https://consultations.caa.co.uk/corporate-communications/uk-cost-shared-flights
This puts a bomb under ops like Wingly:
One should not be surprised this has come out, post-brexit. I always thought that the EASA “cost sharing” rules were an open door for illegal charter (while not saying it was common) and indeed the CAA hated the EASA rules from the start. The famous footballer case probably made them all the more determined.
Also a number of prominent pilots were openly posting that they fly all the time, paying a penny themselves.
So now we have an FAA-style common purpose rule. Not sure what effect this will have but if you read the US forums you find almost no discussion of cost shared flying, while it is obvious that on the UK rental scene a large % of flights never take place unless cost shared.
The direct cost definition is ok for renters (every penny = direct cost) but is useless for owners (engine fund, prop fund, 50hr checks are all hourly based and thus direct costs).
The ability to advertise flights is retained, however. Previously there were restrictions which became bizzare once you could have an “online club”.
The consent form is also new, and a lot of people won’t like it at all.
My view is that cost sharing will simply move underground almost entirely, with money paid after the flight was successfully concluded. Real illegal charters are very rare these days simply because 99% of the population would not be seen dead in a shaking rattling noisy piston plane 
which is basically why the legal charter business (typically in shagged out Senecas and such) died out many years ago.
The survey is worth doing.
Peter wrote:
So now we have an FAA-style common purpose rule.
That’s still a consultation, isn’t it?
That’s still a consultation
Given how much “UK flying scene” is savvy about the laws and how they work, I would not be surprised if it’s already confused with legislations? it’s the goal at the end of the day, to have a “scarecrow guidance/law” that everybody with 1h/year of flying would pull to anyone with 1£/year for flying
I don’t think CAA has same the same FAA legal ressources to interpret & enforce “common purpose rule” but having a vague rule helps to create confusion, it would be interesting to see if this consultation makes it to the law and if this ever gets challenged, I guess it will be up to the pilots to label what they think legal and what is not? everything gets judged by trial on pilot forums pages anyway, UK GA has already plenty of self proclaimed “prosecutors, lawyers and judges” working part time online and using outdated legal texts from 1970
In the past CAA has long history of avoiding difficult legal battles (they tend to set precedents when it comes to the law and can bring them bankrupts as there is not much “licensing fees” to pay for that and taxpayers will not bail them out, so they need to be 100% “a coup sure”, they really can’t afford to lose a single one), this is unlike FAA which has plenty of win examples & lose examples but still backed by huge legal ressources paid by the congress & taxpayers !
There is an easy way to define a common purpose – “we are both here to enjoy flying. if it brings us somewhere, great”. After that common purpose test becomes unenforceable.
This consultation has been out there for quite a while now.
How many pilots that own an aeroplane have said to another owner “can you give me a lift to xxxx to pick up my aeroplane” and handed over fuel money or offered to fuel the aeroplane back at base? Under this new set of rules such a thing would be illegal.
wrt the wingly aspect, they have released a statement already about this – it was on the Flyer Forum – Ill have alook for it later.
Regards, SD..
The CAA PDF is dated 30th November 2021 so it isn’t that old. I rarely frequent the UK GA chat sites, having been banned from both They invariably descend into drivel within 2-3 posts. I also saw a page in some UK online mag, whose view is same as mine.
Of course Wingly is not going to like this at all.
I have not found a proposed definition of the Common Purpose rule. I am not sure where the latest FAA Chief Counsel ruling is but this should have some leads, and contains some interesting explanations. It does appear to be a difficult condition to comply with a lot of the time, but I don’t think cost sharing is prevalent in the US anyway, due to the GA scene there being much less poor. @NCyankee may know more.
The above FAA PDF also defines Direct Costs as thus:
which is fine for a renter renting “wet” (everything is a direct cost) but disadvantages an owner considerably. Has the CAA published a proposed definition of direct costs?
But even for a renter this proposal is a big change. Previously he could recover 99.999% of the cost from passengers; now he will have to pay his full share. So this will take out the people who were doing cost sharing just to get free flying but without spending any of their own money (some people have gone into instructing for this reason).
It doesn’t affect me (for the benefit of the CAA people who read EuroGA, I never cost share ) but this will hit renters, many/most of whom simply do not fly at all unless a flight can be cost shared. In any case, they would not meet a “common purpose” rule (if the FAA definition was used) if it is clear the flight would not be done without a contribution.
The requirement to keep the passenger records is also a GDPR issue – same as UK airfields historically demanding a copy of the GAR form. Those demands were always both illegal and practically unwise to comply with due to poor “storage” practices.
The requirement to keep passenger records is silly and burdensome, and I’ve pointed out the GDPR issues in my response to this consultation.
There are some good ideas in it, but as recommendations rather than requirements. Difficult to enforce if there’s nothing in writing.
Was cost sharing illegal in the UK until EASA? A few people I know have said, “the CAA might say it’s legal, but it isn’t”. Maybe I’m confusing it with extended cost sharing websites.
For comparison, Wingly flights in French aéro-clubs are normally done by ‘discovery flight pilots’ who are subject to extra conditions. Personal information and payments are taken by the club, not the pilot. The requirements for a PPL:
I’m too proud
Broadly speaking, the key differences in the old UK rules were, IIRC
The #2 one is prob99 (IMHO, IANAL) complied with by a club website, or putting it more accurately there is NO WAY the CAA would have wanted to test that one in a court
Under the old rules you could not freely advertise cost shared flights, which led to zillions of “seat sharing” sites appearing, and there was an unwritten understanding that no way will Pilot X do the flight unless the passengers are paying for their share (preferably more).
Difficult to enforce if there’s nothing in writing.
Indeed, but that is how one gets caught. If there is an accident you can fully rely on any injured party to spill the beans, including telling total lies, in order to get more £££ And if the pilot gets convicted of something illegal, getting money (assuming the pilot or his estate has some) in a civil action should be dead easy.
Reportedly, the other way one got caught was this: Mr and Mrs Bloggs turn up at Biggin Hill and get quotes for a flight to Cannes. Three jet outfits charge 5k-15k. Phil Smith offers to do it for 1k in a PA28, cash. The three jet outfits then see Mr and Mrs Bloggs climb into this PA28, which is tracked on FR24 all the way to LFMD. QED. They moan like hell to the Biggin Hill airport manager, who responds by putting out a release that anybody seen doing Wingly will be kicked off the airport (this being actually true).
Approved by the president
Just as well I don’t do this, because I would need a boob job 
GDPR issues
Based on a broadly similar situation – that of someone doing nutrition advice – the record keeping is quite strict, involving a locked filing cabinet. It is also daft because anybody storing this passenger data will be in possession of some rather private stuff e.g. to do with relationships etc – same as anyone keeping GAR data actually.
I will write a longer post on this when I’m at my computer, but for me it boils down to the financial arrangements being no business of the CAA so long as one is not being paid to fly.
If one takes the CAA view, either I must pay all my own costs or it is a ‘cost sharing flight’ under some sort of concession which they think they’re offering me. Well, I’ve made a number of flights which fall into neither category, will probably do so again in the future, and can think of a million other scenarios which might exist which don’t fit into their neat little boxes.
The underlying presumption necessary for the CAA’s position is that, unless operating under a ‘cost-sharing concession’ a private pilot is somehow obliged to cover the full cost of each and every hour in his or her logbook. This is quite obviously a load of bollocks and I have told them so, diplomatically, in my response to their consultation.
