Peter wrote:
For A-B charter you need MEI don’t think you do for VFR by day over areas where a forced landing is likely to be successful.
Peter wrote:
You have to just accept that a regulation exists
Where exactly? geographically speaking. The point I’m (hopelessly) trying to get through here is very simple. The only regulation (for experimental and microlight) is “non commercial”. You can interpret that as you want, but the aviation authorities do no such interpretation (unless they eventually have to from case to case). For 99% of what you do with a private plane, “non commercial” is fairly easy to decipher:
The authority could have detailed this “non commercial” clause, but so far have not, because it is fairly obvious what is what when getting down to the practicalities of it.
Peter wrote:
There is some move to allow SET A-B charter
Fully legal in Norway, as long as the cabin is pressurized. These decisions are up to the “competent authority” in EASA land IFAIK. Anyway it’s way off topic, I only included it to make a point that the aircraft is not a limitations in EASA, but definitely is so for microlights and experimentals. This is the main reason there is no need for cost sharing regulations for most “Annex II” aircraft. The UK has exempted also the aircraft in that note. One has to wonder why, but it could be simply to have the same regulations for non-EASA as for EASA aircraft?
Not sure where to start but I think you are getting over-focused on the word “commercial”.
There are many more subtle shades.
For example “An EASA aircraft can be used fully commercially by a pilot with the correct license” is simply wrong. In Europe, you can do A-A charter (i.e. paying passengers) i.e. for sightseeing in a SE plane. For A-B charter you need ME. There is some move to allow SET A-B charter (see previous threads e.g. DGAC has allowed some TBM ops and for sure the PC12 will be wanting a bite of that action) but in general a shagged Seneca can do this whereas a brand new TBM930 cannot even if it is flown by two 100,000 hour ATPs who have a Class 1 medical every 4 weeks and who wear gold braids all the way down their arms!
And so on all the way down the list. Not enough time to pick it apart though.
You have to just accept that a regulation exists, if it is written in the law. My post #1 is one example. One doesn’t have to like it. One can disregard it of course and many do and don’t get caught, but that’s a different discussion.
Peter wrote:
Unfortunately that is fiction.
Let me try again 
What about cost sharing? The thing is that cost sharing, according to EASA, is a precisely defined exemption from Part NCO that targets the rights that a holder of a EASA PPL has when operating an EASA aircraft. You have to remember that some of us have had cost sharing regulations for ever before EASA. This isn’t a new thing, it’s only new thing in some countries. The way EASA has implemented this, is fundamentally different from the old rules, although in practice it works similar. The main difference is that EASA-cost sharing is a commercial activity, where by the old rules it was not (they had an element of non-profit though). An input to EASA cost sharing regulations is the fact that there are no restrictions on commercial operations on the aircraft, only the pilot license has these restrictions.
Now matter how you look at it, cost sharing (according to EASA) is irrelevant for aircraft or operations that:
The only relevant thing is non-commercial use (in general, but probably not everywhere ?), and whatever regulations the national authority has made. Now, if you look closely at that UK thing above, you will see it is an exemption from another general rule. But it exempts, not only the pilot, but also the aircraft. The only need for an exemption is there are a more strict general regulation in place.
Usually there are no such general regulations, the only thing to worry about is commercial vs non-commercial. Hence, cost sharing is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is commercial vs non-commercial. There are no need for exempting regulations when there are no regulations to exempt from.
Cost sharing is a non issue, per profit is
Unfortunately that is fiction.
Cost sharing is an issue in aviation regulation because money (or other stuff) changes hands, in connection with the flight.
Noe wrote:
Or when there is one estate suing the other for damages “We agreed on the cost of the flight and then we decide to mask it as an expensive chocolate bar transaction”
Perhaps. But non certified aircraft (operation of them) involves a clause of strictly non-commercial basis. They cannot be used commercially, for any reason. That’s the norm world wide as far as I know. Cost sharing is a non issue, per profit is. There was a farmer close by me who build himself a helicopter, using it to count sheep. He was grounded immediately. We have no cost sharing regulations anymore except for EASA aircraft (Part NCO).
All experimental and microlight aircraft also have placards in the cockpit saying that the aircraft does not fulfill the requirements for aircraft in the normal category. You won’t get anyway with suing. That would also involve proving the the one suing is a complete ignorant moron.
There are two issues:
One is CAA enforcement. There is ample data that when illegal cost sharing is suspected, the CAA interviews the passengers separately, to see if their stories line up. However, the cases where this was reported were obvious cases e.g. some guy doing a dozen flights to the Le Mans races, where the UK CAA officials were waiting.
The other is insurance. If there is an injury or death, people (well, not the dead ones) will happily lie if it means getting more money. This is especially easier if the pilot is dead, even though (if his insurance is declared void) his family is likely to get asset-stripped – the Graham Hill scenario for example. In fact most people will happily lie for any element of “gain”, as anybody who supplies companies that have gone bust will tell you (the employees in Purchasing happily lied about the company status, right up to the instant where they themselves get the shove).
So while many will say “live and let live” (most of those saying that have nil assets) it is wise to be aware of the legal position 
LeSving wrote:
The problem is when you start advertising
… Or when there is one estate suing the other for damages “We agreed on the cost of the flight and then we decide to mask it as an expensive chocolate bar transaction”
Peter wrote:
The problem with cost sharing a flight on which cost sharing is not legal is that your insurance is probably void.
It’s not illegal to give someone money. Cost sharing is therefore per definition not an illegal act. You could take someone with you, give them a chocolate bar and charge €100 for that bar. It is legally impossible to prove that they pay for the trip, not the chocolate. The problem is when you start advertising. Then the only reason you fly is to bring someone from A to B, or A to A for that matter.
What happens if you do fly outside UK in international waters?
You cannot cost share the portion of the flight outside UK airspace.
A more normal approach is …
Maybe, maybe not, which is why I made my original post, so people can check their local regs. The EASA reg permitting cost sharing does not apply to non-EASA aircraft.
The problem with cost sharing a flight on which cost sharing is not legal is that your insurance is probably void.
