La DGAC recommande donc la plus grande prudence aux pilotes et aux entrepreneurs qui considèrent cette option. La DGAC va mettre en place un groupe de travail sur cette question avec les principaux porteurs de projet. La Fédération française aéronautique représentant les aéroclubs sera associée. Les conclusions seront rendues avant la fin de l’année.
Read: the DGAC will soon start to read the applicable law but until then prefers to spread nonsense and FUD.
Such a nonsense statement is really not worthy of a government agency. They should stick to the law not some fuzzy “professional pilots have a higher training” BS.
@achimha, totally agree with you.
If you check this lawyer: http://www.droitaerien.com/content.php?content=336 He says it is totally legal in France.
DGAC is just doing nonsense. The first co-avionnage website launched 10 years ago, Off We Fly was public since May not nobody cared. So wtf?!
@achimha there are nonsenses a lot more far-reaching than that. Geneva Airport has commissioned a risk study to see whether continued operation of the grass and concrete runways is possible (as theoretically they are closer than what ICAO says they should be). The airport pushed for treating them as one on account of “wake turbulence” issues (and on account of needing the real estate without having the balls to say so). The study failed to find any such “issue” or “incident” over the past 40+ years of simultaneous operation (which would warrant filing a difference from ICAO). So, in order to justify the preordered conclusion, they concluded simultaneous operations should be discontinued because “the runways are parallel and if small planes deviate from their trajectory they could endanger big planes on the ILS axis”…. sic.
This may not be relevant to France but in the UK this has always been dealt with by advertising “seat sharing” not cost sharing.
Everyone knew most or all such adverts were looking for cost sharing…
Anyway I am pleased Achim now seems to agree with me on the DGAC 
Michael, if you actually read and try to understand the DGAC text and acquire basic knowledge of what the applicable law says, then you will surely realize that the DGAC release is pure FUD.
If reading EU law is too much to ask for, then I recommend the UK CAA’s summary of the regulation. It is very much spot-on and easy to read: https://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=224&pagetype=90&pageid=16888
“Le coavionnage traditionnel s’effectue généralement entre amis ou au moins connaissances. Un juge aura moins tendance à requalifier le vol « intéressé » en transport public de passagers s’il constate le caractère personnel des relations avec les personnes transportées. Ce sera le cas par exemple d’un vol effectué entre membres d’un aéroclub où le partage des frais est de tradition. Les passagers connaissent la personnalité et les qualités du pilote et effectuent le vol en toute connaissance de cause. Le risque inhérent à tout transport aérien, particulièrement en aviation légère et sportive, est librement accepté.
Or utiliser internet comme mode de mise en relation revient à transporter de parfaits inconnus et être transporté par un pilote tout aussi inconnu. L’enjeu est donc de savoir si l’utilisation d’internet remet en cause la notion traditionnelle de vol à frais partagés."
Is car-sharing on Blablacar or Mitfahrgelegenheit assimilated to “commercial people transport”? No. Same approach should be applied to GA.
@Shorrick_Mk2 Exactly.
The study failed to find any such “issue” or “incident” over the past 40+ years of simultaneous operation (which would warrant filing a difference from ICAO). So, in order to justify the preordered conclusion, they concluded simultaneous operations should be discontinued because “the runways are parallel and if small planes deviate from their trajectory they could endanger big planes on the ILS axis"
Within 15 miles of my house there are three airports built with two parallel runways, one and big and one small, for the explicit reason of allowing simultaneous operation of larger aircraft including jets and light training aircraft. At my base my hangar is closer to the long runway so I typically operate my 65 HP puddle jumper (and other aircraft) from that runway, the same runway in which my company operates their biz jets. It works fine, although when steaming down final for a straight in at God knows what airspeed in the back of the jet, I am acutely aware that traffic on base for the parallel may be a student. Last time I flew home that way I mentioned it to the 30-ish year old captain and he said “for sure, dude, I’ll be looking”
It all depends on how close is close :)
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
It all depends on how close is close :)
And with some imagination, other factors that can be incorporated without issue KSNA Pilot Info
“VFR aircraft: To avoid overflight of Rwy 20R/2L: Rwy 20L arrival fly final at 15° angle to Rwy”
