Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Murgatroyd
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1631003
As a prize for a local club. Any funds goes to an stays in the club. I pay for everything. None of which i have an issue with and I'm quite happy to share the flying experience with others, however since I've been asked if I'd take two passengers round their local village for a half hour pleasure flight that they'd bid and have won for as part of a fund raising event. The club is not a registered charity, but they do have some phenomenal local scenery :D

Are we clouding any part of the PPL rules here?

I can't see any conflict or flagrant disregard to the rules or the intent of the rules as I'm not financially benefiting from the arrangement, especially when the raffle prize will be my 'gift' to the club. but those taking the flight will have paid for it, either by a winning bid or a raffle ticket. (or does this matter)

Does it differ in principle from taking my neighbour and son out for a jolly on a Saturday afternoon?

thanks
#1631008
The CAA has some words on charity/prize flights but they are restricted to registered charities: https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/ ... y-flights/

I put one up as a prize at a charity do a few months ago. The lady who won was apparently over the moon at having won but I haven't heard from her since. Oh well, at least the charity got their cash!
User avatar
By 2Donkeys
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1631017
@TopCat whilst it is true that the pilot doesn't benefit in either case, in the case of the passenger paying money away to a charity (or good cause that is not a charity) in exchange for a flight, a bargain has been struck and money has been paid in the expectation of a flight. The money handed over may bear little or no resemblance to the 'worth' of the flight if (for example) cost sharing rules were to be applied.

The CAA are at pains to point out that the guidance quoted above is not exhaustive and brave souls might be tempted to call them and discuss other forms of project in an attempt to get their blessing!
By Lefty
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1631029
2Donkeys wrote:@TopCat whilst it is true that the pilot doesn't benefit in either case, in the case of the passenger paying money away to a charity (or good cause that is not a charity) in exchange for a flight, a bargain has been struck and money has been paid in the expectation of a flight. The money handed over may bear little or no resemblance to the 'worth' of the flight if (for example) cost sharing rules were to be applied.

The CAA are at pains to point out that the guidance quoted above is not exhaustive and brave souls might be tempted to call them and discuss other forms of project in an attempt to get their blessing!


Interesting / strange that the CAA set some quite stringent, (but IMHOperfectly reasonable) requirements to do charity flights, but don’t set any requirements for Wingly / similar cost sharing flights.
Doesn’t stack up in my view.
Rob P, 2Donkeys liked this
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1631036
The CAA set those criteria if you want to operate under the General Exception.

As 2Ds points out above, there is no harm in contacting them regarding your specific proposed flight and discussing the possibility of a one-off approval.

This of course assumes that they have anyone left who knows what you are talking about!
2Donkeys, TopCat liked this
#1631050
GrahamB wrote:This of course assumes that they have anyone left who knows what you are talking about!


Yeees. :)

The rules have changed since Ops went European. If you're operating an Annex II aircraft, the UK can make whatever rules and set whatever conditions it wishes. If you're operating an EASA aircraft, it can't.

Public transport used to be (e.g. ANO 1995) "if valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in the aircraft on that flight"

The definition of Commercial Air Transport in the Air Ops Regulation (and the new BR) is "an aircraft operation to transport passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or other valuable consideration".

There's a subtle difference. For PT, the passenger can offer the valuable consideration to a third party (a charity for example), and it still falls under the scope of PT. For CAT, it's a little different as the focus is on the operation and therefore the operator -- if the operator receives no remuneration or other valuable consideration, it's not clear that it's CAT. Otherwise, I don't see why hiring an aircraft to take some friends for a flight is not CAT: there's valuable consideration given to the owner, without which the flight would not take place.

Further, if you look at another definition in the BR, "‘commercial operation’ shall mean any operation of an aircraft, in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration, which is available to the public or, when not made available to the public, which is performed under a contract between an operator and a customer, where the latter has no control over the operator."

Given that there is no contract between the operator and either the customer or the third party, it's difficult to see such a charity flight as a "commercial operation". There's a view that CAT is a subset of "commercial operation", though there's no case law, of course.

So it's a very grey area at the moment. Might be worth seeing what the GA unit's current thinking is on the topic.
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1631063
bookworm wrote:Given that there is no contract between the operator and either the customer or the third party

You have promised a flight in return for a charity donation. That is clearly a 2 way contract, even if a lawyer didn't add lots of words to it?

From a bidder point of view, there is no difference to easyjet offering a free flight to a charity and you. Its just that the CAA have provided an exemption to allow you to do it with certain conditions.