There was this US startup that was declared illegal by the FAA counsel. However, the FAA cost-sharing regulation is much stricter than the EU/EASA rules.
So, Peter, by your maths I could pay £20,300 per year and get one hour’s flying, or £20,300 per year and get 101 hours’ flying and the extra 100 hours are not free flying because….?
They are free, Timothy.
But what I was getting at is the earlier thing: it is still not worth somebody doing a charter operation, because they are 100% guaranteed to lose money.
Also don’t forget that your £20k Annual is going to cost more than 20k if you have done a few hundred extra hours (i.e. your plane is going to see extra wear) but that extra cost will not be allocatable to direct costs. So there is an extra cost there to the pilot, way above the £1. Well, unless one carried out the extra maintenance during the 50hr checks 
In fact there is an incentive to load the 50hr checks with as much of the Annual tasks as possible.
The last FAA cost sharing thread is here
I get the feeling that almost no aircraft owner in the USA cost shares, as a result of the “common purpose” requirement.
It’s actually because we can’t be bothered dealing with $. It’s more friendly and less offensive to swap rides than worry about money going back and forth. Trading hours instead of money makes an hour in something expensive to run as valuable as something less expensive to run.
Silvaire, consider the remote option that not all passengers are licensed pilots with their own collection of aircraft 
The cost-sharing system allows strangers to share an aircraft and in Germany (where the rules have always been the most liberal in Europe regarding cost-sharing) it’s rather common to divide the costs. At my airfield, it enables several pilots to do more than a few traffic patterns. A long distance flight just with their own funds wouldn’t work.
Silvaire 01-Feb-15 17:51 #64
I get the feeling that almost no aircraft owner in the USA cost shares, as a result of the “common purpose” requirement.
It’s actually because we can’t be bothered dealing with $. It’s more friendly and less offensive to swap rides than worry about money going back and forth. Trading hours instead of money makes an hour in something expensive to run as valuable as something less expensive to
You are incorrect about swapping rides. Even that is considered possibly a commercial venture because something of value changed hands.
The common purpose is the ultimate legal point.
I used to go skiing with a few guys and girls. We all chipped in for the cost of the flight. That included my seat. It was legal as long as I went skiing with them. Otherwise it was not for common purpose. Since we never knew how many hours it would take, the flight was calculated upon landing back home.
Now if you really wanted to not play by the book you could always charge for a day skiing. Getting paid for your time to organize the trip never mentioning the cost of flying.
If Handlers can charge $1000 for a trip to the Caymans from Fort Lauderdale well???
Getting paid for your time to organize the trip
That is the standard workaround for anything where flying remuneration is legally restricted. You just charge for some ground activity instead. And most ground activity can be remunerated without any limit and – in aviation – without the instructor having any qualifications whatsoever.
A classic one is the long standing requirement for any paid instruction in UK airspace to have a JAA CPL, though now I believe CPL TK is valid for all cases including N-regs. Most instructors working in N-regs had only FAA papers so payment had to be done in cash, or as “ground school”. Or the training was done outside UK airspace.
The risk is that if there is an incident, the injured party has a probable financial incentive to reveal the real arrangement. One should never do a secret deal with the devil
Sorting out the payment only after a successfully concluded flight is probably fine for a one-off event…
Silvaire, consider the remote option that not all passengers are licensed pilots with their own collection of aircraft
In that situation, I take them for free and so do other pilots I know. There is plenty of time in life for them to think of me later.
Occasionally I let people take the plane (free of charge) assuming I’m pretty sure they won’t break it by virtue of experience in type. If they were to break it, I’d just plan to repair it – as per the other thread I’m not a fan of insurance. Fussy money games aren’t why I’m involved in flying, and in fact that is why I own a plane. I don’t share costs and I don’t rent (ever) , even if it means I’m flying more modest planes as result. I wouldn’t have it any other way for flying and any number of other activities. Among other things this allows me to get other people flying, for free.
Silvaire your the opposite of some pilots in the states. I know of guys that because of litigation, in case of an accident, will not take anyone up for a flight. Even if for free.
I cant see not sharing the experience and utility of flight. I belonged to a group of volunteer pilots who gave rides to patients (P.A.L.S.) in out of the way places so that they could receive medical care. All on my own dime. It was worth it seeing the kids even though sick have their eyes light up in a small airplane flight. WHENEVER WE HAD AN OPEN HOUSE AIRPORT WE WOULD GIVE PEOPLE RIDES AROUND THE PATCH AS A WAY TO PROMOTE AVIATION. Not going back and retyping that so excuse the capitals.
Its too bad our system is sicker than the kids I flew around.
The UK CAA has issued some guidance notes here local copy
It looks like they are concerned about abuse of the new rules, especially involving advertising of flights to be cost shared.
