Getting paid by client to provide sightseeing in my plane?

[intoflying]

Hi All, I'm aware that it's legally not possible to fly people from source to destination without having some sort of air taxi license.

How about providing sightseeing. Can I get paid directly by someone to fly them over the city as long as we don't land anywhere and return to the same airport? basically sightseeing.

[Aviatard]

No.

[PilotDAR]

No.

That covers the topic well.

Unless, of course, you're operating under the authority of an appropriate operating certificate, but then, you probably would not feel the need to ask the question.....

Thought of differently, unless the airplane, and the pilot are both "commercial", and there's an OC in effect for the flying, no passenger commerce should take place for the flight. There are a few exceptions, but not in the air taxi and sightseeing realm.

[intoflying]

OK, so if the plane is owned by a corporation, and if the pilot hired is CPL, what kind of "operating certificate" does the company need to offer sightseeing as a service?

[intoflying]

Transport Canada?

[photofly]

Yes.

[TheRealMcCoy]

You could just get them to pay for the gas?

[photofly]

You’d have to share the cost, they can’t pay all of it.

[Aviatard]

I believe the test is that the passengers need be incidental to the flight. In other words you’d still do the flight even if the passengers didn’t go.

[photofly]

That’s not a great test, for instance you’re entitled to decide that without a passenger with whom to share the cost, it’s too expensive, and you won’t fly.

[confusedalot]

You clearly know the rules, so unless you have a cpl as a driver, can't do it legally. Then comes all of that commercial operating certificate stuff.

If you can set the whole thing up as a non profit, maybe that would work? Sketchy I know, but in this world of billion dollar corporations getting taxpayer handouts, who knows? Maybe it could fly.

[Aviatard]

That’s not a great test, for instance you’re entitled to decide that without a passenger with whom to share the cost, it’s too expensive, and you won’t fly.

Right but you won’t be exposing the unsuspecting public to your unregulated death trap of a sight seeing operation if you don’t fly.

[Bede]

Here is a case dealing with this exact thing:

http://www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision ... dc_id=1498

[lownslow]

No.

There are a few exceptions, but not in the air taxi and sightseeing realm.

If the airplane is something special there’s an exemption to holding a OC to provide ‘experience flights.’ That would be for warbird operators and the like, and there are still hoops to jump through.

I forget the exact wording of the thing, and I expect that TC would be fine if you did this in a T-6 and less fine with a T-41.

[jakeandelwood]

OK, so if the plane is owned by a corporation, and if the pilot hired is CPL, what kind of "operating certificate" does the company need to offer sightseeing as a service?

Many corporately owned planes are private, so I don't think they have operating certificates as they don't carry paying passengers. I've never gotten an operating certificate but I imagine it is no quick and simple task.

[DanWEC]

Hey I'm only asking out of curiosity, what sort of license do you have?

[photofly]

Many corporately owned planes are private, so I don't think they have operating certificates as they don't carry paying passengers. I've never gotten an operating certificate but I imagine it is no quick and simple task.

All pressurized turbine aircraft with more than six seats and all jet aircraft need an operator’s certificate from Transport Canada even when operated privately. See Part 604.

Getting the certificate is not the problem, building and maintaining the staffing, maintenance and management structure to meet the requirements of holding a certificate is.

[Heliian]

Part 604 can't do sightseeing for pay.

Only part 4 and part 7 operators can provide sightseeing flights. Those aircraft are staffed with CPL's

A CPL on it's own is not authorization, you're still a private pilot when flying your own plane.

[PilotDAR]

So, intoflying, you can see the bump in your road by coming on to a website populated with many CPL's who fly by the rules, to say that you'd like to collect some revenue doing what they are paid to do, without jumping through the hoops they have. Good on you for asking, but this very well documented, and explained in regulation.

When the dust has cleared on your question here, look at the insurance on the plane. If you had an accident carrying paying passengers on a private flight, would the insurer be ready to cover you, even though you had not arranged the correct insurance for a commercial flight?

[jakeandelwood]

Many corporately owned planes are private, so I don't think they have operating certificates as they don't carry paying passengers. I've never gotten an operating certificate but I imagine it is no quick and simple task.

All pressurized turbine aircraft with more than six seats and all jet aircraft need an operator’s certificate from Transport Canada even when operated privately. See Part 604.

I did not know that.

Getting the certificate is not the problem, building and maintaining the staffing, maintenance and management structure to meet the requirements of holding a certificate is.
Yes, I can see that for sure.

[fleet16b]

Basically, if someone wants to "go for a ride" in your airplane , you can legally ask them to help out with the fuel
From what I understand , you are not allowed to collect revenue as in make a profit .
If it were me I would ask for help with the flight ie if the operating costs to fly my airplane was $100/hr I would ask them to contribute $95/hr . I won't even get started with how ridiculous it is to need to have a CPL in some cases.

[rookiepilot]

If it were me I would ask for help with the flight ie if the operating costs to fly my airplane was $100/hr I would ask them to contribute $95/hr . I

I don't think you can do that.

[fleet16b]

If it were me I would ask for help with the flight ie if the operating costs to fly my airplane was $100/hr I would ask them to contribute $95/hr .

I don't think you can do that.

Oh ya, why is that ?
No profit has been made
This has been a practice since the beginning of aviation and as far as I know as long as you are operating a ride business and or making a profit , there is no problem suggesting that someone contribute towards fuel . I for one have never seen anyone violated for this.

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.

(2) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement for costs incurred in respect of a flight if the holder

(a) is the owner or operator of the aircraft;

(b) conducts the flight for purposes other than hire or reward;

(c) carries passengers only incidentally to the purposes of the flight; and

(d) receives a reimbursement that

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

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

[Schooner69A]

fleet16b: "Basically, if someone wants to "go for a ride" in your airplane , you can legally ask them to help out with the fuel"

But that would violate "(c) carries passengers only incidentally to the purposes of the flight" also mentioned in your post.

Again, many folks smarter than you and I have tried to engage in "Chisel Charters" and they usually find out that you can't make a habit of it... Word gets around and one day you'll find out that somebody from Enforcement will want to have a discussion. AFTER they've talked to your 'passengers', of course...

[rookiepilot]

I think "asking" -- especially to pay 95% -- routinely can get one in trouble. Offering, might be fine.

I think I read a couple of articles on this. An "equal split" -- more defensible. Also read enforcement considered somewhere doing this to gain hours for the CPL could be considered a benefit, and so a no no.