That’s a very interesting angle! 
Aviathor wrote:
Except that you may act as PIC on a N-reg without excercising the privileges of a US certificate, nor actually hold one.
You mean be a sole operator of controls? What would it look like? You owning an N-reg and someone qualified paying you? I can’t imagine such a scheme working to get around any requirement for a CPL. I.e. if the flight is classified as commercial, the PIC (the guy designated at the beginning who is responsible for safety and has the last word on board) needs an appropriate licence (you can’t be that guy without a licence; well, certificate in this case). Whether he allows you to handle the controls and you then log something is IMHO immaterial.
Although it’s an unusual arrangement as it’s usually the pilot who gets paid, not the passenger (in my eyes it doesn’t make a difference as money is exchanged and you go separate ways – no common purpose). Would be interesting to know what legal counsel thinks of this. This scenario would lend itself to one chipping in the plane and the other chipping in the skill and qualifications, i.e. no money changing hands, but you still have fuel to deal with. I would have to read up on the cases.
Wouldn’t the question be whether the common purpose rule applies to certification (privileges) or operations? If the common purpose rule applies to privileges of a US certificate, but you exercise the privileges of an EASA PPL, would the common purpose rule apply? And then again what parts of FAR 91 and what parts of Part-NCO actually apply to a flight on an N-reg with a EASA certificated PPL within the country of issuance if said PPL?
Anyone cares to meet for a pint to continue this discussion?
I forgot about this option. Since it was established by precedent and I imagine this (flying N-regs on foreign licences) is quite rare, there might not be an answer. I could see it going both ways.
I don’t think Part NCO applies unless you’re resident in the EASA-land (well, EU, the rest is more fuzzy; and subject to derogations).
Martin wrote:
I don’t think Part NCO applies unless you’re resident in the EASA-land (well, EU, the rest is more fuzzy; and subject to derogations).
In the title the UK is the subject. UK is EASA land. I would be surprised if most N-reg light aircraft in the UK were not “resident”. To them Part-NCO would definitely apply.
Not sure I understand the relevance of EU residence of the aircraft, etc.
The FAA Common Purpose rule (which bookworm correctly points out is a Chief Counsel view and not statutory, FWIW) should not apply to the aircraft but IMHO applies to the FAA license holder i.e. it is a part of FAR Part 61.
But whether the CP rule is complied with is just one part of whether cost sharing in an N-reg is legal in Europe. IMHO the majority of flights do not comply with the CP rule. And I am sure this is also the case in the USA, which is why US forums are almost totally devoid of any discussion of this topic or indeed anything involving as much as $0.01 passing from a passenger.
Yet, I see all the time here in the UK that many or most renters will not do a flight unless they can cost share. In some cases they go to great lengths to cost share every leg of a flight, even doing extra landings to even it out across the occupants. Are US renter pilots really so much better off financially? So much of UK GA is hanging on by a thin thread, financially. Instead, I think the US pilots just don’t talk about it 
However I would accept the culture out there is also different. And most pilots on US forums are owners, whereas the big sites over here are dominated by renters. So it is not easy to get a good picture here…
The other aspect of cost sharing in an N-reg is what I put in my original post: the UK situation which makes any payment in an N-reg automatically Aerial Work and you can’t get permission for it (you can get the permission only for self-training, charity flights, and IME some oddball cases which I happen to be privy to). Whether other countries in Europe have such a rule I don’t know. I am pretty sure most don’t.
Peter wrote:
I am sure this is also the case in the USA, which is why US forums are almost totally devoid of any discussion of this topic or indeed anything involving as much as $0.01 passing from a passenger.
For what it’s worth, I think that’s because taking money from passengers is not common practice in the US. When done it would be between close friends – not because of the legal issue, although that is generally respected, but mainly because of the social issue (taking money from a passenger when flying privately would be considered socially inappropriate by many). Obviously between close friends it’s impossible to track small exchanges of cash.
This also reminds me a little bit of the VFR pilot in IMC issue, and the incredulous reaction I’ve seen from some European pilots when explaining that I’ve never flown as pilot in command in IMC. If it happens in the future I’ll consider it a gross mistake, not a common bending of the rules.
Peter wrote:
The FAA Common Purpose rule (which bookworm correctly points out is a Chief Counsel view and not statutory, FWIW) should not apply to the aircraft but IMHO applies to the FAA license holder i.e. it is a part of FAR Part 61.
But the point I am making is that you do not need to hold an FAA license to fly an N-reg. If you have a UK-issued EASA license, you can fly a N-reg in the UK, and then the CP does not apply. But it is academic. Cost sharing web sites bring together pilot and passengers for the purpose of flying from A to B… Isn’t that common purpose enough? According to the FAA, advertising such a flight is illegal. But it is not in Europe.
Peter wrote:
bookworm correctly points out is a Chief Counsel view an
It’s more than just that. It’s legally binding precedent set by the Administrative Law Judges of the National Transportation Safety Board. Like “known icing conditions”.
Aviathor wrote:
In the title the UK is the subject. UK is EASA land. I would be surprised if most N-reg light aircraft in the UK were not “resident”. To them Part-NCO would definitely apply.
I was looking at it more generally (including visitors). A resident would have to comply with both sets of regulations (after any derogations are up). And all of Part-NCO would apply AIUI.
Aviathor wrote:
Cost sharing web sites bring together pilot and passengers for the purpose of flying from A to B… Isn’t that common purpose enough?
IIRC it’s not. It’s not enough that you both want to travel to the same city. If one want’s to go to a concert and the other has a speech at a conference, it’s not a common purpose. But I’m certainly no expert. Another issue is the “holding out” aspect (advertising the trip). IIRC FAA is of the opinion that it automatically makes it a commercial operation.
Aviathor wrote:
But the point I am making is that you do not need to hold an FAA license to fly an N-reg. If you have a UK-issued EASA license, you can fly a N-reg in the UK, and then the CP does not apply. But it is academic.
I agree it’s academic. But as I wrote, I’m not sure it’s given. When I wrote that I think it’s the line between PPL and CPL, I wasn’t trying to imply that just having a CPL would be enough (i.e. you could carry on following rules for private flights). I think it’s doubtful.
Peter wrote:
Are US renter pilots really so much better off financially?
Or it’s just cheaper there. I don’t think I have seen this behaviour you describe. Isn’t this yet another UK specific thing?
