Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 19
#1886279
Reading it through time and time again I can't see a single proposal that actually benefits safety, a buzzword that appears frequently in the consultation

No passenger is made safer by paying a different proportion of the flight cost.
No passenger is made safer by signing a form

What single item in this whole mass of words actually will save even one life?

Rob
flybymike, G-BLEW, johnm and 3 others liked this
#1886285
Just a thought, even though the individual flight will be loss making for the pilot, the contributions made by the passengers is effectively an income for the pilot. Should this not be declared as such to HMRC?

If the pilot of required to retain the declaration forms for 6 months, will there be a data protection issue to consider and should the pilot be registered with the ICO?
#1886288
Rob P wrote:Reading it through time and time again I can't see a single proposal that actually benefits safety, a buzzword that appears frequently in the consultation

No passenger is made safer by paying a different proportion of the flight cost.
No passenger is made safer by signing a form

What single item in this whole mass of words actually will save even one life?

Rob


The thinking is that if we go back [as it always had been in the UK] to equal proportions it will drive down the likelihood that people will offer the ‘I pay a £1 you pay £200’ advertised flights which come with all the human factors safety traps and risk to passengers; drive down the likelihood of these being on offer and you drive down the risk of unwitting passengers taking them.

The form is about the consumer protection remit of the CAA and ensuring the passengers have informed consent about what they are getting into.

I’m not saying the proposal is perfect, but if the GA community response is ‘everything is fine, no need to change anything, we reject it entirely’ then that will probably been seen as another message to the regulator and we will get roundly ignored.
#1886289
I’m not saying the proposal is perfect, but if the GA community response is ‘everything is fine, no need to change anything, we reject it entirely’ then that will probably been seen as another message to the regulator and we will get roundly ignored.


…but it doesn't have to be a binary accept all/reject all response. As written the common purpose proposal brings all sorts of (I assume) unintended consequences, as does the equal payment suggestion. I understand the desire to inform potentially uninformed passengers, but three separate declarations/forms that need to be kept for six months?


Ian
flybymike, Earl Grey liked this
#1886292
The whole point is that responsible pilots will already brief their passengers whether they are sharing the costs or not. Irresponsible pilots won't. Irresponsible pilots will either ignore it or simply fill in the forms and tell their passengers it's a bit of bureaucracy, so the proposals simply do not address the perceived or actual problem. It's a ritual "something must be done" nonsense worthy of a Stanley Holloway monologue.

It would be very interesting to find out who comprised the "working group" who produced this nonsense ........
RisePilot, Rob P, flybymike liked this
#1886293
I can see why they want the form retained for 6 months, it will be to use as evidence against the pilot who is suspected of grey chartering.

The flaw being, that kind of pilot would probably "lose" the required forms and declare it as a solo flight.

The next question is, in the event of an accident causing injury or death of a passenger, which results in the passengers lawyers pursuing the pilot for in excess of his insurance, can the form be waived in Court, declaring "he knew the risks, and he signed for them".
#1886295
Yesterday I took another forumite to Dunkeswell for him to collect his aircraft from Annual. He paid for the lunches; he would have paid the landing fee had I not got there first. He is a close mate and we fly one another's aircraft from time to time, so he is just about as 'informed' as it's possible to be.

Under the rules as proposed, would I have to present him with a document to read and a form to sign, a sandwich being 'valuable consideration'?

If so, it's a nonsense.

If not, then how and where is the line drawn between that, and asking someone who is not a close mate to fork out £xxx for me to take them somewhere to vist their Mum/go shopping/join me for a day out at the seaside?
#1886299
GrahamB wrote:If not, then how and where is the line drawn between that...

The more I think about it the more difficult it seems to be to establish where lines should be drawn.

Your example reminded me of a request earlier in the year to fly an examiner cross country to have his medical, he offered to cover the fuel cost. Due to covid it didn't happen. However, had I done so and accepted the fuel cost that undoubtedly would be a valuable consideration. Equal share of costs would have been helping someone out at my expense.

For my money we are too caught up on it all being dependent on valuable consideration and its definition.

I suggest we require a completely fresh look at what the objective is (stopping grey charter) and how best to achieve it. As I suggested earlier, the wrong tool is being selected for the job.
MikeB liked this
#1886300
GrahamB wrote:Yesterday I took another forumite to Dunkeswell for him to collect his aircraft from Annual. He paid for the lunches; he would have paid the landing fee had I not got there first. He is a close mate and we fly one another's aircraft from time to time, so he is just about as 'informed' as it's possible to be.

Under the rules as proposed, would I have to present him with a document to read and a form to sign, a sandwich being 'valuable consideration'?

If so, it's a nonsense.

If not, then how and where is the line drawn between that, and asking someone who is not a close mate to fork out £xxx for me to take them somewhere to vist their Mum/go shopping/join me for a day out at the seaside?


Don't tell us, tell the CAA!!
#1886303
Miscellaneous wrote:The more I think about it the more difficult it seems to be to establish where lines should be drawn.


On that point and also 'commonality of purpose', where the FAA have a very clear, strict definition which would eliminate, or drive underground, most cost sharing flights if the CAA were to adopt a similar position (which purportedly they don't want to do).

In their regulatory and consumer protection roles it's not unreasonable that the CAA should consider the risks and issues that surround cost sharing, but it's a poor document reflecting, to me, a degree of naive knee-jerk in being wanting to be seen to be 'doing something' - possibly as a consequence of the Sala saga and pressure from the AOC community who understandably continue to be exercised by the age-old problem of illegal charters.

I think the issues could have been presented for discussion in a more mature way than a preformed set of proposals that assume that more rules will solve a safety problem, for which by their own admission there appears to be little hard evidence.
#1886308
G-BLEW wrote:…but it doesn't have to be a binary accept all/reject all response. As written the common purpose proposal brings all sorts of (I assume) unintended consequences, as does the equal payment suggestion. I understand the desire to inform potentially uninformed passengers, but three separate declarations/forms that need to be kept for six months?


I was just reflecting the trend of comments on here…

We always had equal share of cost required for time immemorial here in the U.K. until a few years ago… why would that now cause the sky to fall in on GA as many on here predict?

For my money: go back to equal shares, common purpose needs work, forms only required for publicly advertised flights, and targeted ramp check campaign for internet advertised flights.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 19