@Mooney, the main difference is the advertising. In FAA-land, this is VERBOTEN, in capitals! Another difference is that the pilot must pay his/her pro-rata share of the direct operating expenses (fuel, oil, aircraft hire, if applicable and AFAIK ramp fees).
So, to give you an example:
I have dinner with some friends and we find that we haven’t been to Napa in a while and it would make a great weekend trip. I book the club C182, off we go. Say, it’s four of us, everyone pays 1/4 of the DOC. Perfectly fine and legal.
Now, two of the friends back out on short notice, so I put up a FB post saying, hey, I’m flying up to Napa on Friday, anyone wanna come and cost share? Not legal, as I have advertised the flight to the general public.
The intent here really is to protect the unsuspecting general public from exactly the type of flight we are discussing here. My friends presumably know me and will most likely already have flown with me. Anyone on FB, has not.
johnh wrote:
The FAA allows cost sharing as long as there is a “common purpose”
This rule has been softened recently. See the doc I link to below, para 9.2. This is relatively new (2020).
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The actual gist is that cost sharing in EASA land is allowed up to the full cost of the airplane operation, but not beyond that. The advertizing is something that will have to be clarified. The commercial aspect depends primarily on the purpose of the flight to make a PROFIT. This is not allowed under cost sharing.
As I said, if the subject case in any shape or form, based on the information made available on these pages (with links etc.) at this time, can be interpreted as legal under current EASA regulations, which I understand from a strictly legal point (profit = commercial) it perhaps can, then I hope EASA will revise the current regulations and/or clarify in unambiguous terms the intent of the current regulations. I don´t see the real world difference it makes to the paying passenger (victims), between making a profit (commercial) and cost sharing (PPL holders flying airplanes with paying pax), when they board a an airplane and pay to do so.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The pretext of Wingly and other similar platforms is exactly that: It wants to get together pilots who are looking to cost share their trips and passengers who wish to go along on such trips.
Ok, Pilots (part-FCL) I personally can accept.
Passengers “who wish to go along on such trips” – really? Come on.. Those “passengers” are the unknowing public paying to go fly.. Who are we fooling here!
Those “passengers” are the unknowing public paying to go fly.. Who are we fooling here!
The duty of the State to protect citizens from their own stupidity is a whole new debate 
It needs a new thread.
There is an acceptance in general that people know that they are not getting airline level of safety, and those who don’t get that probably need all kinds of other protections 
Like, not letting the drive a car…
So you CAN costshare with in a club, a family, your friends
No European cost sharing regulation was thus worded. And it would be obviously unenforceable. In fact it is thus anyway because anybody can set up a “seat sharing” site. I don’t know about other countries but the UK was full of these.
I don’t find it quite like that.
I get mostly 2 kinds of approach.
a) you’re nuts flying in a contraption like that, you’d never get me in there, no matter how much training you have.
b) well I know how much training you have, and that you have to do loads of hours just to keep your licence, and well it’s an aeroplane, it’s rocket-science and looked after by very special mechanics. Look at all those dials, this thing is amazing.
The latter are at risk of putting too much faith in man and machine. I’m very keen to burst their bubble before we fly.
If I ever had a serious incident and hurt someone I want it to be their informed decision that put them there with me. It’s just how my conscience works.
Peter wrote:
The duty of the State to protect citizens from their own stupidity is a whole new debate It needs a new thread.There is an acceptance in general that people know that they are not getting airline level of safety, and those who don’t get that probably need all kinds of other protections Like, not letting the drive a car…
Can´t argue with the stupidity of people in general and the state protection of those!
Airline level of safety is not what I was referring to! I was referring to commercial pilot license certification (training and checking aspects), as well as commercial operations and/or DTO/ATO “experience flight” as minimum.
Oh and for clarity, I support cost sharing. I relied on it years ago. I’m just not sure on the best way to manage it when it involves the public.
johnh wrote:
I’m astounded that in this case Europe is more liberal than the US. Hard to think of another instance of that.
I think the rules for a required cross-country are more lenient in the EU (you need to leave the vicinity of the airport) vs the US (>50nm direct line) too.
And possibly the CPL checkride, maybe the IR as well.
The competency, including decision making and responsibilities, are focus areas of the training towards the CPL and the examination will (should) include these and other topics, that you simply don´t find (or even touch) during training and examination for PPL.
This sounds great in theory but in reality it’s all about personality, attitude and experience.
From what I have seen of the Euro CPL, it is almost completely useless. You still don’t know how to fly EGKA-LFAT (a trivial 40 min flight), how to get wx, etc. The whole European CPL/ME/IR is a ticket to a Part 25 RHS where you warm the seat for 500hrs and they give you the ATPL.
For this kind of GA flying on “real” routes and in “real” wx you need specific modern expertise. The FTO stuff is 30 years old junk; it was on my IR for sure.
For this kind of GA flying on “real” routes and in “real” wx you need specific modern expertise. The FTO stuff is 30 years old junk; it was on my IR for sure.
I noticed a bit of improvement (doing IR 15 years ago and doing ATPL theory and CPL this year) but it’s still far away from what it should be from the perspective of usability.
