Having people "contribute" to CPL training by flying them?

[Hedley]

advertising puts you into the chisel charter area

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

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:

I will fly you anywhere in Ontario

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!

[Bede]

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.

[Hedley]

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.

Do you have a CARs reference or a Tribunal Review or Tribunal
Appeal or Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeals precedent
for that claim?

Looking at CAR 101.01(1):

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... bpart1.htm

I see:

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

A renter is a person, correct?

A renter is a person that has possession of the aircraft, correct?

A renter is not the owner or lessee - he is "otherwise", correct?

Clearly a renter is a "operator" as per CAR 101.01(1). I'm not
sure how you can misinterpret that.

[loopa]

advertising puts you into the chisel charter area

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

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:

I will fly you anywhere in Ontario

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!

Hedley, I wouldn't call it a fine line; CAR401.28 has a significant amount of Leeway attached to it. But I see what you mean.

[Hedley]

I wouldn't call it a fine line

Depends upon your grasp of it, I guess. I don't think
it's that complicated, either, but some people do.

Not everyone is a professional (or amateur) legal
expert! Thanks to Transport, I spend an awful lot
of time preparing court cases. Part of being a pilot
in Canada, I suppose. I can pretty well count on a
CARs interpretation and application discussion after
almost every flight I make. Enforcement was very
active at my tiny airport last week.

Anyways, if 401.28 was that clear-cut, would this
thread exist?

[loopa]

Nope it wouldn't ! hehe And I agree with what you have to say.

[undecided]

I know this is an old thread, so my apologies for raising it to the top. However, I wanted to ask for clarification on one thought I had regarding this.

If I cover all the costs of a rental, as a PPL, can I fly passengers and drop them off at a destination?

The reason I ask is because the passengers would then become the purpose of the flight, but it wouldn't be for hire or cost sharing. Make sense?

[DanWEC]

Hey, this is an old thread!
Anyhow, whether you are flying your own plane or renting one, the passenger relation is irrelevant if they aren't paying you. You can fly them anywhere they want.
Think of it as picking up a hitchiker and bringing them somewhere. Completely legit (even though there is the ass, gas or grass standard).
However you pick people up and ask for money, you'd need a taxi license.

[Rookie50]

I have researched and read the CAR in question. In my view, A) if you are a renter, you are not a lessee, (debatable point). 2), cost sharing means cost Sharing. You cannot bill the passenger for the whole flight. C) the only eligible costs to be shared are as stated; fuel oil and fees -- this means landing fees. Not rental, not all direct operating costs as referenced in a different subsection of the Car. D) if you advertise in any way, whether you are planning to go or not anyway, you are inviting TC to investigate you for running a charter. And it won't matter what you think your interpretation is, it is what They say it is. It also may invalidate insurance in case of an accident. Not worth those kind of risks to me.

Just noticed how old this is. Oh well.

[Heliian]

So here is something to blur the lines, i was curious and came across this site

http://adventureseekertours.com/flying_lessons.htm

It seems to be legal for training ultra light pilots but the "joy flight" tours seem to be pushing the limits. An FTU may conduct sightseeing but does that include AULA's?

A/C is privately registered btw

[lownslow]

All I get from this thread is that chisel charters are the scourge of the industry but a chisel sched service seems oddly legal.

LnS.

P.S. No, I'm not starting a back alley Airline. Who in their right mind would actually pay to try to get somewhere in bone stock Cub anyways?

[Beefitarian]

What would transport do to a private pilot running a chisel charter?

[Meatservo]

What would transport do to a private pilot running a chisel charter?

You ever see the end of "Braveheart"?

[jump154]

What would transport do to a private pilot running a chisel charter?

You ever see the end of "Braveheart"?

Which is probably the origin of the term Chisel Charter

[Beefitarian]

What would transport do to a private pilot running a chisel charter?

You ever see the end of "Braveheart"?

Yeah. He gets together with a hot French Princess or somthing, right?

[Beefitarian]

Maybe that was Rob Roy...

[Sun85]

Hello, everyone. Good to join. Long time reader, first time poster. And, yes, thanks to 401.28...

This has been quite a challenge trying to figure this out. I want to reduce the cost of time building, and manage not to violate any regulations in the process. Here's what I've learned so far (please, correct me if I am wrong).

1. A PPL holder may rent an airplane, and
2. Have passengers share the costs of the rental, provided
3. The passengers are incidental to the flight, and
4. The pilot may advertise that he flies from A to B on such-and-such date(s) and anyone is welcome to join him and share the costs.

And here is where I am lost. What is "incidental?" The many explanations I've seen, including on this thread, state that the pilot must have been going on a flight anyway, passengers or no passengers. And this, folks, doesn't make much sense. Because if this was the case, it would be impossible to share costs with your buddies who decided that the best way to spend the afternoon was to have you fly them around. Is TC expecting a pilot to tell his buddies: "I'd love to, but it's too expensive, because you can't share the cost of the rental with me, since I was not going to fly today until we got together and started talking about the best way to spend this afternoon."

So, does 401.28 (2) prevent you from sharing the costs of the flight you've planned together with another person? In other words, does 401.28 (2) allow you to share the costs ONLY if you've decided to go on a flight yourself passengers or no passengers, and only after making that decision you asked others if they would want to join you, and they agreed?

Thank you in advance for your thoughts, folks. I think that 401.28(2) is meant to stop PPL-holders from acting like commercial operators, as opposed to preventing PPL-holders from sharing the cost of time building with friends and acquaintances. What do you think? And does anyone have links to TC case law in regards to 401.28 (2)? I could only find a case about fishing lodge operators flying clients in, and a case about a guy owning two companies, and an airplane being leased from one company to another - clearly not the situation I've described above. Thanks again!

[Colonel Sanders]

www.pittspecials.com/articles/Compensation.htm

[Lotro]

All I get from this thread is that chisel charters are the scourge of the industry but a chisel sched service seems oddly legal.

LnS.

P.S. No, I'm not starting a back alley Airline. Who in their right mind would actually pay to try to get somewhere in bone stock Cub anyways?

ME! I'd pay!

[photofly]

I don't understand why everyone wants to make this so complicated. Oh wait, yes I do. It's because everyone wants to find a loophole that lets them get other people to pay them for flying.

What's *your* purpose for the flight? If the carriage of other people is *your* purpose then you can't get them to contribute to the cost.

You don't have to actually be ready to make the flight without the other people present (obviously you can decide that without them sharing the cost it's too expensive) but, if the other people don't come along, the purpose of your flight must not be frustrated.

"I would like to go sightseeing and I'd like other people to help defray the cost" is fine. If you flew without the others you would still achieve the purpose of your flight - the sightseeing. They would be incidental to the flight.

"I would like to fly some other people so they can go sightseeing" - is not fine. If you flew without the others then the purpose of the flight (for *them* to go sightseeing) wouldn't be met. They would not be incidental to the flight.