Timothy wrote:
I have this feeling that fingers are being wagged at a perfectly legal activity.
By whom? I hope you don’t mean me, because as you can see in this long thread where the post has been moved to, I am all in favor of cost sharing being possible. I just replied to this post:
Fuji_Abound wrote:
Yes, the only additional hassle is an annual check ride – which is no bad thing.
To add that another additional hassle of leaving the plane on the N-reg would be the more restrictive cost sharing rules. As you then write yourself:
Timothy wrote:
No, that is the much more restrictive FAA rules. The EASA rules are much more liberal.
So I hope this whole discussion wasn’t about my post.
Rwy20 wrote:
… I hope you don’t mean me….So I hope this whole discussion wasn’t about my post.
No, absolutely not.
There are a couple of people who on forums and Facebook literally harass and stalk me on the subject. Any opportunity to twist what they consider to be a knife.
But as I am confident that I am legally in the right (I have exchanged emails with CAA Senior Counsel on the subject, copied into the Head of the GA Unit, and they are totally in agreement), I consider this stalking simply to be vindictive.
It is surprising, because, of my three stalkers, two are generally knowledgeable of the law and all three claim to support private GA. Go figure.
Then these stalkers get others making little winky, sly asides, as if there were something reprehensible to be conspiratorial about. There isn’t. There really, really isn’t.
Yes, I do a fair number of cost sharing flights and yes, it’s OK to do so.
So come on guys, join me in bringing some money into GA, so that your engineers, airfields and fuel suppliers all get a bit more income and the infrastructure remains for everyone.
Oh, and incidentally, I also fly as an instructor, so not all the flights Dave quoted above were cost sharing, some were instructional.
Timothy, my point was that some will tease the law. In your FB post of a little under a year ago you listed a number of flights “all at others’ expense”. It is precisely that sort of public assertion that casts doubt. Personally, I am absolutely convinced that your activities are within the law, for all the reasons you’ve given above. However, there are enough shysters out there would will use Part NCO to carry out CAT ops. I see that in the helicopter world on a daily basis. I also see hangar rats who are paid to sweep the floors but ‘cost share’ for aircraft owners on a routine basis.
Of course, the real discussion is about risk and accountability such that passengers (and pilots) understand the legal framework and ramifications surrounding cost sharing. In its simplest form (two pilots in a PA28 on a buttie run) it is quite clear. In a six seat configuration with acquaintances paying their share (which doesn’t have to be split 6 equal ways) for a continental flight and return it can become a little more complex.
Personally, I expect the law will only be tested and reassessed when an individual’s spouse is chasing the estate of a dead pilot. I’m one of the individuals who subscribes to the school of thought that the relaxation under NCO has gone a little too far.
Dave_Phillips wrote:
I’m one of the individuals who subscribes to the school of thought that the relaxation under NCO has gone a little too far.
So we must thank our lucky stars that those who make the rules have a more liberal and pro-GA mindset.
I guess we disagree and would suggest that your assertion “we must thank” doesn’t represent everyone’s view. You may thank your lucky stars ……
Despite appearances I am not against cost sharing. It is quite the opposite.
But as of today, the line between cost sharing and air taxi is a little unclear to me, and the interpretations vary widely from one NAA to another. I have the feeling that it is not quite clear even to the CAA because in their guidance on cost sharing, they write:
This aims to allow cost sharing between friends and colleagues and not to provide an air taxi service to members of the public.
Concerning advertising flights, I suppose that it means that you can advertise a flight from A to B (which is what the cost sharing web sites do) but not necessarily make a blanket statement that you can fly anyone from anywhere to anywhere which I would assimilate with air taxi.
In France, although even now before the introduction of Part-NCO cost sharing is allowed. It is however very unpleasant when law enforcement officers ask your passengers how they know you, to establish whether there was some kind of relationship before the flight.
So although in favour of cost sharing, I miss a better definition of cost sharing vs air taxi. I don’t care where the line is drawn as long as it is clear across Europe.
Aviathor wrote:
but not necessarily make a blanket statement that you can fly anyone from anywhere to anywhere
Oh? Where does it say that?
If the French Inspectors are doing that, then under Part NCO they are exceeding their authority. I recognise that that is not unusual in France.
Timothy wrote:
Oh? Where does it say that?
It does not say anywhere. In your quote you omitted:
Aviathor wrote:
, I suppose that it means
My whole point is that I do not see where the line between cost sharing and air taxi is drawn up. And anything that leaves a huge room for interpretation to the NAAs is bad news, especially with NAAs as DGAC.
Timothy wrote:
If the French Inspectors are doing that, then under Part NCO they are exceeding their authority.
Again, Part-NCO will not go into effect in France, or in any other country except from UK (?), until 26 August 2016. So until then they are free to enforce whatever their interpretation of their own national regulations is.
I like the idea of cost sharing and I like the way the rules are under Part-NCO. I can however see where some of the doubt about it comes from. Forgive me if my understanding is wrong but take the following as an example.
Citywing will fly from BLK – IOM and will advertise this as being (for example) £100.
I advertise that I will do the same flight for £99.99, since I will contribute a penny towards the cost.
Is this allowable under regs?
You can see how there are differences for the potential passenger if various different things happen. Even though it appears at face value to be the exact same thing to the passenger (unless someone explains it further) would they be aware that if you are unwell and can’t fly and it’s canceled then they aren’t going to be entitled to any of the EC261 stuff?
As I said, I am happy with the rules as they are but I don’t think it would hurt if there was some focus on ensuring that any potential passengers would know the difference between this and a full AOC driven public transport flight.
Again, if I have missed something please feel free to enlighten.
