Actually my N-reg cannot legally cost-share for other reasons.
You are of course quite correct. I was thinking of a G reg TB20.
Haywards don’t exclude sharing.
Not 100% sure about that though. Most policies talk about “hire or reward”, and cost sharing probably falls into that.
OK, but then I would expect the insurance to have been very well tested over the decades over which PPLs have been cost sharing.
In the UK, and other places I hear about, there are many pilots who never do a flight unless it is cost shared. So a lot of cost shared flights will have crashed, etc.
The only (main) difference with the new regs is that you can advertise the flight freely and that the pilot doesn’t have to pay an equal share. Personally I would regard the word “share” as meaning an equal share, especially with the words in post #19.
Probably the main change in the risk will be the higher number of people who push the boundaries, due to the ease of advertising and picking up paying passengers. Post-accident, you then just need a passenger to fabricate something…
OK, but then I would expect the insurance to have been very well tested over the decades over which PPLs have been cost sharing
Fair point. But can you point to an accident where there was open cost sharing going on?
I can’t point to one where illegal cost sharing was a factor, but then one wouldn’t know. The AAIB reports don’t report on whether insurance paid out afterwards 
And the cases where I just happened to find out that insurance didn’t pay out, the pilot is keeping very quiet.
Interesting one in the US: http://www.businessinsider.fr/us/blackbird-flight-sharing-startup-for-planes-2018-8
Disregarding the journalistic stuff like " Blackbird gives them quite a bit of authority, allowing them to decide if a flight should be cancelled due to inclement weather, among other things." and “the seneca isn’t equipped to fly instruments”
That’s quite a fun article to read but I can’t help thinking that they over-estimate the public acceptance of this means of travel… however we have discussed that bit before
The security angle they mention is important, especially by the time you are talking about bigger planes e.g. turboprops and jets. Vetting passenger names against terrorist lists in not much good; they need to be scanned physically.
Peter wrote:
they need to be scanned physically.
But isn’t anyone much safer if every passenger is carrying a gun on the plane so that the good guys can shoot the bad guys 
?
(for avoidance of doubt, I am on this camp:
)
Yes, if someone uses your plane to carry some stuff, you (as PIC) are responsible… See the Air Cocaine scandal
denopa wrote:
Yes, if someone uses your plane to carry some stuff, you (as PIC) are responsible… See the Air Cocaine scandal
On my recent trip, we were invited to a wedding this weekend and we were asked to do a traditional revival ceremony in 18 century costumes with a very peculiar detail: we had to carry two swords in a C172 while flying UK to France…
As PIC of that flight, I just say no and did not bother, unfortunately on the ‘Air Cocaine’ affair I don’t think those pilots were able to say ‘NO’ and walk alive from it neither…
The revival ceremony looked like this
Why no out of curiosity? I do tend to use GA for all the (otherwise legal) things that are annoying to transport on an airliner / Eurostar
