Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

New GA friendly cost sharing rules (and what can and cannot be cost-shared)

Here

‘complex motor-powered aircraft’ shall mean:

(i) an 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, or

(ii) a helicopter certificated:

  • for a maximum take-off mass exceeding 3 175 kg, or
  • for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nine, or
  • for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or
Last Edited by achimha at 24 Jul 16:59

As you can see, they are drafted to make the TBM and the PC12 non-complex, while keeping King Airs out

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I am still puzzled by how EU laws/regulations are being implemented (or not) into national laws/regulations. Look what a friend of mine got as an answer to his question regarding single-pilot ops in jets. This came from EASA’s “Rulemaking Directorate-Flight Crew Licensing”:

Dear …..,
The Agency acknowledges the receipt of your mail received 19 May 2014.

Thank you for your message with the inquiry concerning single pilot operations in Europe.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is governed by Regulation (EC) 216/2008 which sets out the tasks and responsibilities of the Agency.

Our task concerning rulemaking is to assist the European Commission in the adoption of implementing rules, according to Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation 216/2008.

EASA cannot provide legally binding interpretations of EU Regulations. These functions are reserved to national and EU courts and to the European Commission.

Under the EU Treaties, Member States are responsible for interpreting and implementing EU law in their national legal system.

For that reason, any queries concerning the implementation of aviation safety regulations within EASA’s remit should be forwarded to the competent authorities designated by Member States. I see you live in the UK so I advise you to contact the CAA UK.

Best regards,

Private field, Mallorca, Spain

Yes, that response is spot on.

The two of us can sign a contract under Kazhak law with place of jurisdiction in Spain. The Spanish judge then has to study Kazhak law. The same way the Spanish judge has to rule on EU law. All EU directives are direct law in Spain and at a higher level than conflicting local law (community law is generally considered to be a higher source of law although there are some exceptions).

The EU also publishes implementing guidelines to most of its directives. This is the fine print. The even finer print would then be issued by the local administration. Usually the CAA represents the aviation aspects of the local administration. The CAA has to be compliant with all EU law in everything it does.

Last Edited by achimha at 24 Jul 18:10

Also, since all (?) this is criminal law, and there is no “EU police / prosecution force” (unless you are a war criminal, I think) any enforcement, and thus any grey area resolution (and there is a LOT of grey areas in EASA FCL) must be down to each country’s criminal law establishment.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Why would this be criminal law? The EU is a lawmaking body and provides the high court for its law but everything else is up to the member states. If the EU law says “aircraft have to be painted green”, then the UK CAA cannot legally permit purple aircraft. If the UK CAA does, the EU Commission will sue the UK government in Luxembourg.

PS: The UK CAA is a really bad example here because from what I’ve seen, the UK is the most compliant country when it comes to implementing EU law. You see a lot more push back from the administration in Germany, they try to avoid having to change their 200 year tradition of doing things by any legal and illegal means.

Last Edited by achimha at 24 Jul 18:32

Criminal law is where the sanction is a fine or jail, etc.

All aviation regs are criminal law.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The UK CAA is a really bad example here because from what I’ve seen, the UK is the most compliant country when it comes to implementing EU law. You see a lot more push back from the administration in Germany, they try to avoid having to change their 200 year tradition of doing things by any legal and illegal means.

I think this is a very old tradition whereby the UK has generally honoured its various treaties, even if the outcome was bad.

Obviously, if the UK said to the EU that it will disregard some EASA regulation, the EU is hardly likely to put a ban on British beef exports, and this is the principle which most of southern Europe works on when it comes to implementing EU regs (except their scope is more limited now since the EU i.e. Germany is keeping them afloat). I guess Germany is able to do it because they are just too big.

But things are changing in the UK. A lot of people have left the CAA and new people are slowly improving things – like this cost sharing stuff.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

cost sharing allowed for all private flights with up to 6 people (including pilot)

What it say is actually:

cost-shared flights by private individuals, on the condition that the direct cost is shared by all the occupants of the aircraft, pilot included and the number of persons sharing the direct costs is limited to six;

Why this limitation of six persons? We have no such limitation today (Norway). An what exactly is “direct cost” ?

So if I have a PAC XL 750, and we are 10 people on a trip. Then what? This rule does not apply, and I can do whatever I want, is the only conclusion (as long as I’m not doing it for “profit” in the eyes of the tax regulations). Why 6? why not 5, 7 or 8? This seems completely random. Just a rule for the purpose of making a rule. What if all the persons, except the pilot, are brothers and sisters from 2-10 years old with no income and no means of paying? Then only the pilot and the mother/father of the children are actually sharing the cost, in any legal sense at least. This means that the direct cost (the amount) is shared by all occupants, but the number of persons sharing (paying) the direct costs is only 2. Obviously the actual number of occupants is irrelevant (legally), but no more than six persons can share the costs, and those sharing (paying) does not even have to be one of the occupants.

I read some time ago a lawyer studied that regulation, the “old” Norwegian one. It states that the costs are to be shared between all the occupants, and that the occupants shall be relatives or be known to the pilot. If I remember correctly, the “known” clause is by nature so vague that it was irrelevant (you can get to “know” a person by simply shaking hands). The thing is the “cost” and the “sharing”. It does not state how to share, and it does not define what is meant by cost or direct cost. This meant that a person could take a pilot license and rent an aircraft where one of the purpose was doing “cost shared” flights. The cost would be everything needed to obtain and maintain the license, plus the cost of renting the aircraft. I don’t remember the exact details, but a pilot could receive a whole lot of money (much more than is needed for paying the rent for the aircraft) before it could be considered not to be a “cost shared” flight.

This new EASA regulation say “direct cost” which I assume is somehow more specific than just “cost”. But, when considering the whole private pilot flying business is non-commercial, then every cost is a “direct” cost. I could for instance take a day off from work to do a “cost shared” flight. Looking at this from a pure commercial point of view, the loss of income for that flight obviously is a direct cost. Looking at this from a non commercial point of view, then a cost is a cost and is everything that do not come into my bank account and everything that goes out, it’s just a matter of balance to do the things my family and I want to do and still have food and a roof over the heads.

In my opinion that rule is OK, but only if the “direct cost” is replaced with “cost”, and the completely hopeless and random 6 person limit is taken out. Maybe I have misunderstood completely here, but how in the UK today would you (legally) share the cost when for instance 10 persons are flying in a PAC 750 XL or a Cessna Caravan or similar?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Why 6? why not 5, 7 or 8? This seems completely random.

It’s limited to aircraft with 6 seats. Yes, random but rather generous. The goal is to draw a line between private cost sharing and commercial air transport.

An what exactly is “direct cost” ?

Not well defined which is also very good news for us. If it was defined, only those costs could be applied, now we can determine what the “direct costs” are. They say “direct costs” because they want to prevent the construction of a pseudo AOC without AOC.

What if all the persons, except the pilot, are brothers and sisters from 2-10 years old with no income and no means of paying?

As long as you trust the people, you can do it with an A380. It’s more relevant when you cannot fully trust the people you share costs with. Now you can advertise your flights on a forum and search for people filling your empty seats and sharing the cost with you.

I guess Norway is special because it is not a EU member so EU law does not directly apply. Norway would have to convert it into local law which it will probably do.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top