Cost sharing in non-EASA aircraft limited to country of registration?

Peter wrote:

You have to just accept that a regulation exists

Where exactly? geographically speaking. The point I’m (hopelessly) trying to get through here is very simple. The only regulation (for experimental and microlight) is “non commercial”. You can interpret that as you want, but the aviation authorities do no such interpretation (unless they eventually have to from case to case). For 99% of what you do with a private plane, “non commercial” is fairly easy to decipher:

• Taking a friend along for fishing, sharing the cost = non commercial.
• Advertising for transport to a football game, taking the trip many times back and forth, “sharing” the cost EASA style = commercial.
• Using the plane to take pictures, and selling those pictures = a bit more blurry and must be seen in context. If you are a professional photographer it’s definitely commercial. If photography is a only a hobby, maybe not, depending on the extent, and the mood of the regulator (You can earn a certain amount before you have to pay tax on your hobby, and from there it is not really a hobby tax vise).

The authority could have detailed this “non commercial” clause, but so far have not, because it is fairly obvious what is what when getting down to the practicalities of it.

Peter wrote:

There is some move to allow SET A-B charter

Fully legal in Norway, as long as the cabin is pressurized. These decisions are up to the “competent authority” in EASA land IFAIK. Anyway it’s way off topic, I only included it to make a point that the aircraft is not a limitations in EASA, but definitely is so for microlights and experimentals. This is the main reason there is no need for cost sharing regulations for most “Annex II” aircraft. The UK has exempted also the aircraft in that note. One has to wonder why, but it could be simply to have the same regulations for non-EASA as for EASA aircraft?

Peter wrote:

For A-B charter you need ME