Use this forum to flag up examples of red tape and gold plate
#1837403
As I've been taught in my PPL theory, the operator-passenger liability limits, which are mentioned in the Montreal Convention, only apply if there is a contract of carriage made before the flight.

In my flying club in Switzerland where I got my PPL we therefore had a special "ticket book" with copy paper (one copy was for passenger, one for the pilot, and one for the club). I've asked several people in the UK if such thing even exists, but didn't find any information about that. Is it a Swiss-only thing or there were just no high-profile cases when this played any role?
#1838776
In my flying club in Switzerland where I got my PPL we therefore had a special "ticket book" with copy paper (one copy was for passenger, one for the pilot, and one for the club). I've asked several people in the UK if such thing even exists, but didn't find any information about that. Is it a Swiss-only thing or there were just no high-profile cases when this played any role?

@Dlougach do you know on what basis that custom was established? Was the club given some legal advice that they needed the protection of the Montreal Convention? I have never heard in the UK of a flying club being concerned in that regard and if anything did ever happen in terms of operator liability (whether it be the pilot or the club held liable) it seems far fetched that the Montreal Convention would come into it. There presumably is some case law somewhere about it.

There is perhaps an area of legal uncertainty insofar as the words and meanings in such Conventions and their national implementations do not necessarily match up with the aviation safety regulations that we inhabit - for example just because the ANO or the Air Operations Regulation says that a flight (cost share, introductory, etc) can be considered non-commercial, does not automatically mean it is not considered commercial for the purposes of other regulations that might apply with regard to insurance, liability etc. I never really thought of it as a real issue, but presumably at some point someone in your Swiss club did, which I do find a bit curious...
#1838835
@Edward Bellamy This seems to be a common practice in Switzerland apparently (judging by the EuroGA thread that I linked). My understanding of why this could be justified: if Montreal Convention doesn't apply (because the flight is not "for reward", or, in case of some countries, if the flight is not international) then some country-specific laws will apply. And in Switzerland the liability of the operator can be unlimited, and I've heard rumors that there was a high profile bankruptcy of some helicopter company a couple of decades ago when a passenger was awarded something in order of a dozen millions of francs for whatever permanent disability he got. In that case the operator produced a ticket during the hearings but it was proven that it had only been issued after the accident.
Edward Bellamy liked this
#1838935
ISTR there was debate in UK when civilian ambulance helicopters started to be introduced. Thitherto, equivalent missions had been flown by military SAR assets, or undertaken ad-hoc by non-specialist and often private aircraft. The operations were clearly 'commercial' (aircrew and medical attendants were professional and paid). Should the patient have a Montreal-compliant ticket issued for the flight to be legal ? Evidently the issues were resolved (and the pragmatic answer was 'no'). And I think there was concomitant debate on what should happen if a Police aircraft picked up a (possibly unwilling) miscreant ? :wink:
#1838949
The operations were clearly 'commercial' (aircrew and medical attendants were professional and paid).


Believe it or not, back in the early days, the operations actually weren’t “clearly ‘commercial’” Certainly police aircraft were purely a private operation with a few exemptions to certain rules.

At the time it was as though a company which owned it’s own aircraft, took it’s employees flying. No hire or reward involved. No protections under the Montreal convention. I did less Air Ambo flying at that time, but don’t remember it being much different.

Because it was a private operation there were no FTL limits either! Ask me how I know!

All very different now of course! Rightly so.

The OP frames their initial post as the Montreal Convention limiting operator liability limits? Whereas I’ve always viewed it as a protection for ‘customers’ who have paid for a service from an operator qualified, licensed and regulated to provide such a transportation service.

I don’t see how the Montreal Convention can apply to private operations? ‘Ticket’ or no ‘ticket’?
#1838971
Dlougach wrote:As I've been taught in my PPL theory, the operator-passenger liability limits, which are mentioned in the Montreal Convention, only apply if there is a contract of carriage made before the flight.


?

The final paragraph of Article 3 (Passengers and Baggage) is quite clear that although the documentation is the responsibility of the carrier absence of it does not change any of the applicability of the invention:

5. Non-compliance with the provisions of the foregoing paragraphs shall not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of carriage, which shall, nonetheless, be subject to the rules of this Convention including those relating to limitation of liability.

(Article 9 repeats the same wrt cargo)

So a contract of Carriage doesn't need to be 'made before each flight', it is in existence regardless of any documentation provided at or after the flight.

If it is the liability limit which is of concern, then the MC limit is 128,821 (2019 update - originally 100,000) SDR per person for loss of life or 22 (original 17) SDR per kg of cargo (capped at 1,288 SDR , original 1,000). An SDR is around 1 GBP, so the actual amounts should be well under the Liability insurance cover of a typical GA aircraft.

Those liability limits apply in a strict sense i.e. regardless of cause, negligence etc. Or, as the convention says (note the word 'only'):
The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.

Of course, in real life, the claims which are made against pilots, manufactures, carriers etc are all based on the assertion that they acted negligently, in which case those limits above do not apply. :
The carrier shall not be liable for damages arising under paragraph 1 of Article 17 to the extent that they exceed for each passenger 100 000 Special Drawing Rights if the carrier proves that:
(a) such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier or its servants or agents; or
(b) such damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party.

This firmly puts the onus on the carrier to demonstrate his innocence and explains why it is very rare in the 'western' world that payouts following accidents are linked to the limits of the Montreal Convention.

As an aside, the MC only applies to international flights, so it may be more relevant in Switzerland than for the average UK PPL.

I am not sure I see, based on the MC alone, what purpose a 'ticketing' system serves at the OPs club. It seems more than likely that the need for it arises under a Swiss law, not under the MC.
#1838987
Morten wrote:I am not sure I see, based on the MC alone, what purpose a 'ticketing' system serves at the OPs club. It seems more than likely that the need for it arises under a Swiss law, not under the MC.

Yes it must be something in Swiss legal history (as the OP alludes) that prompted the practice, it is hard to tell sometimes whether these practices are based on a long held but misguided belief or whether they have any substance to them.

I suppose it is a bit like disclaimers associated with premises or activities, they don't really hold any legal value but are a way of formally getting someone to acknowledge certain risks.