Airborne_Again wrote:
How is that relevant to the discussion about the situation in Europe?
“Are flight sharing websites good or bad for the future of GA?”
The title does not limit the issue to Europe. What is happening in the USA is just as relevant to the discussion since both flight sharing websites and GA are present there and no doubt what the FAA does will eventually affect what EASA does…
LeSving wrote:
Besides, BSL is not replaced. FCL etc has just become part of it. SERA in particular is meaningless without reading BSL, because of all the local changes and adaptions which can only be found in the BSL
True, but the core of BSL as far as the parts of EASA regs that are applicable, is EASA. Other than that, I do not understand what your beef is with this. The fact is that in some countries cost sharing sites are being banned by the local CAA as well as by the aeronautical associations and numerous private pilots on public forums, although my impression is that as far as Europe is concerned, that is particularly the case in France.
So it may very well be that cost sharing sites will be embraced in Norway, and in the UK – and that’s fine. We are not talking about glider towing and para dropping here. We are talking about private pilots offering rides to complete strangers through a specialised website and sharing the cost. There still are people that are worried there will be a crash which will give GA negative publicity even in the UK, and the potential consequences for GA.
Peter wrote:
And I think nobody will challenge their local CAA in most countries.
Especially when the “Police de l’Air et des Frontières” during ramp checks ask passengers where they know the pilot from…
Did we ever make an overview of the NAA’s position on cost sharing in the EASA MS?
The title does not limit the issue to Europe
You do realise, that Eropean General Aviation is the broader context of this Forum?
no doubt what the FAA does will eventually affect what EASA does
I wouldn’t bet on that. EASA very recently changed to a more liberal understanding of the issue. And fortunately, the US isn’t the yardstick for all things.
Peter wrote:
The current IAOPA newsletter mentions Skyuber at quite a length, about 1/3 down here
“A flight can now be advertised in advance, but it should be made clear that it is a cost-sharing flight, and not commercial air transport under an Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC), since it is an offence to advertise the sale of a public or commercial air transport flight without being in possession of an AOC.”
What this mean exactly?
And “Currently the changes only apply within the UK, so before leaving UK airspace pilots should be aware that other European states may not have implemented these changes yet. After August 2016, the changes should apply to EASA aircraft throughout the EU. For non-EASA aircraft the applicability will always be dependent on implementation by individual member states.”
Aviathor wrote:
True, but the core of BSL as far as the parts of EASA regs that are applicable, is EASA. Other than that, I do not understand what your beef is with this
I really don’t have any beef anymore, not after reading what the regulation literally say, instead of listening to what other people feel the “intentions” should be.
Another thing is that for Norwegians who have been the holder of a national license it’s a one step forward, two steps back kind of situation. In the old national license, cost sharing etc was part of the privileges (what is today FCL.205 in the EASA regulations). Transition to JAR-FCL was to begin with purely voluntarily. The CAA said none of the privileges from the national license would be lost, and hoped most would convert. Most didn’t bother converting, until JAR/JAA-FCL became a requirement for flying outside Norway, or flying a foreign European aircraft. New PPL pilots would get the JAR-FCL, not the old national license. Then converting became mandatory a couple of years ago, because converting to EASA-FCL required JAR-FCL, and with EASA-FCL, the national license would not be valid anymore. The only valid license would be EASA-FCL, which would be automatically converted from JAR-FCL when they lapsed. With EASA-FCL all our old privileges are lost for ever. In exchange we get these pseudo privileges (max 6 persons, non complex exclusively, and they aren’t even privileges, they are not part of the license). Not that it matters for most PPL pilots, the practicalities are the same for most light aircraft. But, the CAA haven’t been exactly truthful regarding this (deceitful is a more correct term). In their information about these new cost sharing EASA regulations, they even managed to describe this as new easing of the regulations. I mean hello, I still have a JAR-FCL that I was promised by the CAA would keep all my old privileges intact. In future EASA regulations the complex and non-complex differentiation will be gone, and I can only wonder what kind of new “easing” that are bound to come at that time. OK, enough “beefing” about this 
At least we can advertise – yoohoo (shaking my head )
Well it seems that IAOPA is at least mildly supportive as they have a big feature article in the just released newsletter here:
http://www.iaopa.eu/contentServlet/iaopa-europe-enews-february-2016
As of 2-17-2015 From Flying Magazine:
FAA Spending Bill Could Allow Ridesharing http://www.flyingmag.com/faa-spending-bill-could-allow-ridesharing
@LeSving, I just happened to find this article from ‘Flynytt’ which apparently takes a kinder view than you on the cost sharing rules laid forth in OPS.
The French DGAC specific stuff has been moved into the DGAC thread, from here on
