New GA friendly cost sharing rules (and what can and cannot be cost-shared)

Seems a Dutch non-profit flying foundation was convicted by Dutch court for asking passengers to pay a small fee not even covering the direct costs of the flight. This was not allowed according to Dutch aviation law, but was before the date any EASA stuff went into effect. I find it difficult (not being a lawyer) to figure out what is in effect law now.

That would have been illegal in the UK too – due to the requirement that (a) a cost shared flight may be done only among members of a club (non members could be passengers but could not participate in the cost sharing, IMHO) and (b) must not be advertised except in the club premises.

My take on (b) is that a website would meet that “club” requirement, and the CAA studiously avoided testing that in court, despite probably 99% of adverts on “seat sharing” websites are conditional on cost sharing taking place. The CAA here is very clever in avoiding testing in court stuff which, if they lost, would result in a significant floodgate opening – the biggest area of CAA “interest” involves some form of AOC busting, and abuse of cost sharing is one form. The CAA prosecuted AOC busting only in 100% watertight cases where they would definitely win. They usually pitched their costs much higher if the defendant pleaded Not Guilty

AFAIK both (a) and (b) are finished in the UK now, due to the EASA change, and I recall reading some statement by the head of GA in the CAA confirming that, and saying it ought to boost GA activity. Very progressive – given that GA activity as a whole is mostly budget-limited. I hope my recollection is correct!

Here a comment from Julian Scarfe (EASA specialist on PPLIR.org forum) on this topic:

National rules continue to apply until the end of the derogation for application of Part-NCO, which is at latest (and for most states is exactly) 26 August 2016. If NL national rules permitted cost sharing before then, you should be able to continue on that basis. If not, you must wait until 2016.

In the UK (i.e. for UK operators), national rules permit cost-sharing on private flights under slightly different conditions. Moreover, the UK definitions of “private”, “aerial work” and “public transport” are likely to be deleted, hopefully with effect from the same date (26 Aug 2016), with UK regulation aligned with the EASA definitions.

It’s incorrect to say that Part-NCO “has not been approved by EASA”. It is law and will apply, unless a further amending regulation goes through the EASA Committee and parliament.

I find it difficult (not being a lawyer) to figure out what is in effect law now.

Tell me about it. I mean, to create laws and regulations that are impossible to understand, is that even legal? It is even impossible to understand if the regulations are in effect or not, according to the regulations themselves. If we break some regulations (according to EASA/CAA), and it goes to court, even a less than mediocre lawyer will point out the sheer volume and the spaghetti entanglement these laws are, and make a case out of it for our defense. Most of GA are low time pilots, flying for recreational purposes. We don’t have a bunch of lawyers at our disposal deciphering the glyphs. Flying is a practical thing, it is not a legal theoretical exercise for lawyers to indulge in, and for us to get lost in.

Some of EASA regulation makes sense and is straight forward, while other regulations are a mess. The messy stuff I just pretend is not there.

In the Us the greatest limiting factor is, and always has been, what the insurance companies decide. So if you have it in your policy that certain costs can be shared yet be within the current FAA regs your good. If you have no costs may be shared then no matter what the regs say if there is an accident /incident your toast. As in fried, or fried your bacon, screwed, nicht gut etc etc

I dont think anyone mentioned insurance in this thread.

No. In Europe, insurances don’t normally make any prescriptions other than the one that flights shall comply with all laws and regulations.

Insurance is one of the aspects under which flying in Europe is both cheaper and more straightforward than in the US.

Well if I’d known you were having the argument here I would have come here first. :)

Both 800/2013 and 379/2014 are amending regulations of 965/2012 (“the Ops regulation”).

In 965/2012

’Art 5
1. Operators shall only operate an aircraft for the purpose of commercial air transport (hereinafter ‘CAT’) operations as specified in Annexes III and IV.’

In 800/2013

(6) in Article 5, the following three paragraphs shall be added:
‘…
4. Operators of other-than-complex motor-powered aeroplanes and helicopters as well as balloons and sailplanes involved in non-commercial operations shall operate the aircraft in accordance with the provisions specified in Annex VII.’

(9) in Article 10 the following paragraph shall be inserted:
‘3. By way of derogation from the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply:
…; and
(b) the provisions of Annex V, VI and VII to non-commercial operations with aeroplanes, helicopters, sailplanes and balloons until 25 August 2016.’;

In 379/2014

(3) Article 5 is amended as follows:
…
(b) paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 are replaced by the following:
‘…
4. Operators of other-than-complex motor-powered aeroplanes, and helicopters, as well as balloons and sailplanes, involved in non-commercial operations, including
non-commercial specialised operations, shall operate the aircraft in accordance with the provisions specified in Annex VII.
…
6. Operators shall only operate an aircraft for the purpose of commercial specialised operations as specified in Annexes III and VIII.’

(4) Article 6 is amended as follows:
…
(b) the following paragraph 4a is inserted:
‘4a. By way of derogation from Article 5(1) and (6), the following operations with other-than-complex motor-powered aircraft may be conducted in accordance with Annex VII:
(a) cost-shared flights by private individuals, on the condition that the direct cost is shared by all the occupants of the aircraft, pilot included and the number of persons sharing the direct costs is limited to six;
…’
965/2012 introduces the concept of Part-CAT (Annex V), says who it applies to in 5(1), and allowed a derogation (now passed) to be exercised by member states for its introduction.

800/2013 introduces the concept of Part-NCO (Annex VII), says who it applies to in 5(4), and allows a derogation (max Aug 2016) to be exercised by member states for its introduction.

379/2014 introduces the concept of Part-SPO (Annex VIII), says who it applies to in 5(6), and allows a derogation (max 2017, not quoted and not relevant) for its introduction. It also modifies (in 6(4a)) the applicability in Art 5 by saying that certain operations that would have been covered in 5(1) or 5(6) are deemed to be covered by 5(4) (Annex VII Part-NCO).

I am 100% sure that there was no intention in 379/2014 Art 6(4a) to force states to apply Part-NCO to any flights earlier than the end of the derogation set in 800/2013.

Below is the advertisement I am placing in our local newsletter:

I have also sent it to legal counsel at the UK CAA to check that they agree that it is above board.

I am very much in favour of models like yours Timothy, since they are good for GA, in many ways.

I would still be interested to see what they the CAA says. To be honest, to me, and advert like that (which, AFAICS, makes an offer to the public about transporting people to some place) and then adding a small printed note “this is cost sharing private flying, not public transport”, are hard to grasp… But I know, aviation regulation is complicated and often in contradiction with common sense.

I bit like those Jet and TBM operators saying “it’s all part 91”.