Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

PA46 Malibu N264DB missing in the English Channel

I am told that there is the usual slagging-off of the N-reg scene going on after this accident.

The key point is that the reg is irrelevant to the flight. IF the passenger was paying to be flown (or somebody else paid somebody else for flying him) then the flight required an A-to-B AOC. You can put an N-reg on a UK CAA AOC but nobody bothers because you need Part M maintenance (by a 145 company) and EASA papers for the crew. And you would need to fit a second engine onto the PA46

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I agree that the N-reg is not relevant, except that it will probably muddy the legal waters when civl cases get filed.

Fly safely
Various UK. Operate throughout Europe and Middle East, United Kingdom

The only | can see of such a flight being legal is if no money changes hands in connection with the flight.

This for many years has been the traditional approach to getting around the UK CAA’s definition of “public transport”. In general, most people need to eat, so a payment is necessary to get them to do anything useful so it is made in connection with something else, not the flight itself. So if say I breed pedigree cats, I could get someone to transport somebody, for no money, but would facilitate one of my tomcats to shag a cat belonging to the aircraft owner.

So where e.g. a certain sort of flight training was not legal in UK airspace (classically, where the instructor doesn’t have a CPL issued under JAR-FCL (as it used to be) or EASA CPL Theory (in later years)) it would be done for free, with a payment made for “ground school”. This is very hard to prove as illegal because ground training is a very desirable part of flight training. Or it could be done outside UK airspace, but that’s not relevant here.

In the case of this flight, any payment which may have been made (I am not suggesting one was) could have been quite distant from the flight.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Dave_Phillips wrote:

I agree that the N-reg is not relevant, except that it will probably muddy the legal waters when civl cases get filed.

Probably relevant to say C-reg as N-reg does does not “easily allow cost sharing” as many other regs but outside this the AOC+CPL story will not be any different than on a G-reg…

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Not being a psychic but it sounds a bit to me like: “can you fly this guy to the UK in my plane? I pay the fuel”. And it would be perfectly legal… right?

EKRK, Denmark

Peter, that pragmatic view will not stop the ambulance chasers. There are insurance companies out there who will be spending lots of money to minimise their exposure.

Last Edited by Dave_Phillips at 08 Feb 15:22
Fly safely
Various UK. Operate throughout Europe and Middle East, United Kingdom

Michael_J wrote:

Not being a psychic but it sounds a bit to me like: “can you fly this guy to the UK in my plane? I pay the fuel”. And it would be perfectly legal… right?

Not in N reg operated by an FAA PPL. The FAA has even won cases where it argued that flight time in the logbook counted as compensation even without money changing hands. A summary (including the actual regulation from part 61) appears here: https://generalaviationnews.com/2014/08/20/faa-interpretation-of-cost-sharing-flights-raises-cautionary-flags/

Basically, under part 91 as a PPL given two on board, the passenger can’t be paying more than 50% of the direct costs.

Last Edited by alioth at 08 Feb 15:32
Andreas IOM

can you fly this guy to the UK in my plane? I pay the fuel”

That would not apply here since the guy who negotiated the transfer etc has already stated he does not own the plane.

And nobody is going to fly a plane for a “job” for just for the fuel payment. It’s like you asking me to obtain some special washing machine for you for £200 and you offer to give me £100 for it and my time

The plane is owned by the US trust but the beneficial owner is prob99 somebody quite a bit closer to it, and from the circumstances it almost certainly wasn’t Ibbotson.

under part 91 as a PPL given two on board, the passenger can’t be paying more than 50% of the direct costs

There is also this.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Michael_J wrote:

Not being a psychic but it sounds a bit to me like: “can you fly this guy to the UK in my plane? I pay the fuel”. And it would be perfectly legal… right?

Not in EASA-land (not unless the person paying the money is on board).
Also not in FAA-land (already said)

Biggin Hill

I would not be surprised if the backlash from this will not even come from the regulators but the insurances. While getting insurance here is mostly a no brainer, I understand that in the US this is very different and the insurers have quite a lot to say about who can fly a plane and under which conditions. So I wonder how their small print will change following this.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top