3 ms·

It's the distinction between private and commercial that doesn't make sense to me. If I want to fly from A to B, whether I get paid or not doesn't make a differ

It's the distinction between private and commercial that doesn't make sense to me. If I want to fly from A to B, whether I get paid or not doesn't make a difference to the safety of the passengers. If I have a private pilot cert, I am qualified to fly the aircraft safely. Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

openasocket 9y ago
Commercial aviation has more regulations and procedures around it, and stricter standards. As a consequence, flying on a commercial plane is orders of magnitude safer than flying on private plane. Here's some statistics on that: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/aviation_stats.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/aviation_stat... . Basically, you are 10x more likely to be in a fatal accident on a private plane than to be in any kind of accident at all on a commercial airline.
doodles526 9y ago
There is an extreme difference in the number of hours and required training between your SPL/PPL/CPL/ATPL. Eg: For fixed wing, you can get your PPL within 35 flight hours at a Part 141 School. Your ATP comes at a minimum of 1500 hours, and you are required to know much more about emergency recovery. The regs in place regarding minimum requirements for carrying passengers and performing commercial ops are there for very good reason. Even when having your PPL(or other license for that fact), there are currency requirements on when you are allowed to carry passengers on Part 91 non-commercial flights. In the aviation world, even having your commercial is considered a "license to learn". Having your PPL simply implies that you can fly an aircraft in good weather conditions, should have the better judgement not to fly beyond your weather minimums, and have the ability not to kill anyone outside of your aircraft should conditions deteriorate while in the air. Even with my fixed wing PPL, I am extremely cautious with passengers knowing that I don't have nearly as much knowledge and experience as someone with their CPL/ATPL. Source: PPL w/ instrument Fixed Wing & CPL-H
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  That's very informative, but it doesn't quite answer the question. Why are you allowed to have passengers with a PPL if it's so dangerous? And why does that reason stop applying when the passengers pay?
  - doodles526 9y ago
    While I can't claim to be an expert in _why_ the FAA chose to structure the regs the way they do, I have some personal thoughts on the matter. dweekly has a great comment explaining Part 91, 135, and 121 operation rules that I'll reference here. A Part 91 flight conducted by a PPL with passengers certainly isn't the safest activity the pilot or passengers could partake in. But its certainly enjoyable. Let's take a similar example. A hobbyist motorcycle racer owns a private track, and a friend wants a joy-ride. Similarly to a passenger on a Part 91 flight, a passenger on a high speed sports bike is at higher risk of fatality than a person who decided to spend the day relaxing at the beach. But doing so on private property with little/no risk to non-participants is not illegal. Many/Most high-risk activities are not illegal provided that the risk is only to the willing participants. While I can't be sure that's the reason the FAA allows low-hour non-CPL pilots to carry passengers, I would imagine it is a large contributing factor considering the statistical probability of fatality is with the pilot and passengers, not people in other planes or on the ground (to the best of my knowledge). Part 135 and 121 operations have the license requirements such that people purchasing services have a reasonable expectation that the pilots involved have been properly trained, and are VERY safe. Now to the kicker. Why are private pilots not allowed to accept ANY compensation? Really, NO COMPENSATION. Although I haven't personally heard of anyone getting their license revoked for something as little as paying the full cost of expenses, it is against the regulations for your passengers to pay more than half the pro-rata share of expenses (rent, fuel, etc...). This is a hotly debated item, that no one seems to have a good answer for. The most convinving argument I've heard is that it goes back to the late '20s when the regs for commercial pilots started going into place. The history around this is shaky, but supposedly the commercial license came about as a way to track interstate and foreign commerce. Supposedly the government at the time was scared of the ability to circumvent taxes since they couldn't as easily stop and check trucks or trains crossing borders. So they created the commercial license as a way of regulating inter-border trade to trusted pilots. I don't have a source on that unfortunately - more of an oral tradition story. But it makes the most sense to me of everything I've heard. Another rabbit-hole I won't go too deep into is the issue of insurance. Getting insurance on an aircraft is much more expensive if it will be used for compensation purposes (Part 135 or 121). Even if a private pilot were able to get compensation from passengers or for cargo, the insurance rate would be astronomical(as a commercial rotor wing pilot, I can't find a job doing anything but instructing until I hit ~1000 hours due to insurance rates, if an insurance company would even let me fly on a commercial bird before then). And if you got in an accident while providing paid-for services without proper (for comp)insurance, it would not pay-out anything. tl;dr You can have PPL w/ passengers because you're mostly only endangering yourself and willing passengers. Commercial operations are limited to using CPL/ATPL pilots such that consumers have a reasonable guarantee of safety. And nobody knows why private pilots can't be compensated (although if someone has a source with concrete answer I would love to hear it). Even if they could legally, they financially couldn't due to insurance costs.
captain_perl 9y ago
I hold a commercial airplane rating ... The PPL is about 40 - 60 hours of experience at the time of rating, and CPL is 200+ hours. New PPL holders do not have an IFR endorsement, while most CPLs do. So the qualifications are vastly different. In the industry, we say that a PPL is "a license to learn." I read both press releases and the missing info is which aircraft were being used with the unrated pilots. If it was a plane requiring a SIC, and the second pilot was a student, then that was the real reason for the revocation. Also, the catchall "recklessness" can be used at any time. Flying pax without a rated SIC would be an easy complaint to win.
avar 9y ago
Aside from what others have mentioned, yes just the fact that you're getting paid makes a difference to the safety of the passengers. If you and your three friends have agreed to split the cost of a joyride on the weekend in your Cessna and there's an unexpected storm, you're much more likely to just cancel. You're all going for fun, nobody wants to fly in bad weather, and you can just go on some other weekend. Consider the same example where you have three paying customers who've you've agreed to fly around on the weekend. Now you'll be in a situation of having to refund tickets to disappointed customers. You might decide to go ahead with it anyway. Now you're putting members of the public at more risk for your own monetary interest.

openasocket 9y ago

Commercial aviation has more regulations and procedures around it, and stricter standards. As a consequence, flying on a commercial plane is orders of magnitude safer than flying on private plane. Here's some statistics on that: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/aviation_stats.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/aviation_stat... . Basically, you are 10x more likely to be in a fatal accident on a private plane than to be in any kind of accident at all on a commercial airline.

doodles526 9y ago

There is an extreme difference in the number of hours and required training between your SPL/PPL/CPL/ATPL. Eg: For fixed wing, you can get your PPL within 35 flight hours at a Part 141 School. Your ATP comes at a minimum of 1500 hours, and you are required to know much more about emergency recovery. The regs in place regarding minimum requirements for carrying passengers and performing commercial ops are there for very good reason. Even when having your PPL(or other license for that fact), there are currency requirements on when you are allowed to carry passengers on Part 91 non-commercial flights. In the aviation world, even having your commercial is considered a "license to learn". Having your PPL simply implies that you can fly an aircraft in good weather conditions, should have the better judgement not to fly beyond your weather minimums, and have the ability not to kill anyone outside of your aircraft should conditions deteriorate while in the air. Even with my fixed wing PPL, I am extremely cautious with passengers knowing that I don't have nearly as much knowledge and experience as someone with their CPL/ATPL. Source: PPL w/ instrument Fixed Wing & CPL-H

Dylan16807 9y ago
That's very informative, but it doesn't quite answer the question. Why are you allowed to have passengers with a PPL if it's so dangerous? And why does that reason stop applying when the passengers pay?
- doodles526 9y ago
  While I can't claim to be an expert in _why_ the FAA chose to structure the regs the way they do, I have some personal thoughts on the matter. dweekly has a great comment explaining Part 91, 135, and 121 operation rules that I'll reference here. A Part 91 flight conducted by a PPL with passengers certainly isn't the safest activity the pilot or passengers could partake in. But its certainly enjoyable. Let's take a similar example. A hobbyist motorcycle racer owns a private track, and a friend wants a joy-ride. Similarly to a passenger on a Part 91 flight, a passenger on a high speed sports bike is at higher risk of fatality than a person who decided to spend the day relaxing at the beach. But doing so on private property with little/no risk to non-participants is not illegal. Many/Most high-risk activities are not illegal provided that the risk is only to the willing participants. While I can't be sure that's the reason the FAA allows low-hour non-CPL pilots to carry passengers, I would imagine it is a large contributing factor considering the statistical probability of fatality is with the pilot and passengers, not people in other planes or on the ground (to the best of my knowledge). Part 135 and 121 operations have the license requirements such that people purchasing services have a reasonable expectation that the pilots involved have been properly trained, and are VERY safe. Now to the kicker. Why are private pilots not allowed to accept ANY compensation? Really, NO COMPENSATION. Although I haven't personally heard of anyone getting their license revoked for something as little as paying the full cost of expenses, it is against the regulations for your passengers to pay more than half the pro-rata share of expenses (rent, fuel, etc...). This is a hotly debated item, that no one seems to have a good answer for. The most convinving argument I've heard is that it goes back to the late '20s when the regs for commercial pilots started going into place. The history around this is shaky, but supposedly the commercial license came about as a way to track interstate and foreign commerce. Supposedly the government at the time was scared of the ability to circumvent taxes since they couldn't as easily stop and check trucks or trains crossing borders. So they created the commercial license as a way of regulating inter-border trade to trusted pilots. I don't have a source on that unfortunately - more of an oral tradition story. But it makes the most sense to me of everything I've heard. Another rabbit-hole I won't go too deep into is the issue of insurance. Getting insurance on an aircraft is much more expensive if it will be used for compensation purposes (Part 135 or 121). Even if a private pilot were able to get compensation from passengers or for cargo, the insurance rate would be astronomical(as a commercial rotor wing pilot, I can't find a job doing anything but instructing until I hit ~1000 hours due to insurance rates, if an insurance company would even let me fly on a commercial bird before then). And if you got in an accident while providing paid-for services without proper (for comp)insurance, it would not pay-out anything. tl;dr You can have PPL w/ passengers because you're mostly only endangering yourself and willing passengers. Commercial operations are limited to using CPL/ATPL pilots such that consumers have a reasonable guarantee of safety. And nobody knows why private pilots can't be compensated (although if someone has a source with concrete answer I would love to hear it). Even if they could legally, they financially couldn't due to insurance costs.

captain_perl 9y ago

I hold a commercial airplane rating ... The PPL is about 40 - 60 hours of experience at the time of rating, and CPL is 200+ hours. New PPL holders do not have an IFR endorsement, while most CPLs do. So the qualifications are vastly different. In the industry, we say that a PPL is "a license to learn." I read both press releases and the missing info is which aircraft were being used with the unrated pilots. If it was a plane requiring a SIC, and the second pilot was a student, then that was the real reason for the revocation. Also, the catchall "recklessness" can be used at any time. Flying pax without a rated SIC would be an easy complaint to win.

avar 9y ago

Aside from what others have mentioned, yes just the fact that you're getting paid makes a difference to the safety of the passengers. If you and your three friends have agreed to split the cost of a joyride on the weekend in your Cessna and there's an unexpected storm, you're much more likely to just cancel. You're all going for fun, nobody wants to fly in bad weather, and you can just go on some other weekend. Consider the same example where you have three paying customers who've you've agreed to fly around on the weekend. Now you'll be in a situation of having to refund tickets to disappointed customers. You might decide to go ahead with it anyway. Now you're putting members of the public at more risk for your own monetary interest.