Graham wrote:
That doesn’t define what a ‘cost-shared flight’ is, it just gives some rules about what cost-sharing is allowed.
But the key is actually in that boring lead-in where it says “By way of derogation from Article 5(1) and (6),”.
5(1) Operators shall only operate an aeroplane or a helicopter for the purpose of commercial air transport (hereinafter “CAT”) operations as specified in [Part-ORO] and [Part-CAT].
5(6) Operators shall only operate an aeroplane or a helicopter for the purpose of commercial specialised operations in accordance with the requirements specified in [Part-ORO] and [Part-SPO].
where
‘commercial air transport (CAT) operation’ means an aircraft operation to transport passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or other valuable consideration;
If the flight would, but for the derogation, be CAT (or SPO), then the cost-sharing derogation is needed to avoid that. If the flight would not be CAT, the cost-sharing derogation is irrelevant. So the only valuable consideration that is relevant in the context of cost-sharing is that which is given or promised for the transport of passengers. It says nothing about whether a third party can pay the costs of a flight, except for the case where that payment is linked to the carriage of passengers.
There is a separate Part-FCL requirement that a pilot without a CPL/APTL acts as pilot “without remuneration”, but I would interpret that as personal remuneration, not about who pays for the flight.
BTW the CAA page that @MattL pointed to is information for passengers, not pilots. Read in that context, I think it makes much more sense.
Peter wrote:
The UK CAAwere forced to swallowcould not block wingly-type (openly advertised to all) cost sharing on an EASA PPL (with Class 2 medical, implicitly) so they block it on the PMD in the knowledge that eventually most UK pilots will end up on the PMD because it avoids AME involvement
This would make sense if the UK CAA opposed cost sharing through internet platforms. The UK has in fact been one of its strongest proponents.
That’s curious. For so many years they have been very tight about it.
In any case, why block it for pilots flying on the PMD? If a pilot is safe for passenger carriage, it is a stretch to argue that cost sharing makes a significant difference. Especially as “everybody knows” how essential cost sharing is, especially within the rental scene.
alioth wrote:
Recently, EASA has been able to rein in the excesses of “CAA yellowjackets”, but come January, these kinds of people will be free to do all sorts of “freestyle regulating” (mostly restrictive, of course!) without any kind of effective oversight.
I can’t imagine what’s motivating those people. What exactly are they getting out of it? Some kind of personal gratification?
With all the dictatorial nonsense going around this year, it genuinely gave a little more faith in humanity to get my 3rd Class FAA medical today. I changed AMEs due to my old guy retiring and of course there’s a bit of stress with the unknown. Also, the new guy is a ‘real’ doctor in practice, not a retired guy working out of his house and the practice is 25 minutes away. But in the end, the procedure was pretty much the same: between 5 and 10 minutes with the guy during which he made it pretty clear through his attitude that he sees it as an obsolete paper exercise.
Life in Medical Land is now as good it can be given $125 wasted, but that’s only roughly equivalent to a gallon of avgas a month. I’m not interested in Basic Med with its on line training nonsense so I’ll go back to the same guy next time. By age he looks to be good for 10 years or more service.
As a small point of order it might be worth changing the title of this thread as it could be misleading. For aircraft over 2 metric tons and given the temporary exemption has expired a class 2 would seem to be necessary in all circumstances.
Over 2000kg the PMD is of little value. From the CAA site local copy
Actually not quite – it was of value up unitl the November deadline, but strangely the later a medical has expired the more problematical!
All very bizarre.
The UK CAA has amended the compliance requirements for a PMD. The latest is here local copy
Basically what they have done is removed the < 2000kg alleviation which removed most of the above requirements. It isn’t clear whether that is a typo, or intentional. Previously, under 2000kg, it was just g) i) ii) iii) which disqualified you, plus you had to be able to legally drive a car.
What is interesting is that one AME told me, about a year ago, that there was a rearguard action within the CAA to implement exactly this i.e. to remove the PMD option for anyone who for example had a stent at any time in the past. So it may not be a typo… There are so many factions within the CAA, and nobody knows which one will win.
All the alphabet groups are onto the CAA regarding the removal of the sub 2000kg group and associated alleviations.
People are optimistic that this has been issued in error and will be corrected shortly.
It is interesting because points c) and e), combined with being able to legally drive, are emotionally difficult to argue with, yet these have been added < 2000kg.
I don’t think this is a typo. The Q is whether the CAA will restore the requirements to the previous state.
