Flight sharing sites (general discussion) (merged)

This thread has relevance to the N-reg aspect of this.

See also this link in there.

I think the whole question of cost sharing versus commercial and the resulting question about what paperwork is required is all based on perception.

In the case of any form of airline or air taxi there is fear that for commercial reasons corners will be cut and so a lot of oversight is put in place to protect passengers.

When I had a fresh PPL I was also hanging out at the airport and went for sightseeing flights with people who had been asked for it. There was a public waiting area next to the apron entry and they were asking someone there who then hooked me up with them. As there was demand a weekend could be quite busy.

Today the “matchmaking” might simply happen in a different way. The point might be that once a person asks for it the person is not anymore the unsuspecting public getting lured into something by some advert with screaming colors and promises. But that is perception.

At that airport there were even an unofficial price list amongst the “operators”. It’s very hard to draw any line.

Helpful would be to distinguish between an operation that promises you to get to B on time and an operation that might get you there or not at all.

Personally in my current situation I would appreciate a passenger taking some of the cost for a 4 hrs flight off of me. But the condition is that we might fly 2 hours later or that I might have to cancel at the last minute or divert for whatever reason. To me that makes it a non-service not the way people might learn about the availability.

Peter wrote:

Where? Reference please.

Ridesharing Site Flytenow Loses Court Battle with FAA http://www.flyingmag.com/ridesharing-site-flytenow-loses-court-battle-with-faa

That is a completely non sequitur posting.

USFlyer wrote:

Ridesharing Site Flytenow Loses Court Battle with FAA

How is that relevant to the discussion about the situation in Europe? No one doubts the legal situation in the US.

Peter wrote:

You are reading way too much into this, LeSving.

I’m the devils advocate Seriously, except derogation regarding remuneration for display pilots and competition pilots as well as derogations for commercial activities for round trips at clubs and so on, nothing has happened. FCL.205 has no mention of cost sharing, thus there is no need for any derogation. Cost sharing was perfectly legal as it was. What is not legal is remuneration and commercial activity (except for those mentioned derogations), and is still in effect. The cost sharing bit does not derogate anything in FCL.205, the only thing it does is to restrict cost sharing to aircraft with 6 seats or less.

All in all, the regulations are practically identical to what they were when I got my ppl in 1992. Round trips is a bit more relaxed and cost sharing is a bit more restricted, but nothing that anyone will notice.

LeSving wrote:

FCL.205 has no mention of cost sharing

Cost sharing is regulated by AIR-OPS cover regulation article 6 and associated GM

The ONLY thing that FCL.205 states is that a PPL holder may act without remuneration as PIC or co-pilot on aeroplanes or TMGs engaged in non-commercial operations. There is no contradiction between that and cost sharing as layed out by AIR OPS.

LeSving wrote:

Cost sharing was perfectly legal as it was.

You need to forget about the old Norwegian BSL. They no longer exist since they are replaced by FCL, SERA, NCO etc. I am sure that cost sharing was legal before AIR-OPS in many countries. It is just as legal with EASA. The core of the matter is whether advertising cost sharing is legal or not, and whether such websites are desirable or not.. According to the UK CAA’s interpretation such websites are legal AFAIU. According to DGAC they are not. DGAC has an opinion which is not law.

The core of the matter is whether advertising cost sharing is legal or not, and whether such websites are desirable or not.. According to the UK CAA’s interpretation such websites are legal AFAIU.

Exactly.

According to DGAC they are not. DGAC has an opinion which is not law

But, nobody will challenge the DGAC on this, and they know it which is why they did what they did.

And I think nobody will challenge their local CAA in most countries. UK pilots seem to be willing to do it, occassionally, which is probably one reason why the UK CAA tends to adopt these regs fully. They are not interested in getting taken to a court case which would then create a precedent, and most precedents are unwanted for the CAA The other reason the UK implements this stuff is because of centuries old tradition of writing laws which are unambiguous. But also, to be fair, the head of GA has said he hopes it will increase GA activity, which takes us back to the start of this thread

Aviathor wrote:

You need to forget about the old Norwegian BSL. They no longer exist since they are replaced by FCL, SERA, NCO etc.

NCO is not applicable for Annex II as of yet. If you fly any Annex II aircraft, the old BSL is very much in effect. In fact much of BSL is still there. Besides, BSL is not replaced. FCL etc has just become part of it. SERA in particular is meaningless without reading BSL, because of all the local changes and adaptions which can only be found in the BSL.

Anyway. The point is, cost sharing must be done without breaking FCL.205. The cost sharing article does NOT explicitly or implicitly derogate from FCL.205 as is done for aerial work, competitions, shows and round trips. That fact cannot simply be “forgotten” just because you want the regulations to mean something they don’t.

Aviathor wrote:

The core of the matter is whether advertising cost sharing is legal or not, and whether such websites are desirable or not.

That depends entirely on what people “think” cost sharing is all about. In my club we “advertise” free seats to other members on the web. But, if some are of the opinion that taking money from someone for the sole purpose of transporting them from A to B, then clearly this is illegal, and so is the advertising.