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

No, it’s not. You can fly an A380 on a PPL. In principle. (You’ll of course also need IR, a type rating, multi-crew training etc, but you don’t technically need a CPL.)

Ho no… I had my national license all up until 3 years ago (which has MTOW 5700 kg and I think 19 passengers as privileges). I could theoretically have the national license now also (with some legal disputes I am sure), but it would be valid only in Norway. However, I was assured by LT (Luftfartstilsynet) that all my privileges would follow the JAR FCL. The JAR-FCL is of course already outdated for the EASA PPL-A, which I will get by 2016 since JAR-FCL only is valid for 5 years.

If I theoretically can fly a A380, isn’t really much helpful if I am restricted to 6 occupants.

Direct Costs were never defined here in the UK either.

There was a lot of “opinion” posted on forums but the law never defined it.

Various people wrote to the CAA and got different views.

A reasonable consensus would be that DC is all costs directly relating to flying for one extra hour. So the Annual doesn’t count, nor does insurance. But – and historically most people disagreed with this – the 50hr check is surely a direct cost, as is the UK 150hr check, as is the Cirrus 100hr check, as is the engine fund, as is the prop fund.

I am very sure that if somebody got prosecuted over this, any lawyer with a brain would prevail, using my view above. Unsurprisingly, the CAA has never prosecuted anybody. They try hard to avoid creating case law (and setting on the court steps, in many “dodgy AOC” cases) because ambiguities are construed in the defendant’s favour and it always opens the floodgates a bit. So saying nothing and letting FUD spread via pilot forums is the favoured way.

A Dutch Flightschool has sent around an email saying that cost sharing is still not allowed.
They say that the underlying ANNEX 7 has not been approved yet by EASA. This renders the EU Commission Regulation 379/2014 invalid.
The email states that the Annex 7 approval is expected in 2017 or 2018.

Does this make sense? It is relevant to me, as I sometimes share a flight with via a Facebook Group where we equally share the costs, and I was under the assumption that this was fully legal…

If it’s nonsense, then why the hell are they bringing this kind of rubbish to the public?!
I guess they have some masochist employed, who still can’t handle the fact that things are becoming easier for GA in EU land ;-)

I have found that the largest source of disinformation in GA comes from flying schools.

Pilot forums can be pretty bad too but generally if you post total rubbish somebody will point it out. Certainly here on EuroGA they will

The amount of bullsh*t I got fed from Day 1 till the day I left the scene (bought the TB20 so got “the push” pretty fast because I exited the “might make more money out of him” category) was absolutely astonishing. Especially on alternative routes like the FAA/N-reg one – particularly relevant at the time (c. 2001) when the 7-exam “PPL”/IR option did not exist (or so I was told, yeah…) so the 14-exam ATPL TK was the only option for the JAA IR.

I am not especially bitter about it because the instructors mostly didn’t know any better themselves, but they were certainly highly selective with what they did know.

Like most pilots who “get there eventually” I was pretty obscessive about digging out the options and luckily made some good friends (STOLman here being one of the first) who showed me “the light” But somebody less determined (the great majority) would have just given up.

I guess a part of the reason is revenue generation by the whole system – the schools and the CAAs – so the information feed is always going to be skewed. If you are a €250/hr renter the school is hardly going to help you to select and purchase your own plane!

But there is another subtle human factor: if somebody has limited power he/she will tend to exercise right up to the limit of that power. So the guy who confiscates your tootpaste at Norwich Airport, with all the enthusiasm of the conqueror of Troy, is doing that because that is all his power is.

Finally, almost nobody understands the EASA regs. There are thousands of pages of the stuff. It is obvious that even the national CAAs of the smaller countries don’t read the stuff. If you don’t read a quality forum like EuroGA then you have zero hope

Finally, almost nobody understands the EASA regs. There are thousands of pages of the stuff.

Luckily our company paid a professional to give us a two-day seminar about EASA air operations (not required for private operators yet, but soon for all complex aircraft part NCO). Much better than to read that all by yourself…

I have found that the largest source of disinformation in GA comes from flying schools.

There are flying schools and flying schools. Regarding the club-type, mainly PPL, schools with instructors who keep preaching “you do it this way because this is how they did it in the RAF during the Battle of Britain” you may be right. But a commercial ATPL school can not afford to bullshit their customers. Right now I forward all licensing questions straight to the head of training because he really knows his stuff.

I have found that the largest source of disinformation in GA comes from flying schools.

Depends on the school. Fact is, some regulation and current changes have become so complex, that people simply don’t know anymore what is true now. So they tend to err on the side of caution. And after the anti GA warfare of the early EASA years, who will blame them.

If nothing else, this shows how important it is to ease regulation back to a point where a normal person can understand it and it can be communicated to the users without the need of getting it explained by a law expert.

@achimha , some more background info on the statement of the flight school.

EU Commission Regulation 379/2014 says:

‘4a. By way of derogation from Article 5(1) and (6), the following operations with other-than-complex motor- powered aircraft may be conducted in accordance with Annex VII:

1. (a) 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;

The mentioned Annex VII is Part-NCO from the Regulation 965/2012.

This Annex has been published by the European Commission; but The Netherlands has chosen for the opt out, via regulation (800/2013):

‘3.By way of derogation from the 2nd subparagraph of paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply:
* (a) the provisions of Annex III to non-commercial oper­ ations with complex motor-powered aeroplanes and helicopters until 25 August 2016; and
* (b) the provisions of Annex V, VI and VII to non- commercial operations with aeroplanes, helicopters, sailplanes and balloons until 25 August 2016.’;

So their message: Cost sharing is not allowed until 25 August 2016 and if you do it before that date you can be prosecuted for flying with paying PAX without an AOC…
:-)