Using A Rental Plane For Paid Tours

[flyindutchman1996]

I was just wondering if anyone has done this or knows someone who has? Is it allowed, and if so, are there any legal hurdles to get through?

Any info helps!

Thanks!

[digits_]

As a ppl doing this? As illegal as it gets.

You can rent/lease a plane if you have an AOC/FTU and fly those tours as an employee with a CPL.

[Conflicting Traffic]

I was just wondering if anyone has done this or knows someone who has? Is it allowed, and if so, are there any legal hurdles to get through?

I'm pretty sure its been done, but it's not legal.

703.01 This Subpart applies in respect of the operation by a Canadian air operator, in an air transport service or in aerial work involving sightseeing operations, of any of the following aircraft:
(a) a single-engined aircraft;
(b) a multi-engined aircraft, other than a turbo-jet-powered aeroplane, that has a MCTOW of 8 618 kg (19,000 pounds) or less and a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less;
(b.1) a multi-engined helicopter certified for operation by one pilot and operated under VFR; and
(c) any aircraft that is authorized by the Minister to be operated under this Subpart.

Aircraft Operation
703.02 No air operator shall operate an aircraft under this Subpart unless the air operator complies with the conditions and operations specifications in an air operator certificate issued to that operator by the Minister pursuant to section 703.07.

EDIT
Also as noted by digits_, you can do sight seeing with an FTU OC. Refer to CARs Part IV for details. Either way, you need an OC.

[challenger_nami]

With a PPL You can do this legally:
Rent a 4 seater airplane from the flight school or wherever. your 3 passengers pay for their share of rental plus fuel, and you pay your share of the costs as well.

For example, if the total cost of fuel and rental was $1000, then you (the pilot) pay your own %25 share ($250). Then your 3 passengers pay $250 each ... $750 total in this case.
There are some other conditions as well.

At the end of the day you can not make profit, and you won’t get rich from this.


.

[Conflicting Traffic]

There are some other conditions as well.

At the end of the day you can not make profit from this.

Yes, there's a very narrow set of circumstances in which you can do this. But I interpret the phrase "paid tours" to mean for hire/profit. The other condition (at least the main one) is that the carriage of passengers must be incidental to the flight. Cancel the flight for lack of passengers? CARs violation. Advertise for passengers? CARs violation. Allow passengers to dictate schedule? CARs violation.

If by chance you do meet all of the requirement for this type of flight with cost reimbursement, you're not limited to sight seeing or tours -- you can go places as well.

[photofly]

As a ppl doing this? As illegal as it gets.

You can rent/lease a plane if you have an AOC/FTU and fly those tours as an employee with a CPL.

But note the registration of the airplane in question must be specifically listed on the AOC or FTUOC, and registered in the commercial category. Under no circumstances can you just rock up with a plane your friend lent or hired to you for a couple of hours.

[PilotDAR]

I was just wondering if anyone has done this or knows someone who has? Is it allowed, and if so, are there any legal hurdles to get through?

If you have a CPL, you studied this during your ground school, and should recall.

With either a CPL pr PPL, if you're renting the plane, you must assure that the person/company renting it to you agrees with your intended use of it (it'll be written in the rental agreement somewhere, better read it). Hint: The company from whom you might be renting the plane is probably legally allowed to conduct paid tours, and make a small amount of their income from this - so why would they let you do it in their plane?

And, you better assure that the insurance for the airplane covers what you intend to do with the plane. If you violate the terms of the insurance, you won't be covered. No amount of modest "cost recovery" you might achieve will ever balance out the entry to the costs of an uninsured accident!

If you know that you can legally do it, because your license, operation, airplane provider and insurer say it's okay, it's okay. If you don't know if you can legally do it - you can't.

[rookiepilot]

There are some other conditions as well.

At the end of the day you can not make profit from this.

Yes, there's a very narrow set of circumstances in which you can do this. But I interpret the phrase "paid tours" to mean for hire/profit. The other condition (at least the main one) is that the carriage of passengers must be incidental to the flight. Cancel the flight for lack of passengers? CARs violation. Advertise for passengers? CARs violation. Allow passengers to dictate schedule? CARs violation.

If by chance you do meet all of the requirement for this type of flight with cost reimbursement, you're not limited to sight seeing or tours -- you can go places as well.

It's been years since I studied this, but my understanding has been "getting paid" also means having others subsidizing building one's hours towards a higher rating. It's clearly a "benefit".
If TC can show the intent of any cost sharing arrangement is building time for a CPL / ATPL.....

Edit. Cannot locate a CAR on TC's definition of compensation. That does not prevent them from imposing one on a pilot! The FAA, on the other hand, is quite explicit:

https://blog.globalair.com/post/2019/02 ... to-the-faa

FAA’s policy regarding “compensationPilots and aircraft operators frequently misunderstand the FAA’s policy regarding “compensation” in the context of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). And this concept appears frequently in the FARs.

For example, under 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a), a private pilot may not carry persons or property for compensation or hire, or act as pilot in command for compensation or hire. Additionally, if a flight or operation is conducted for compensation or hire, that flight or operation may be subject to operational requirements and/or limitations under 14 C.F.R. Parts 91, 135 or 121. Such a flight or operation may also have additional medical certification prohibitions or requirements.

So, what then is “compensation” according to the FAA?

The FAA’s longstanding policy and perspective views “compensation” very broadly. Compensation isn’t just the exchange of cash. Rather, it can be receipt of anything of value that is conditioned upon or in exchange for operation of the aircraft. And the exchange of value does not require a profit or profit motive. A beneficial economic relationship will qualify as compensation.

According to the FAA, compensation may include, but is not limited to:

Reimbursement of expenses (e.g. fuel, oil, transportation, airport expenditures, aircraft rental fees, lodging, costs of ownership etc.);

A free meal;

Logging of flight time when the pilot does not have to pay for the costs of operating the aircraft;

Salary or wages; and

Goodwill in the form of expected future economic benefit.

I'd be careful of doing something as a pattern, (to build time without cost) unless explicitly not only not prohibited, but explicitly allowed. TC Regs, like income tax Regs, are specifically written a bit vague, allowing prosecution of violators.

[photofly]

The FAA issued a written opinion to that effect, but I don't think TC has ever held out on the subject.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

As a ppl doing this? As illegal as it gets.

You can rent/lease a plane if you have an AOC/FTU and fly those tours as an employee with a CPL.

But note the registration of the airplane in question must be specifically listed on the AOC or FTUOC, and registered in the commercial category. Under no circumstances can you just rock up with a plane your friend lent or hired to you for a couple of hours.

There's something I'm missing then.

How can a corporation fly leased or rented planes? Say I run a flight school, and I'm short a few planes for the week. I can't rent them from a nearby flight school?

[Big Pistons Forever]

As a ppl doing this? As illegal as it gets.

You can rent/lease a plane if you have an AOC/FTU and fly those tours as an employee with a CPL.

But note the registration of the airplane in question must be specifically listed on the AOC or FTUOC, and registered in the commercial category. Under no circumstances can you just rock up with a plane your friend lent or hired to you for a couple of hours.

There's something I'm missing then.

How can a corporation fly leased or rented planes? Say I run a flight school, and I'm short a few planes for the week. I can't rent them from a nearby flight school?

If School A wants to use aircraft from school B, it would have to lease them. The C of R will be amended with school A's name removed and school B added. This is relatively simple using the LF5 form. However school A is now responsible for the airworthiness of the leased airplane which may involve an MSA amendment and will require the PRM to managed the continuing airworthiness of the leased aircraft.

It has certainly been done but not for circumstance you described

Say I run a flight school, and I'm short a few planes for the week. I can't rent them from a nearby flight school?

[GoodGuy]

[/quote]

It's been years since I studied this, but my understanding has been "getting paid" also means having others subsidizing building one's hours towards a higher rating.
[/quote]

PilotTraining.ca has a different take on this. I would like to see the CAR that mentions this if you have it.

airlaw.png (93.6 KiB) Viewed 1871 times

[Big Pistons Forever]

The other condition (at least the main one) is that the carriage of passengers must be incidental to the flight. Cancel the flight for lack of passengers? CARs violation. Advertise for passengers? CARs violation. Allow passengers to dictate schedule? CARs violation.

If by chance you do meet all of the requirement for this type of flight with cost reimbursement, you're not limited to sight seeing or tours -- you can go places as well.

This posts accurately summarizes the situation.

TC is not going to care if a PPL who is building time towards a CPL, decides to go flying, rents an airplane and invites a few friends to go along with him, with the costs of the flight equally divided among everyone including the pilot.

They are absolutely going to care if you start advertising for passengers. (hint TC pays attention to the common bulletin boards like Kijiji) There has been numerous enforcement actions on this.

The other issue in using a rented flying school airplane for these kinds of chisel charters is that the flying schools insurance would likely be invalid if there was an accident. I personally know of 2 individuals that were banned from further flying at a flying school after being caught by flying school staff doing chisel charters with rented flying school airplanes.

The flying industry is not that big and being busted for doing chisel charters is not a good way to start your flying career......

[PilotDAR]

I don't see how there is any "correct" answer for Question 3.

The private pilot ... rents the 152

Answer a. violates CAR 401.28 (a), (b) & (c)
Answer b. violates CAR 401-28 (a) & (d)(ii)
Answer c. violates CAR 401.28 (a)
Answer d. violates CAR 401.28 (a) & (d)(i)

[photofly]

As a ppl doing this? As illegal as it gets.

You can rent/lease a plane if you have an AOC/FTU and fly those tours as an employee with a CPL.

But note the registration of the airplane in question must be specifically listed on the AOC or FTUOC, and registered in the commercial category. Under no circumstances can you just rock up with a plane your friend lent or hired to you for a couple of hours.

There's something I'm missing then.

How can a corporation fly leased or rented planes? Say I run a flight school, and I'm short a few planes for the week. I can't rent them from a nearby flight school?

I just checked, and I was wrong - the aircraft type is listed, but not the registration. If the type is listed on your OC, I can't (yet) see a rule that says you can't use another operator's aircraft.

For sure the aircraft has to be maintained according to its approved schedule, but I'm not sure where the infraction would be if some other organziation was maintaining it on their approved schedule. I"m going to guess that once you use the airplane in training operations you become the "operator" of it, and therefore are bound by the whole of part 406 in respect of that airplane.

Long term leases to flight schools are more than norm than not. But it's hard to see how an FTU can set up the required structures just for a few days.

[Big Pistons Forever]

[

I"m going to guess that once you use the airplane in training operations you become the "operator" of it, and therefore are bound by the whole of part 406 in respect of that airplane.

Correct

[Aviatard]

You can rent/lease a plane if you have an AOC/FTU and fly those tours as an employee with a CPL.

Sort of. You’ll also need a flight instructor rating if it’s a FTU doing sightseeing flights. Just a CPL isn’t enough.

700.02(4): (4) A person who holds a flight training unit operator certificate may conduct aerial work involving the carriage of persons other than flight crew members on board a single-engined aircraft if

(a) the pilot-in-command is the holder of a valid flight instructor rating in the appropriate category of aircraft;

[Big Pistons Forever]

You can rent/lease a plane if you have an AOC/FTU and fly those tours as an employee with a CPL.

Sort of. You’ll also need a flight instructor rating if it’s a FTU doing sightseeing flights. Just a CPL isn’t enough.

700.02(4): (4) A person who holds a flight training unit operator certificate may conduct aerial work involving the carriage of persons other than flight crew members on board a single-engined aircraft if

(a) the pilot-in-command is the holder of a valid flight instructor rating in the appropriate category of aircraft;

Also if the FTU also has a 703 AOC then 700.02 (4) does not apply. You must operate under the higher certification, which is 703 therefore you must have completed all the company training and passed a PCC.

Also a gotcha is that if you are over 40 your CPL, ATPL is good for 12 months if you are conducting flight training. However If you are doing a sightseeing flight you are now carrying passengers in a single pilot operation and you Class 1 medical is only good for 6 months.

[Squaretail]

You must operate under the higher certification

Reference? If the instructor qualified pilots are only doing sight seeing flights, they don't have to be qualified or trained under your 700 series requirements, only your 406 ones. This is as intended in my opinion since its hard to make a distinction between what might end up being a sight seeing flight as opposed to a training flight when it comes to the introductory phase of flight training.

It should be noted that "sight seeing" flights aren't the transportation of persons or goods that require a 703+ AOC, but would fall under 702 since sight seeing is "aerial work". The mandate of the CARs is served in the ability for 406 FTUOCs to do this.

I should also note that in terms of AOCs and FTUOCs there is no where in the CARS (prove me wrong) that specifies any OCs are considered superseding the others since they don't really overlap in their intentions.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Sightseeing flights as in taking passengers for a tour is not covered under CAR 702

702.01 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Subpart applies in respect of the operation of an aeroplane or helicopter in aerial work involving

(a) the carriage on board of persons other than flight crew members;

(b) the carriage of helicopter Class B, C or D external loads;

(c) the towing of objects; or

(d) the dispersal of products.

The intent of para 702.01 (1) (a) is to allow the carriage of persons needed to conduct the aerial work but who are not involved in operating the aircraft, like forest fire spotters. LIDAR operators etc etc.

Subpart 703 specifically deals with sightseeing

703.01 This Subpart applies in respect of the operation by a Canadian air operator, in an air transport service or in aerial work involving sightseeing operations, of any of the following aircraft:...

The question of which certificate can be used when an operator has both an FTUOC and a 703 AOC for any particular flight is like sadly so many other things in the CAR's; unclear. All I can say is that the TC interpretation in this case is that the the provisions of CAR 703 apply over those of CAR 406.

I am not aware of anyone who has formally challenged this policy.

[digits_]

Sightseeing flights as in taking passengers for a tour is not covered under CAR 702

702.01 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Subpart applies in respect of the operation of an aeroplane or helicopter in aerial work involving

(a) the carriage on board of persons other than flight crew members;

(b) the carriage of helicopter Class B, C or D external loads;

(c) the towing of objects; or

(d) the dispersal of products.

The intent of para 702.01 (1) (a) is to allow the carriage of persons needed to conduct the aerial work but who are not involved in operating the aircraft, like forest fire spotters. LIDAR operators etc etc.

Subpart 703 specifically deals with sightseeing

703.01 This Subpart applies in respect of the operation by a Canadian air operator, in an air transport service or in aerial work involving sightseeing operations, of any of the following aircraft:...

The question of which certificate can be used when an operator has both an FTUOC and a 703 AOC for any particular flight is like sadly so many other things in the CAR's; unclear. All I can say is that the TC interpretation in this case is that the the provisions of CAR 703 apply over those of CAR 406.

I am not aware of anyone who has formally challenged this policy.

What regulation would you be violating if a flight instructor without a PPC went on a pure sight seeing tour with customers, at an FTU that also holds a 703 certificate?

[Big Pistons Forever]

When discussing the regulations it is best to start at the Act and then look at the interpretations in he regulations. so:

From the Aeronautics Act

"commercial air service means any use of aircraft for hire or reward;" 

From CAR 101 Interpretation

"Commercial Air Service Standards means the standards published under the authority of the Minister that apply in respect of commercial air services operated by air operators"

From CAR 700.01 Interpretation

"types of service means a domestic service, a scheduled international service, a non-scheduled international service and a sightseeing operation;"

Since "sightseeing" operations are mentioned in 2 places in the CAR's 700.02 (4) which allows an FTU to operate sightseeing flights and 703.01 which specifically mentions sightseeing flights, the question is which one takes precedence in the case where an operator has both an FTUOC and a 703 AOC.

The Minster could argue that they can make a public interest determination that those flights should be operated under Subpart 703 but at the end of the day there is no doubt that the regulations should be clearer on this point. TC Inspectors follow the policy guidance they are given and that is the guidance as it stands now.

Anybody, of course has the right to challenge a determination, and in this case I personally would like to see someone force the issue so that Inspectors have clear direction and don't have to use rectal plucks to figure what to do.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Sightseeing flights as in taking passengers for a tour is not covered under CAR 702

702.01 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Subpart applies in respect of the operation of an aeroplane or helicopter in aerial work involving

(a) the carriage on board of persons other than flight crew members;

(b) the carriage of helicopter Class B, C or D external loads;

(c) the towing of objects; or

(d) the dispersal of products.

The intent of para 702.01 (1) (a) is to allow the carriage of persons needed to conduct the aerial work but who are not involved in operating the aircraft, like forest fire spotters. LIDAR operators etc etc.

Subpart 703 specifically deals with sightseeing

703.01 This Subpart applies in respect of the operation by a Canadian air operator, in an air transport service or in aerial work involving sightseeing operations, of any of the following aircraft:...

The question of which certificate can be used when an operator has both an FTUOC and a 703 AOC for any particular flight is like sadly so many other things in the CAR's; unclear. All I can say is that the TC interpretation in this case is that the the provisions of CAR 703 apply over those of CAR 406.

I am not aware of anyone who has formally challenged this policy.

What regulation would you be violating if a flight instructor without a PPC went on a pure sight seeing tour with customers, at an FTU that also holds a 703 certificate?

To quote Rush, I think we've driven into the margin of error here.

[Bede]

.

[Squaretail]

The intent of para 702.01 (1) (a) is to allow the carriage of persons needed to conduct the aerial work but who are not involved in operating the aircraft, like forest fire spotters. LIDAR operators etc etc.

While that's the intent perhaps in the view of some TC inspectors, its not the word of the law. The problem being what does one classify these persons on board, since under most of the definitions they would be what you call passengers. From my reading of the CARs, if you have disembarked your passengers at the point of departure, then you have effectively done "aerial work" as opposed to an air transport service. Its been a point of wrangling over the years with inspectors. I should say that the FAA came down officially classifying these people as passengers when pushed on the subject. TC has always punted. Some inspectors have voiced a similar opinion, others have determined that they are classified as "crew" though not "flight crew".

I am not aware of anyone who has formally challenged this policy.

You're aware of one now. In that case my interpretation of it prevailed. Or at least its been ten years now since I was under that threat of enforcement action and they have yet to pursue it further.