This "brother" needs his own thread!

[flyinthebug]

Agreed Prairie Chicken!

At the request of AvCanada, I have edited all my posts to remove names and email addresses. If you require this young mans email address, please just PM me.

Thank you AvCanada for the opportunity to edit my post, rather then just turfing it. It is all I asked for and greatly appreciated.

Fly safe all!

[yfly]

Jesus Christ flynthebug, don't turn him over to Transport because they will hire him, he has the perfect personality to become management there.

Indeed. There is no one more qualified to uphold the law than he who is proficient at breaking it!

[mag check]

as he is "charging" DHC2 fuel burns on a C172.

I agree this guy is breaking the law, however, as I add it up, he is charging for the proper fuel burn.

He says $50 per hour, 172 burns about 8 us gal per hour, which is 30 litres, 100LL in southern ontario is about $1.60 per litre, so that's $48 per hour for fuel.

Again, please don't think this means that I support his "business", I just don't think he is charging Beaver fuel cost, which is about $135 per hour.

[flyinthebug]

mag check.. You are correct, but that is "per person" is my understanding so x3 empty seats. If thats true, then its more like 150$ per hour. Pretty nice revenue on that flight if you ask me! He is advertising for "people"..and hes obviously a shrewed businessman

Fly safe all.

[...]

That idea has been tried and found lacking.

Understood...I just love watching people continue to hit their head up against the same wall from different angles.

People say "youth" is wasted on the young...however I say any society that misjudges its youth is an ignorant one.

Let's watch what happens. Maybe this kid will break new ground. Maybe not.

[Lurch]

Ad has been pulled maybe he went back to law school and re-read the CARs

[flyinthebug]

Well, whether you agreed with me or not, it seems our friend has indeed taken down his ad. Thanks for noticing lurch.

I emailed him a 2nd email this afternoon and again requested that he remove his ad, to prevent me from pursuing this matter with TCCA & the CTA. It would appear that he has obliged and I will send him a note of thanks and an invite to view our forums and join in if he feels so enclined.

Thanks to those that displayed their support! These little things can sometimes make a BIG difference. Thats (2) ppl`s in a couple days that have been shown their mistake and agreed to cease their "operations".. at least in the public way they were pursuing "business".

Fly safe all.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

This issue is actually more than just a tempest in a tea pot because in a society that should be guided by laws where do we decide which laws are not important enough to be bothered enforcing, or examined for applicability?

The requirements that are in place in aviation regarding the level of pilot license held and the requirements to be approved to offer flights to the general public were put in place to ensure the highest level of safety for members of the public when paying for a trip.

How many here would send their mother and grandmother on a flight with someone such as the guy that was advertising for people to fly with him?

[Airtids]

How many here would send their mother and grandmother on a flight with someone such as the guy that was advertising for people to fly with him?

Mother In-Law!?

[Doc]

The requirements that are in place in aviation regarding the level of pilot license held and the requirements to be approved to offer flights to the general public were put in place to ensure the highest level of safety for members of the public when paying for a trip.

How many here would send their mother and grandmother on a flight with someone such as the guy that was advertising for people to fly with him?

I can name more than one or two fully licensed "airlines" that I don't allow any of my family members to fly with. This guy, so far, has a clean record. Legalities aside, how much worse could he be, than some of the turkeys we've seen performing of late?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I can name more than one or two fully licensed "airlines" that I don't allow any of my family members to fly with. This guy, so far, has a clean record. Legalities aside, how much worse could he be, than some of the turkeys we've seen performing of late?

Doc, I am only commenting to keep the show on the road.

Here is an interesting question.

Which is the least acceptable of these two groups.

Corrupt operators in commercial aviation.

Corrupt management in the regulator of the industry.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Doc you are one of this forums most interesting members and mining through your posts one occasionally digs up some high value diamonds...here is one.

Real world check lists should be short and sweet.

Landing check for YYB should include the comment.."Lets try and get her stopped before the end..."

Missed approach checklist for YIV...."Max power, flaps up, gear up...mind the trees...."

Take off form God's Lake etc...."Okay, one of us should fly this thing if anything goes wrong..."

Any approach with a fair amount of ice on the airframe...."Minimum airspeed for ice is xxxkts.....keep the speed up....lets not use full flaps...Okay?.."

I'm one of your most dedicated fans...keep up the good work.

[SkyWolfe]

Hey everyone, we recieved the "Foff" reply as well. Apparently he is too lazy to formulate a new reply. How sad. I'll be calling TC tomorrow. Hopefully they don't hire him

[yfly]

Check this one out. Legitimate business? Charter broker? Maybe just anotha brotha! No home page makes me wonder.


http://www.pilot4rent.com/services/services.htm

[Stinky]

I just read the ad and to be honest, I don't see the problem. He says he charges for fuel only in his two seater airplane. He didn't say "tell me where you want to go", he said, "call and see where I'm going".
I remember during flight training many guys would recruit friends to go for a flight and have everybody pitch in to help cover the cost. This doesn't seem like a huge leap from that. It also doesn't seem like he's going to do enough of it to harm any licensed operators.
Maybe he's tweaked the ad a few times, but as it reads now, it seems legal and morally acceptable. I think there are a lot of people out there more deserving of an email campaign. Skydive Toronto comes to mind although I've never dealt with them.

[Airtids]

It also doesn't seem like he's going to do enough of it to harm any licensed operators.

Thin edge of the wedge. The problem with this guy is, while he now says "Give me a call and see where I'm going" (yeah, right ), he's still ADVERTISING. Violation of CTA regulations.

As someone who went through the trouble and hassle of getting a License and an OC, meeting insurance requirements, ensuring my pilots were adequately trained, there was a flightwatch system in place, etc. etc., I have absolutely NO sympathy for these clowns.

As a PPL, I built all the time towards the CPL on my own in a completely legit fashion. I don't know why these guys can't...

[Wilbur]

If this is just a guy with his own airplane doing the occasional sightseeing trip for gas money, TC enforcement might try violating him but it won't stick if he fights it using just a bit of intelligence. It would hinge on the issue of the passengers being incidental to the flight. TC would have to show that, on a balance of probability, the passengers were not incidental to the flight. This is difficult to do because it requires them to provide substantial evidence to show of what he was thinking and planning. On a trip from point A to point B where the pilot dropped off the passenger, this would not be so difficult to establish. But a straight Sunday flyer type trip around the patch and back to the point of departure would make it near impossible for TC to prove the passenger was not incidental. The fact he is advertising doesn't prove anything unless his log books show he never goes flying without a passenger sharing costs. Most private pilots and airplane owners regularly go for flying about for the sake of flying about, running an add offering strangers the opportunity to tag along for gas money doesn't mean they aren't still incidental to the flight.

However, because of our common law system one can never be sure without an examination of previous case law. It would be well within the realm of possibility that there is a precedent setting ruling that says the simple act of advertising for a passenger crosses the line into flying for hire, regardless of your intentions to complete the flight with or without a passenger.

[Cat Driver]

Wilbur, are you referring to the justice system, or the TCCA / appeal to the tribunal system?

[joco]

Check this one out. Legitimate business? Charter broker? Maybe just anotha brotha! No home page makes me wonder.


http://www.pilot4rent.com/services/services.htm

The web page coding points to index.html whereas it should not. His home page is
http://www.pilot4rent.com

joco

[. ._]

Check out the takeoff and landing videos there. Dude needs to work on some centreline control, IMHO.

[Widow]

Interesting disclaimer in tiny font on the home page ...

*This agency is not affiliated with any employment for pilots for hire with financial gain. This website is strictly for advertising purposes and researching best pilots or companies for designed trips.

[flyinthebug]

I thought this was over and done with and I have to assume it is despite his email I will paste below. He seems like a decent young man with a very weak understanding of the CARs. To him, its all about needing money to build for his CPL. Thats NOT a new story, as we ALL have sacrificed for our careers. As airtids said, he did it legit..so did I..so should everyone, hence the CARs that protect the commercial operator (sorta). Anyways, its a LONG read but its what this young PPL sent me and he did ask me to point out several issues to the users of this site, so I dont believe he will be upset if I post his reply. This reply was in response to my request for him to take down his ad by 9am today or that i would pursue charges with TCCA enforcement with him. His last sentence says he will put up a new ad but as of this moment he hasnt (that I can find) and his email suddenly is kicking back my replies, so I would suggest he has closed his email account as well. I DO hope he accepts my invitation to join our forum and LEARN from some people that are "in the know". Does he offer a good arguement? Please read his reply and decide for yourself. I have decided to NOT personally go after this young man as I feel he will learn the regs the hard way..He is obviously an intelligent and well written young man and I wish him well.. I just demand that he stop breaking the laws that we are ALL forced to abide by.. espically in CA in Canada.

I have edited his personal information and email address to maintain the "anonymous" status of this site, and in/for the intrests of AvCanada. FYI.. I did inform him that I do not work for TCCA, rather that I am approved by TCCA for Ops Mgr & CP status 703/704.

Enjoy the read .. and lets see if we can learn anything from it!
Fly safe all.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:14:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Reply to "FLYING OVER DOWNTOWN TORONTO!" Ad on Kijiji
From: xxxxxxxx@gmail.com
To: xxxxxxxx@hotmail.com



On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Xxxx Xxxxx <xxxxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:




Sir,

I truly appreciate your concern, and I sincerely apologize for airing off, due to some frustration. I acknowledge your reasons, but here are some of my reasons:

In section 702.01, for Aerial Work,

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
(amended 1999/06/01; previous version)

(d) the dispersal of products.

(2) This Subpart does not apply in respect of the operation of an ultra-light aeroplane, or in respect of the operation of an aircraft in aerial work involving sightseeing operations.

If everyone flew as per 702.01, everyone would technically need an AOC, which is obviously not the case. There is specific criteria in order to qualify an 'aerial work' operation, hence only would then be considered as a commercial operation. I would just charge the fuel costs on my 152, which by far runs 5.5 gallons an hour, and I'm sure you can do the math and calculate just under $50.


Secondly, I do not charge, for partial expenses, such as partial costs for oil usage, engine overhaul, parking, landing fees, etc. So me seeking partial reimbursement does not qualify anywhere near a commercial operation. In fact, I would argue it's THE most fair practice in taking up passengers, in charging for the fuel. Therefore, I am not being 'hired' nor 'rewarded', but partially compensated, which is entirely within regulations.


In section 401.28, it states,




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.
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)
(2) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement for costs incurred in respect of a flight if the holder
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)
(a) is the owner or operator of the aircraft;
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)
(b) conducts the flight for purposes other than hire or reward;
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)
(c) carries passengers only incidentally to the purposes of the flight; and
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)
(d) receives a reimbursement that
(amended 2005/12/01; previous version)
(i) is provided only by the passengers referred to in paragraph (c), and
(ii) is for the purpose of sharing costs for fuel, oil and fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight, as applicable.

As I stated before, reimbursement of costs are entirely within this regulation. Subsection 2 states, the pilot may receive reimbursement for costs, if the holder is (a) the owner or operator of the aircraft (which I am in addition to the pilot), (b) conducts the flight for purposes other than hire or reward (which is neither, the cost is just the fuel, and the purpose serves as a gray area, but for sightseeing and building hours and covering just costs for fuel, it cannot be classified as hire or reward), (c) carries passengers only incidentally to the purposes of the flight (hence, I want to go flying, I need to build hours, I want to go sightseeing as well, and therefore, passengers are entirely incidental to the purposes of the flight; but then again, incidental is a loose term; I believe it implies as long as the pilot plans on 'doing it anyways' and is really not going out of his way, for he doesn't need bread and butter from this flight, and has to wake up out of his seat to do this), (i) is provided only by the passengers referred to in paragraph (c) (which would be happening), and (ii) is for the purpose of sharing costs for fuel, oil and fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight, as applicable; (which is entirely the point for my flight).



And as a member of your site, states that "Isn't the advertising proof of intent to commit the offence?" by "Widow", there is no offence that would be made, so therefore, no intent can be made.


Please inform people in your site that pilots do not equal legal authority/lawyers when it comes to the CARS. Some pilots are lawyers, and I'd be way more willing to hear their input than 'wannabe aviation law experts'.


Sir, I'm sure you are familiar with HopeAir, and pilots who fly for them. They get reimbursed by the company for fuel, at a pre-set rate. Does that qualify the pilot, who owns their own airplane, as a commercial operator? No. The pilot gets merely partially reimbursed, and if anything, could it be argued that the pilot is 'going out of his way'? Again, no. Does the pilot need an AOC? No. Are the pilot's doing it out of their own free will? Yes. I know that it is a charity, and the conditions and terms are slightly different, but nonetheless, it's still a similar concept in terms of reimbursement.


Attitudes like yours and some of your peers are somewhat appealing and interesting, at the same time obnoxious. Judging from your stated title as a Captain, working for TC, you seem to have forgotten the days when flying was expensive. Statistically, I do not like to be said as stealing food off the table from pilot families, as a good percentage of pilots live below the poverty line, for a good number of years, until they can scrape up enough hours to land a local airline, like GGR. If the flight schools did not charge ridiculous amounts of money, how can you feasibly expect pilots to gain hours other than working their butts off at Tim Hortons or a factory job, just to blow that one week's pay in a few hours of flying? You can't even build hours in Air Cadets towing, without all the red tape, and at least 70 hours PIC, which is not affordable for many people. I feel that people like you are positive in that you care about the procedures pilots are following with regards to air safety, which I admit, I've heard pilots screwing up (just like the one last week who crashed in Buffalo, after disregarding safety warnings), but at the same time, I strongly dislike people with your attitude, as it prevents the majority of pilots from reaching their goals in an affordable fashion. Take a look at this scenario: About 80 or so cadets, every year get their private pilot license...and less than 15 of them will pursue a CPL...that's 65 pilots with lost potential because they CAN'T AFFORD IT. So really, maybe since you are so high on the food chain, perhaps you can provide suggestions to this socioeconomical imbalance in people wishing to achieve their dreams.


Do you really expect the general public to pay over two hundred dollars for a 1 hour sightseeing flight? Not the upperclass public, the general public. I can fly on Air Canada probably to Chicago on that fare. Members on your site compare a 150 to a Beaver, on fallacious reasoning. Regardless of comparing fuel rates, the principle still remains of covering fuel costs, and does not violate any conditions. If you wanted to take a sightseeing flight on a Beaver, by all means go ahead. It would seem unreasonable for the high cost of fuel, but it is not in any violation of any CARS.


When a member states on your site, "As an instructor, how would you feel if you knew you`d be doing 3 more fam flights or scenic tours around YYZ a day, if only that damn pesky private pilot wasnt advertising "pay my fuel and see the city for free" all over the internet. I know its hard for us to give a damn about at our level, but if some of "us" dont care, who will change it for the young guys & gals in flight school as we speak?."....That is just pure envy, and obvious to say, there's a smart way to build hours and a hard way to build hours. And no one does sightseeing tours with an instructor, familiarization yes, pure sightseeing, no.


A member of your site states, "The Aeronautics Act defines hire or reward as "means any payment, consideration, gratuity or benefit, directly or indirectly charged, demanded, received or collected by any person for the use of an aircraft". Jurisprudence is pretty clear on this, and confirms the very broad definition. It doesn't matter if our boy is charging 172 fuel rates, DH-2 rates, $5, or walking his dog. If someone is receiving any payment, consideration, gratuity ... etc., etc., they are operating for hire or reward" ...Again another example of a pilot-wannabe-lawyer. The Aeronautics Act has not been in force since May 2006, and has been amended with other acts under C-7.


Another member of your site states, "mag check.. You are correct, but that is "per person" is my understanding so x3 empty seats. If thats true, then its more like 150$ per hour. Pretty nice revenue on that flight if you ask me! He is advertising for "people"..and hes obviously a shrewed businessman"....It is stated as 'per person' for it is a 2 seater aircraft. Otherwise it would indeed be a ripoff, and I would be held liable. On the contrary, if I were to rent a 172 from a flight school, $150/hr is about the price I'd pay for flying per hour, so I wouldn't be rewarded no hired in the end, if 3 people were to fly.

People wishing to fly, is out of their own free will. I do not condone anyone wishing to 'take their grandmother' as another member in your flight states. It is nowhere near any version of a commercial operation.


I have reposted my ad, and I do believe that I did not state "business", but more of a rather, "join me", hence, I would already be going. Hence, it is already assumed in the context of the ad, that passengers are 'incidental' to the flight. This is not a business venture, and you can relay to the members of your site this email, and I do appreciate the care, concern for PPL's, and also the generous ignorance.

Cheers,

Doug

P.S. You stated in your last email, you got caught for Chisle flights, which I've never heard the term, but sounds parallel to what I'm doing. However, the ability for the pilot to be reimbursed, has only been in effect since 2005, which I'm sure was way past your time. Unless you've achieved, what you say you are, in 3 years.

Again, thank you for the concern.

[Stinky]

He should just call TC and see what they say about it. It would put his mind at ease and if it were a violation he probably wouldn't be penalized since he went to them they would just say "don't do that again" Simple.

[bob sacamano]

That's all fine, but is he seeking professional help for anger management?

[flyinthebug]

Stinky.. Thats almost verbatum of what I suggested to him in my email back to him this am.
I hope he takes that direction.
Fly safe..and LOL bob, I thought the same thing!