Not for hire or reward

A comment Mark made got me thinking about this. The main difference between a commercial pilot and a private pilot is that the commercial pilot is allowed to receive remuneration for flying. The NZ aviation law states in the PPL license section "not for hire or reward". That got me thinking about exactly what that means.

Here is the section in full from CAR Part 61:

a current private pilot licence authorises the holder to—

(1) act, but not for remuneration, as pilot-in-command of an aircraft of the category for which the licence is granted, and for which the pilot holds a type rating, and that is not operated for hire or reward, and to carry passengers in that aircraft;


When boiled down the essense is that the pilot MUST pay for a minimum of 50% of the cost of the flight. The problems arise when some sort of barter takes place that may or may not be traceable should the CAA investigate. I thought of a relevant example in my case. If I was to fly Susan and another couple to Wellington for a rugby game and I pay for the flight but they buy me my ticket and/or take me out to dinner afterwards, surely that is a reward? I know that the CAA is being more active in investigating people who allegedly are dodging the law and I am worried that I will inadvertently get into trouble.

Comments

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oshawapilot said…
Uh oh Euan, the comment spambots have gotten to you now too - time to turn on the comment verification feature.

That aside, the CAR's here in Canada have similar wording on the topic of not being paid to fly as a non-commercial pilot.

Having spoke to alot of people about it over the last year though, it seems that unless you are blatantly flaunting the rules you won't be hassled.

I certainly wouldn't let a professional photographer "Help pay for fuel" so that I could fly him over a certain area strictly for him to do his business. I think that would be classified as a no-no.

However, to take a friend or familly member along on a cost-sharing basis is generally accepted. If my brother wants to go flying for an hour and offers me $50 towards the expense, I don't think it would be considered a problem.

I think as long as the PIC pays a fraction more then 50% of the cost, then it's legit - one is not "technically" making a profit.
Euan Kilgour said…
It was but a matter of time I guess. Word verification is now on.