Medical and Licence required for cost sharing and commercial reward

DavidC wrote:

LAPL/LAPL Medical
- Cost sharing on any EASA aircraft

Really? Wouldn’t that be “only aircraft that a LAPL allows to pilot”, namely “single-engine piston aeroplanes-land/sea or TMG with a maximum certificated take-off mass of 2000 kg or less, carrying a maximum of 3 passengers, such that there are always a maximum of 4 persons on board of the aircraft.”?

DavidC wrote:

PPL/Class 2
- Ferrying (covering flight costs but without further remuneration)
- Personal pilot for aircraft owner (covering flight costs but without further remuneration)

I’m not sure whether one can cover all costs, or if the PIC has to pay at least a token cent or so.

DavidC wrote:

- Ferrying (covering flight costs but without further remuneration)
- Personal pilot for aircraft owner (covering flight costs but without further remuneration)

Do ferrying or being a personal pilot have any formal definition in law, or are they just two examples of how one might exercise the privileges of one’s licence – i.e. flying but not being paid to do so, the reason for the flight being no business of the regulator?

Does the use of the words “without further remuneration” indicate that you (or the regulator) consider paying for the costs of a flight to be renumeration for the pilot?

DavidC wrote:

So I’ve tried to list them in some kind of order based on current rules.

The pilot receiving renumeration and passengers (or other kinds of clients) paying for the flight are distinct things as the pilot is not necessarily the operator even in noncommercial ops. You seem to have mixed them up in your list. I’ll only talk about EASA LAPL/PPL as that’s the only thing I know well.

LAPL/LAPL Medical

There is no difference between LAPL and PPL in this respect. (But of course a LAPL holder can’t do some of the things you listed even without considering the renumeration issue.)

PPL/Class 2
- Glider launching tug (with Sailplane Towing Rating)
- Parachute dropping (min 100hrs PIC)

The pilot may not accept renumeration for any of these – but the sailplane pilot and parachuters may pay the operator – and are not limited to flight costs. In these cases the operator must be an air sports organisation or flight school. The pilot can’t be the operator.

You should also add

- Introductory flights.

Again, the operator must be an air sports organisation or flight school. Passengers may pay the operator and are not limited to flight costs.

- Ferrying (covering flight costs but without further remuneration)
- Personal pilot for aircraft owner (covering flight costs but without further remuneration)

I think “covering flight costs” is a bit misleading. Do you mean reimbursement for expenses like fuel and landing fees?

Airborne_Again wrote:

I think “covering flight costs” is a bit misleading. Do you mean reimbursement for expenses like fuel and landing fees?

Who says it’s reimbursement?

If I do you a favour and move your aircraft from A to B (say for maintenance) then there is not necessarily anything to reimburse. The fuel burned and the landing fee can perfectly reasonably be defined as your expense, not mine, even if you are 1,000nm from the aircraft at all times.

This is the nub of the matter. The underlying assumption (which I am not at all convinced is correct) that the cost of a private flight is by definition a personal cost incurred by the pilot, and that anyone else covering it is some sort of reimbursement, remuneration or reward.

There’s more detail to this: you can tow gliders in non-EASA (Annex 1) aircraft without needing a towing rating, e.g. clubs in the UK using the Eurofox don’t need EASA towing ratings for their tug pilots, something which I’m certain has helped the adoption of the Eurofox.

(In our particular case, the Isle of Man Government also confirmed to us that we can tow gliders in a non-certified aircraft of any registry, not just G-reg).

Graham wrote:

Who says it’s reimbursement?

If I do you a favour and move your aircraft from A to B (say for maintenance) then there is not necessarily anything to reimburse. The fuel burned and the landing fee can perfectly reasonably be defined as your expense, not mine, even if you are 1,000nm from the aircraft at all times.

Not necessarily, no. But if you do e.g. pay for fuel out of your pocke and you get paid back by me, that’s reimbursement by definition!

Airborne_Again wrote:

But if you do e.g. pay for fuel out of your pocke and you get paid back by me, that’s reimbursement by definition!

Sure, but without wanting to get too far into semantics on the exact meaning of the word I believe there are shades of grey here:

On the one hand, reimbursement after I have paid your costs on your behalf simply because you were not present and able to do so (a situation where, had you not been paying, I would not have done it).

On the other hand, reimbursement where the costs are otherwise mine and I have no right to expect you to pay (but I say yippee when you do).

My point being that this idea of who’s covering the costs is too complicated to write effective regulation around, and if they feel the need to regulate at all then the right way to approach it would be to regulate a payment made by a passenger.

Graham wrote:

My point being that this idea of who’s covering the costs is too complicated to write effective regulation around, and if they feel the need to regulate at all then the right way to approach it would be to regulate a payment made by a passenger.

That’s more or less what they do, isn’t it?

In any case I think we agree than reimbursement for costs that rightfully should have been borne by someone else is unproblematic.