AVCANADA

What I am thinking about is putting the word out that I will provide flights .....

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.

(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 costsfor fuel, oil and fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight, as applicable.

But what would I know, compared to an internet hero?

Funny you should ask, I was on the opposite end of this convo last month. Here's what I learned:

1. You need to actually own the plane you'd be flying - its illegal to do what you are suggesting in a plane that you don't personally own.

2. The pax have to be incidental to the trip - ie you have to be going on the trip whether or not anyone else is. Make sure you understand this requirement thoroughly. You cannot legally say "I will fly you to CY** for 50/hr", its only legal if your situation is like "I'm going to Oshkosh and have a spare seat if anyone's interested"

3. The pax can only contribute a proportional share of fuel and oil costs. Ie 1 seat out of 4 means 1/4 of the fuel bill.

You really, really don't want to be on the wrong side of the law if there's an incident or accident, so be careful here. You do NOT want to be violated by tc for something like this if you ever plan on flying for a living.

If you don't own the plane, the conversation is already over, and you have indicated that you rent so my guess is that this is a non-starter for you.

"operator" - in respect of an aircraft, means the person that has possession of the aircraft as owner, lessee or otherwise;

they can pay how ever much they want

sharing costs for fuel, oil and fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight

Sulako,

Understanding everthing else in your post has been fully understood for years - Are you %100 sure about the ownership point? If I were to say, take one of our club planes to Calgary for the Stampede or something and took three friends with me, then it would be illegal for us to split the cost? What if all four of us are pilots, or pilots from my club? What if a pilot in the back seat rented it and I don't have to repay him (he feels sorry for my unemployment)?

Or does being in a club imply partial ownership, thus allowing cost sharing?

[...] I hate to tell you this, but with 7000+ posts to your credit and "top poster" billed beneath your name you are an internet hero!

I said this before, but I believe that the advertising puts you into the chisel charter area.

This is a paper trail on which TC will sniff out a prosecute.

You are correct and I am incorrect. When I read 401.28 last month I read it as "owner and operator" rather than "owner or operator". You don't need to own the airplane, renting it will do. I gotta quit posting on AvCan before double-checking my information

advertising puts you into the chisel charter area

I am flying to North Bay on Sunday August 23rd
at 9am - anyone want to come with me?

I will fly you anywhere in Ontario

You are the operator of the aircraft if you lease it. You need a lease agreement and your name on the C of R. Renters don't qualify.

"operator" - in respect of an aircraft, means the person that has possession of the aircraft as owner, lessee or otherwise;

It depends upon what you advertise. CAR 401.28 does not
specify the personal relationship (if any) between the pilot
and the passengers - it does not say family, or friends, or
specify a minimum length of time that you have been
acquainted.

If you advertise:



I think you're golden, because you were going to make
the trip anyways, regardless of whether or not you had
any pax.

However, if you advertise:



Then you are violating CAR 401.28, because the
pax are NO LONGER merely "incidental" to the
flight, they are the PURPOSE of the flight - you
wouldn't have made that flight unless the pax
paid you to - voila, you are in the charter business,
and you need a 703 OC.

See the difference? It's a fine line, and many
people find it confusing to sort out the difference
between the two circumstances.

Bottom line, when Enforcement calls you up, you
have to be able to convincingly state that YOU
WERE GOING TO MAKE THE TRIP ANYWAYS
regardless of whether or not any pax tagged along.

If you can say that, CAR 401.28 covers your butt.

If you can't say that, you're in the charter biz,
and you better have an AOC.

It's odd that there isn't at least one question on
this topic on the PPL written - it's a very misunderstood
subject!

I wouldn't call it a fine line