Budd's C-182 pilot

[DHCdriver]

Am I missing something here. Private pilot needed to fly supplies for reward (2000-2800.00 per month)

[angry inch]

Hopefully it was just a screw up in wording. I see they use a charter service for there fly in trips. Should definitely read differently though..

[pika]

The airplane they use is not used for hire. It is only used to bring stuff to and from the lodge and pick up/return guides to Norway House.

[Redneck_pilot86]

The issue is not the airplane, it's the offer to pay a PPL for flying services, when a CPL is required. A lot of us got our starts flying privately registered airplanes, but with a CPL.

[medEvac]

I believe if im correct that thay had the same ad up last year, this is not a new thing.

i am however curious how they get away with this when its so obviously illegal.

even if you do not carry paying pax, a paid pilot requires a CPL

maybe its not a paid position???? that is the only way i could see to get around it, besides there

is always some co**sucker pilot willing to work for free!

[Rowdy]

I believe you are hired as a Camp worker and that the flying is sort of like using the company truck. I know it sounds hokey and all that, but I'm sure transport has looked it over by this point (the ads been up every year for the past few anyways)

[DHCdriver]

I agree with Rowdy on this one. We could nit pick this one apart all day long. I personally have no problem with some new fellow building time in this situation as long as they keep it safe. We all have to start somewhere.

[Randleman]

I am sure they have the meaning of "private" misunderstood. I highly doubt he is saying "private pilot license required." I would be willing to bet he really means is a "private company pilot." A lot of people call corporate or charter pilots "private pilots." meaning they fly only for one person when they are asked to, which is likely the case here.
Once again, likely much ado over nothing.

[Highsea]

I agree with Randleman. I'm almost a 100% sure he is looking for a CPL.

[privateer]

I think it would be a similar deal that RGS has with tow pilots.

[Hornblower]

In any case the lodge itself is not in doing anything contrary to the regs, it would be the pilot that would be violating the privileges associated with a private pilot licence.

[INVERTEDAV8R]

I flew this gig. Although it's advertised as a private pilot position the insurance will require that the new pilot meets commercial standards. It was a great first job for those who like isolation and lots of fishing. Owner / Operator is top notch and accommodations are better than most fish camps. Pay was pretty good too although your required to be a lot more than just a pilot.

Most importantly you'll never be pushed to fly heavy or in bad wx. The 182 is well maintained but she aint pretty.

Good luck to all the applicants

[ywgflyboy]

I have emailed Budd the last few years asking about this. He maintains he only needs a pilot with a Privates, and is asking 300+ PIC for insurance reasons.

[Redneck_pilot86]

My first job, not here but with a company Ontario, had me hired as a camp attendant. Being as the camps were floatplane access only, I needed to fly myself to work everyday. I was not hired as a pilot, I was only using the aircraft as a means to get myself and the supplies I needed to work. A PPL is all that is required for that, although I'll admit it is a grey area.

[Lost Lake]

I'm sure there's enough unemployed cpl's out there who will take the job.

[x-wind]

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/publi ... .htm#money

Aviation Safety Letter-

Flying for Money!

by the Advisory and Appeals Division, Policy and Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Transport Canada

As some of you may know, Canadian aviation law makes an important distinction between private and commercial aviation, the latter being subject to both elevated standards and increased regulatory scrutiny, resulting in an exceptionally high level of aviation safety.

To this end, a definition of “hire or reward” has been created in the legislative framework. That definition is set out in subsection 3(1) of the Aeronautics Act, as follows:

“hire or reward” means any payment, consideration, gratuity or benefit, directly or indirectly charged, demanded, received or collected by any person for the use of an aircraft;

Courts have consistently given a broad, expansive and liberal interpretation to the term “hire or reward”. The scenarios that follow illustrate this point.

In two older court cases, two operators of remote fishing or hunting camps had offered a fly-in service to guests at no extra charge. In other words, the rate charged for accommodations and guide services was the same whether the customers chose to use the fly-in service offered by the camp operators, or whether they decided to pay someone else to transport them to the camps. The hunting camp operators argued that, because they received no additional fee for the offered flights, there was no “hire or reward” situation. The courts in both cases rejected this argument and found that the free flights provided each operator a clear, albeit indirect, benefit. Therefore, the flights in question were “hire or reward” flights and the operators were found to have been operating a commercial air service without the appropriate licence.

In another, more recent, court case, a pilot was the director of Company A and Company B. Company A was the registered owner of the aircraft flown by the pilot. Company A rented the aircraft to Company B, and Company B was paid for bringing equipment, persons or other things to different sites. The Federal Court decided that, since Company A was the registered owner of the aircraft and had received an indirect benefit from the flights, it was required to have an air operator certificate (AOC) as set out in subsection 700.02(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs).

There are situations where a person may operate for “hire or reward” and not require an AOC. One situation is covered by subsection 700.02(3) of the CARs, which allows farmers who own their own planes to use them to spray herbicides within a 25-mi. radius from their farm centre.

Another situation, covered by subsection 700.02(4) of the CARs, concerns sightseeing flights conducted by flight schools. This type of activity is permitted, without the requirement for an AOC, if the various conditions set out in the CARs are met: specifically, the pilot must hold a flight training unit (FTU) operator certificate and a flight instructor rating, the flights must be conducted in accordance with visual flight rules (VFR) in a single-engine aircraft with no more than nine passengers, and for the purpose of sightseeing.

Another situation where someone could conduct an operation for hire or reward without an AOC would be if the Minister issued an exemption. Pursuant to subsection 5.9(2) of the Aeronautics Act, the Minister can issue exemptions from the application of any regulation, should the Minister be of the opinion that such exemptions are in the public interest and not likely to adversely affect aviation safety or security. For example, situations involving charity flights, where pilots have been reimbursed only for fuel costs, have been issued exemptions in the past.

Another twist to the above concepts can be found if we look at section 401.28 of the CARs. This section deals with the reimbursement of costs incurred in respect of certain flights, by private pilots, in very specific circumstances.

Subsection 401.28(2) allows private pilots, who own their own aircraft, to receive reimbursements from passengers towards the operational costs of running the aircraft. Subsection 401.28(3) allows the private pilot to be reimbursed by his employer (who does not normally employ the person as a pilot). Subsection 401.28(4) allows private pilots to receive reimbursement when the flights are conducted for a “charitable, not-for-profit or public security organization”, on a volunteer basis. The three scenarios above are available only when certain specified criteria or conditions are met.

So, as we can see, the term “hire or reward” can be difficult to apply. Each situation must be looked at carefully in light of the case law and regulations that apply.

2. The occurence is real. Names and places have been changed.

[HORUNNER]

And yet in this case it is still like the company truck, as long as no guest gets in its all good, sh!t you can even fly their bags just not them

so get on with your life sorry you spent soo much time with your post it must have taken at least 10 mins to write out.

[Pilot_king!]

I believe Randleman is correct, alot of non related aviation companies hire private pilots to fly the company private aircraft. In this case this company has a fishing operation and needs 1 pilot to shuttle supplies.

[Lost Lake]

And yet in this case it is still like the company truck, as long as no guest gets in its all good, sh!t you can even fly their bags just not them

so get on with your life sorry you spent soo much time with your post it must have taken at least 10 mins to write out.

That's not quite true. If you fly passengers or their gear, it is a commercial operation. You are ONLY allowed to fly the company's supplies or staff.
I watched a private operator offloading caribou meat to a guy on the dock in Northern Quebec. The guy was having a hard time helping him off load the customers meat while he was writing the pilot up.

It was kind of humorous, in a way.

[cdnpilot77]

I have emailed Budd the last few years asking about this. He maintains he only needs a pilot with a Privates, and is asking 300+ PIC for insurance reasons.

I got a reply back saying he was looking for more time...I have over 300hrs

[x-wind]

HORUNNER, what I posted was from the T.C.C.A aviation safety letter and not my opinion. I copied then pasted it because it was relevant to this thread and had some insights that seemed credible.

[into the blue]

This whole situation is absurd. If I was to pay money to someone for flying my aircraft, and, let's say, I wasn't savvy with aviation regs, it would still be a more logical choice to hire a CPL, rather than a PPL. A CPL pilot with 300 hours PIC will be a safer pilot than the one with a PPL and the same 300 hours in 99% of cases. Also, how does he present this to his insurance company?

[mbav8r]

I interviewed for a job years ago. It was to be a xerox repair tech, and the comapny vehicle was a c180. Used to transport myself and other techs around northern Manitoba. Was told at time I would have to drop a tech off at one location continue on to another, then at the end of the day backtrack and pick up the other tech. Would be transporting replacment copiers, etc...
Asked Transport, and was told it was legal because I was paid as a tech and the company vehicle happened to be a plane.
If this camp was transporting anything other than supplies or workers it wouldn't be legal.

[AOtterstrom]

This came up last year about this time...

[niwre]

interviewed a year ago... didn't make it (oh well)

I didn't fly the way he liked and after three circuits it was c'ya... (had zero previous time in C182) I could go on and on about what they nit picked about but it would sound like sour grapes. All I will say is I would not recommend a student for flight test if they flew the way the interviewer wanted me to in those conditions on that day.

But I did have a few beers with the skydivers afterwards that I know in Gimli. So all was not lost got to share some stories with some good people