The above letters
are just saying “what you are doing is legal” and the 1st one adds “what you are doing is legal in the UK but might not be outside the UK” which is correct as the law stands, but we all know what the law is “smile”: So this is good stuff for the potential customer who might be concerned.
It cannot really be called “authorisation” because that suggests it is not authorised otherwise
Peter wrote:
It cannot really be called “authorisation” because that suggests it is not authorised otherwise
Fair enough. “Confirmation”.
Hello,
Do you know if I can set my own operating expenses as an owner or do they have like a “database” and the price is fixed?
For instance:
-Can I include maintenance and depreciation?
That’s an interesting find
Any private owner who does Wingly clearly needs his head examined.
The obvious workaround is to have the plane in a company and the company rents it to you. You, as the Director, can set the rental rate to produce a return, and then since you are just a renter you can use the renter case below
FYI, here is the rule in the Air Operations Regulation:
I wish there was one lawyer in Cologne responsible to limit sentences to 15 words.
Thanks @Peter
I also noted that solutions might work.
Thanks @ArcticChiller
Is it absolutely necessary to register at a sharing-cost platform like Wingly or is it possible to just publish the flight wherever you want (my Facebook page) and share costs?
About the complex a/c…is flight sharing retricted to non-complex?
You absolutely do not need to use Wingly, and then you avoid their commission.
EASA Complex is 5700kg+ 18+ seats etc… do you mean that?
The above Direct Costs definition
is NON exhaustive. Note the “eg”. This has been much debated here previously – do a search on “direct cost” etc. For example the engine fund and the prop fund are obviously flight time related. The Annual service obvious is not.
speed wrote:
I thought complex meant ret gear, const speed prop, etc…
That’s the American definition. The European definition is very different.
‘complex motor-powered aircraft’ shall mean:
aeroplane:
— with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg, or
— certificated for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nineteen, or
— certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or
— equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine
But yes, there is a restriction on introductory flights to non-complex. (In the European sense, of course.) So no introductory flights in a Cirrus SF50 or King Air. But a Jetprop is ok.