Where does the concept of ‘benefit-in-kind’ come in here ? I can see that being an issue…
Is that linked to the ‘hours as valuable consideration’ line that the FAA use? Would never stand up here. Flying a plane is not a benefit in kind.
prob99 knows nothing about planes
That really surprises me, as I fly for quite a few wealthy owners as a professional pilot in private operations and they are all qualified pilots, but want me there for a variety of reasons.
I am amazed that for each of them there’s 99 who know nothing.
172driver wrote:
Where does the concept of ‘benefit-in-kind’ come in here ? I can see that being an issue…
That’s a taxation concept, is it not?
I am amazed that for each of them there’s 99 who know nothing.
I was referring to the bizjet / TP sphere, where most of this type of flying takes place nowadays. There is very little paid work flying owners around in pistons nowadays.
Obviously they don’t know “nothing”. Most “captains of industry” types can read brochures where they can see the range i.e. how far they can fly, etc. But they are not pilots. However many/most “celebrity” types are truly thick.
That’s a taxation concept, is it not?
Yes, but BIK is not related to this. It describes what HMRC do to the owner of the plane if he runs it in a Ltd Co 
Many previous threads on BIK, etc.
Graham wrote:
What OPS regulations? That apply to me? I’m not a commercial carrier.
All the parts covering commercial air transport, complex non commercial and normal non commercial are part of the ops regs from EASA.
Peter wrote:
Yes, but BIK is not related to this. It describes what HMRC do to the owner of the plane if he runs it in a Ltd Co Many previous threads on BIK, etc.
Yes, but my point is that it has nothing to do with the flight being commercial or not.
According to The Daily Mail so it could be fact or fiction " Footballer Emiliano Sala and his pilot had been exposed to harmful levels of carbon monoxide in the cockpit of their private plane when it crashed into the English Channel, it was revealed today. "
I have this from a PA46 owner:
This is incredibly bizarre. In a PA46, CO ingress into the cabin is almost impossible unless they were flying unpressurized. In unpressurized configuration, the conventional heat muff issue can arise. However, in pressurized configuration, heat-muff-warmed air doesn’t go into the cabin.
OTOH, the autopsy can hardly be questioned. Perhaps he was flying it unpressurised?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/aaib-investigation-into-the-loss-of-aircraft-n264db Latest report local copy
Certainly makes me think again, so many aircraft I fly don’t have detector or naff card ones, and alerting devices are so cheap and available these days.
