Do many people do that?
Ah. I see there’s support for gold-plating EASA rules and regulations here.
It seems very odd for the same people who praise the comparatively liberal FAA to then get all uppity about one really liberal EASA rule.
Why does it need the winkies?
Timothy I suggest you do a search on cost sharing and say DGAC. It puts a different slant on the legality outside the UK.
During your absence you missed a lot of stuff 
However this is off topic.
Does the DGAC gold plate?
Is that a good thing?
No it’s not, Timothy.
It does however sound like DGAC may be on the move. At Air Expo in Paris (Pontoise actually) last Thursday, I spoke to people from Wingly, one of the France-based cost sharing sites. They told me that DGAC might accept cost sharing provided there were some minimum experience requirements for the pilots.
The problem as I see it is how does one differentiate between cost sharing and pseudo public transport?
AFAIU the purpose of the flight should be the same, ie. I would do the flight regardless cost sharing.
Edit: although I cannot remember how it is worded either in OPS or in the CAA information bulletin
I would do the flight regardless cost sharing
That is an admirable yardstick but IMHO the majority of PPL activity would not take place if cost sharing was not possible.
Most renters I know won’t fly alone on any significant trip, for sure. I also know of numerous owners who will not fly without a cost sharing passenger.
What is wrong with taking the rules and using them to the advantage of GA?
I have this feeling that fingers are being wagged at a perfectly legal activity.
The pilot community whines when the NAAs gold-plate and then want to lay it on thick themselves.
The rules are quite clear. You can advertise and you must bear a (n unspecified) portion of the cost.
So that is what I do.
I just don’t get why some people feel in a position to admonish me for something that is not only legal, but is not a loophole but quite clearly the intention of the regulators and legislators as a way of breathing life into GA.
You could say that those who want to make it seem like something reprehensible are the ones who want the demise of GA to continue.
Aviathor wrote:
AFAIU the purpose of the flight should be the same,
No, that is the much more restrictive FAA rules. The EASA rules are much more liberal.
