMO?

[cgzro]

+100

Its the 1000 hrs and 100 in that specific aircraft or 2500 and 25 in class that is the problem when applied to the very often special c of a trainers. The cpl requirement is annoying sure but ok i can go get one, but it wont help because im not going to go pay for 100hrs in a specific aircraft and even if i wanted too the plane is not even available for rental and time building!!

The spitfire / hurricanes have (almost always) one seat so no problem there.

Require a cpl fine, then let the organization decide how may hours tail dragger and in type are requird based on their insurance etc as per any other commercial outfit. Theis exemption is even stricter than normal commercial opss far as pilot experience are concerned.

[AirFrame]

...Spitfire, Mustang, etc. However nobody needs 2500hrs to fly a Chipmunk, Tiger Moth or a Harvard.

Keeping in mind of course that the first people flying Spitfires, Mustangs, etc. didn't have 2500 hours either. They did transition from Chimpunks, Tiger Moths, or Harvards though... Maybe there needs to be a way to train just like they did "back in the day" by transitioning from simpler to more complex aircraft in a controlled manner.

[cgzro]

During the BCATP training 1 in 200 died so we may want to increase the hours a bit.

Realistically the ideal training is a few hundred hours tail dragger in something twitchy and blind and some decent upset recovery training.

[Moose47]

G'day

"During the BCATP training 1 in 200 died so we may want to increase the hours a bit."

I am in the middle of writing a book on the B.C.A.T.P. and you would be surprised the number of student pilots who died as a result of un-authorized low flying and un-authorized aerobatics.

Cheers...Chris

[cgzro]

Not to mention the danger (i heard 25%) of being sunk by U boats on your way from Halifax to Southhampton when they were deployed.

If you are interested in BCATP you should drop by VintageWings at CYND.

Cheers

Peter

[CID]

I don't hold any type of pilot license anymore.

Would that make me dangerous to fly with?

In the circumstances being discusse, absolutely. If you were to make a smoking hole regardless of the cause, there would be no insurance to cover my losses. Liability is a fundamental expectation when paying for travel on an aircraft. I have no idea of your personal assets so trying to recoup from you may be like suing a rock. Furthermore, a pilot's license, although not a guarantee of a pilot's experience and skill level above the minimum requirements, is a reasonable benchmark that has worked well for ages. So let's see...pay for a ride in an airplane piloted by someone without a license and who has shown so much contempt for regulations? No thanks.

[CID]

. .

Yes it would be risky if I were to take a passenger flying and something happened and I wrecked the airplane because of liability insurance wise.

Some guy posting as . . on another forum agrees with my statement.