Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

DGAC objecting to cost sharing / flight pooling in France

Following on from here, and I am not sure if this has been posted here before, but here is the DGAC letter warning about cost sharing.

Google translation:

Various coavionnage of projects are being developed through platforms facilitating the setting
relationship between private pilots and the public. This activity is not without risks and
does not provide the expected security guarantees for public passenger transport.
The regulation allows a private pilot to share the cost of the flight with members of
circle of family and friends during a private flight or leisure.
The extension to the general public beyond the private circle and approaches of public transport. But the
commercial public air transport is subject to a set of binding rules
on professional pilot to the aircraft, its maintenance, its equipment and
operating procedures. Public transport has a very high level of security
higher than that of general aviation.
Thus any form of marketing or remuneration is prohibited flights in a pilot
private, commercial pilot training being at a higher level of requirements
skills, experience or medical fitness. Driver license
Professional is superior to that of a private pilot.
When a professional pilot at the controls, the company that organizes flights
public transport holds an Air Operators Certificate, which demonstrates the company
the ability to comply with all applicable technical rules. It also has
a particular insurance policy effectively covering passengers a.
This significant difference of technical requirements and protect passengers and drivers. Disrespect
these provisions subject to disciplinary and criminal penalties for drivers and
companies when projects move away from the regulatory design of private flights.
The DGAC recommends great caution pilots and entrepreneurs
consider this option. The DGAC will set up a working group on this issue
with major project developers. The French federation representing aviation
flying clubs will be involved. The findings will be made before the end of the year.

I think they sent this as a press release to various places…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Again this old highly unprofessional piece of FUD :-/

La réglementation permet à un pilote privé de partager les frais du vol avec des membres du
cercle familial ou amical lors d’un vol privé ou de loisirs.

This is a really nasty argument. They state that cost sharing is allowed among family members or friends for a private or leisure flight. Of course it is but the law says nothing about the relationship between pilot and cost sharing passengers! This is really stupid FUD from DGAC who seem to dislike European law but are in no position to even have an opinion about it. It’s their job to implement it, by the letter, the way the legislator intended it — not spread opinionated BS!

This press release is very unprofessional, it is only hot air and deliberately fuzzy language (“L’extension au grand public sort du cadre privé et se rapproche du transport public.” – they are stating a similar thing to the old “holding out” rule, which has just been abandoned). It only talks about the “opinion of the DGAC”, but doesn’t provide a single reference to why they hold their beliefs and how they arrived at these conclusions. How can an agency vent their “opinion” when it is not based on the law?

Anyone can answer what is in it for them? I mean other than pride. It may help to see the other side. Any ideas?

Frequent travels around Europe

This press release has been widely spread in the French specialised media. Many clubs (at least the 3 I belong to) have subsequently introduced a formal “co avionnage” prohibition clause in their internal rules.
From my point of view, the DGAC objective is to avoid any trouble between clubs representatives and victims’ families in case of an accident.

As you know, most of the GA flying in France is performed in non-profit organisations (clubs) but the president still has a responsibility in terms of flight safety. A court case where flight sharing would be considered as commercial flying could lead to personal charges against the club’s president. I see this as a precautionary warning towards clubs rather than a deliberate attempt to cut private pilots’ freedom to onboard whom they desire to.

LFNR

Anyone can answer what is in it for them? I mean other than pride. It may help to see the other side. Any ideas?

All CAAs hate pilots who do illegal charter i.e. “AOC busting”. If you look at UK CAA prosecutions, this stands out.

Illegal charter goes on all the time at some low level in GA. There have been celebrated cases in bizjets too, occassionally coming to light when the flight ended terminally, and as you can imagine people get hot under the collar about those because the passengers may have been rich and famous.

Alboule’s answer could be another reason – I don’t know that angle. But I see two problems there:

  • it won’t apply to a private pilot/owner who is not flying a club aircraft. In fact I can’t see why any owner should be formally in a club – other than paying the membership to get access to parking positions, landing fee deals, the sofa, the coffee machine, the ashtray, and … the club receptionist
  • the DGAC has no power to modify EU directives, and any litigation in France would be subject to those. So I don’t see how the DGAC’s interpretation could protect people – so long as the pilot complies with the EASA reg.

IMHO the real issue in all this is that EASA brought in a cost sharing concession whose generosity was totally unexpected by everybody. It may have even been a drafting error! For sure, anybody who knows anything about GA will see that it does make it easy to get very close to doing charter work. The difference to formal (AOC) charter is that the pilot cannot make net cash, and that will always prevent making a business out of it, but most private pilots fly for fun and would be exceedingly happy to get 99% of their costs paid by passengers. So this capability could be seen as eating into the business of AOC charter firms, and they always complain like hell to their CAA if they even smell somebody doing that. And the CAA has to act, since they

  • have to be seen to maintain higher standards for paying passengers who thus have a higher expectation of safety
  • take 10k-20k euros a year for the AOC fee

It’s going to take years for things to settle down, IMHO. The CAAs don’t know what’s hit them. The main limiting factor on the activity growing rapidly is that most people won’t fly with just anybody they met on a “passenger dating site” (the passengers could turn out to be massive, smelly, unpleasant, pissed, or even – the worst scenario – good looking women who then post pics of them and you on FB and your wife finds them, etc) so IMHO the flight sharing sites which are popping up everywhere (like the French one(s) discussed elsewhere here) are going to be mostly wasting their time. And once you know “nice people” then you just send them emails/PMs when planning a flight.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

have to be seen to maintain higher standards for paying passengers who thus have a higher expectation of safety

In a nutshell.

FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

Peter wrote:

For sure, anybody who knows anything about GA will see that it does make it easy to get very close to doing charter work. The difference to formal (AOC) charter is that the pilot cannot make net cash, and that will always prevent making a business out of it, but most private pilots fly for fun and would be exceedingly happy to get 99% of their costs paid by passengers.

We have always had cost sharing in Norway, at least since long before I got my PPL in 1992. This new EASA regulation restricts it in some way (max 6 persons, why 6 persons?), but it also (quasi) commercialize it in other ways. I can’t remember a single incidence where this has been misused. Also, as I understand it, this new EASA regulation came because the one preceding it would effectively stop all gliding and parachuting activity (which was a “mishap” according to EASA. No clue about what is going on is a more precise description). Those activities have always been done on a “cost sharing” basis regarding towing and carrying jumpers.

The main problem with the regulation, is because of the quasi commercial points, it creates problems with no gain whatsoever. It should have stopped with cost sharing.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

In a nutshell

So why don’t they just write that rather than make vague allegations that advertising cost shared flights is illegal.

For various reasons it seems especially easy to spread FUD in France. Look how the club scene buys into it. Not much questioning.

We have always had cost sharing in Norway,

Every country has it but normally they try to limit the promotion of such flights. The USA is extremely strict.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Every country has it but normally they try to limit the promotion of such flights.

As I said, the problem is not cost sharing. The problem is this quasi commercial activity that clubs (ideal non profit organisation or something like that as described by EASA in the regulation) can do with this new regulation. That is NOT cost sharing, but plain commercial activity, as long as the profit stays within the organisation as EASA put it. It should never have been included. I can understand DGAC, because all sorts of problems can result from this. Who asked for it in the first place?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
213 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top