C210_Flyer wrote:
Higher level of….. safety. Lets see ah…. GermanWings.
Honestly?
You can’t be seriously arguing that airline safety and leisure GA safety are on par – based on one tragic, exposed example. The statistics quite explicitly show that’s not the case.
I’m not a big fan of GermanWings as a passenger, but I also don’t think it’s fair to continuously associate their brand name with that one incident.
Latest news on flight sharing re: FAA
As a Washington, D.C., court weighs the legality of posting flight sharing offers online, an Arizona Republican has introduced a bill that would compel the FAA to accept services like Flytenow. Flytenow, which hosted a website that allowed pilots to post their planned flights so prospective passengers could come along and pay a share of the expenses, was told by the FAA that their website was illegal. It’s legal for passengers in private aircraft to pay an equitable share of the fuel and other expenses on a flight but the FAA said opening that offer to the masses via a website wasn’t legal. Flytenow sued the FAA and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has heard both sides of the story and is deliberating. If the Aviation Cost and Expenses Sharing Act gains traction, however, the decision might be moot.
David Schweikert, R-Ariz., introduced the bill a month ago and it’s clearly aimed at the FAA’s interpretation of the current rules, which say that passengers are allowed to chip in for expenses. The summary of the bill is as follows: “This bill directs the Federal Aviation Administration to issue or revise regulations to ensure that persons who hold a private pilot certificate may communicate with the public in cases where operating expenses of the flight are shared between the pilot and passengers.” The FAA contends broadcasting flight availability Uber-style is an abuse of the rule that allows passengers to buy up to half the gas. Flytenow says the FAA needs to keep up with the times. “It’s OK for pilots to post a written notice at an airport or a college campus with 10,000 students, but if they post the same message online, the FAA says no. Where do you draw the line?” Matt Voska of San Francisco, a private pilot and a cofounder of Flytenow, told the LA Times. “What we are doing is permissible.”
Peter wrote:
Do people still need a French medical?
jumped on that one as i have a FR license flying in LUX
No, BUT you nned to send some papaerwork to the french aeromedical authorities (apparently new with Part MED)
Also, I have not re-read the regs on cost sharing in EASA, but in France there were 2 types of “non-mership” flight sin non-profit associations (flying clubs)
I’m not sure how to distinguish them in english…
- Introductory piloting flights – non-profit flight, only with FI because the person on board is flying like a student. It’s one fligh before deciding to join or not. (of course you can visit many clubs…)
- Introduction to flight (for passenger) – for profit flight, limited to 30’ and back to base flight (not sure about the other one), can be made by any pilot respecting the criterias (overal experience, recent expeerience and medical < 1 year if memory serves me well)
Last, EASA produces regulations as opposed to directives
Then it also produces AMC and GM which is – I think – seen as soft law, i.e. not really binding
Michal wrote:
monitored by our chief instructor. Every new pilot needs to get _certain_*Bold* level of experience and pass additional check ride with him
“certain” meaning …. ?
Invariably this ends up being a fairly subjective standard, but hopefully as a minimum the “private” pilot standard. Ergo., though admirably some private pilots hold themselves to a higher standard than the private pilot minimum, you cannot expect as a blanket assumption that “private” ops will have the same standard as “commercial” ops.
It’s all to separate the wheat from the chaff as far as the exposure of the ‘public generally’ to aviation goes.
Patrick wrote:
There is simply no valid reason why cost sharing of flights should be prohibited while cost sharing for car rides is perfectly okay.
Unless you want to state that Private Pilot Training and currency is sufficient for any type of flying period… I don’t think so, so there is an argument for a stricter regime of training, checks, and oversight, once more and more of the general public gets exposed to a certain operation. The flip side of that is that there is an argument too for restrictions on operation where this training, checking and oversight is not in place. Hence these regulations. The line needs to be drawn somewhere and it is drawn.
In his foreword for the latest issue of “Info-Pilote”, the magazine of the French aeronautical federation, its president Jean-Michel Ozoux talks about the terror attacks. He states that we must now be vigilant as to the frequentation and utilisation of our airfields, and that this includes especially flight sharing with strangers, which must be banned, especially on flights across borders.
I think an AOPA president in the US would be chased out of office if he made such a statement. Good to see my federation money at work.
flight sharing with strangers, which must be banned, especially on flights across borders
What amazes me is how can somebody, who is presumably not stupid, say something like that, while expecting nobody to question the legal basis.
Peter wrote:
What amazes me is how can somebody, who is presumably not stupid, say something like that, while expecting nobody to question the legal basis.
Because it is just an opinion, and you know what they say: everyone has one ! 
True, but a public figure needs to be, ahem, a little more careful saying something “legalese” which will get thrown out if it comes to a court. Or maybe he knows something is being cooked up in the DGAC?
Rwy20 wrote:
In his foreword for the latest issue of “Info-Pilote”, the magazine of the French aeronautical federation, its president Jean-Michel Ozoux talks about the terror attacks. He states that we must now be vigilant as to the frequentation and utilisation of our airfields, and that this includes especially flight sharing with strangers, which must be banned, especially on flights across borders.
Funnily enough, “Aviation & Pilote” has the opposite approach (although not based on terrorists attacks).
It seems UK and another country have interpreted EASA regulations as permitting (and even encouraging? ) these cost sharing flights and have therefore allowed them explicitly.
Their view is that France and DGAC will have (at some point…) to accept it as allowed as well.
Time will tell I guess
PapaPapa wrote:
It seems UK and another country have interpreted EASA regulations as permitting (and even encouraging? ) these cost sharing flights and have therefore allowed them explicitly.
This is referring to the EASA Operations regulations that have not come into force in all countries yet. AFAIU France has opted out which they can until August 2016.
I am sure it has been posted here before, but it does not hurt to do it again. Here is the CAA guidance on the subject of cost sharing. The CAA have also published this somewhat more detailed Information Notice on the subject.
