Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 19
#1886929
matthew_w100 wrote:
johnm wrote:Pilot is in charge and manipulating the controls

Passenger having a go is not a pilot any more than the autopilot is.....


When I last looked it up it was "Pilot is in charge and AT the controls". No mention of manipulating. But the phrasing of the rules changes so often and in so many places you could be right now.

I like your autopilot analogy. I treat a passenger manipulating the controls exactly as I would an autopilot - clear instructions, safe airspace, closely monitored and ready to take over in half a heartbeat. Also I am a sixteen stone ex-rugby player and I reckon I could overpower any passenger who could fit in the space left in my little aeroplane.

There was a recent discussion on the examiners WhatsApp about this.
As the rules about being at the controls also applies to multi pilot (they should both be at the controls) it was agreed that it meant sat there, rather than fighting each other for control.
matthew_w100 liked this
#1886956
My response submitted today:

Whilst I support the attempt to align current legislative instruments, the proposals which go further than that do not appear to be the result of an evidence based approach. The only actual issue referred to by the document is stated in 1.5 as follows: "where pilots and passengers of Illegal Commercial Air Transport collude to present illegal flights as legal cost shared flights". I'm far from convinced that these proposals tackle that in any meaningful way; if parties are colluding now, they will continue to do so. The more onerous and restrictive the rules, the more likely it is that behaviour is driven underground.

Paragragh 4.4. states "Safety data does not indicate that properly and legally conducted cost-shared flights carry any more risk than similar non-commercial flights conducted without costs being shared". Taken with the point made above that the only issue actually stated is one of collusion, I find it disappointing that none of the proposals that would materially change the current rules contain an assessment of cost/impact against expected benefits in safety. Such assesssments are vital if one is to form an objective view. If there isn't a problem, why seek to introduce restrictions which may well in themselves have negative safety and economic impacts?

More specifically, I object most strongly to the introduction of 'commonality of purpose'. Implemented in its strictest sense (which it would have to be, to provide pilots with the clarity they would need), it would render illegal at a stroke many everyday scenarios for which the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' would regard it as perfectly reasonable to make a cost-contribution, e.g. taking a fellow pilot to collect a stranded aircraft, dropping a relative off at an airport to catch a connecting flight, or even just taking a neighbour for a flight because they have never experienced a light aircraft and want to see their house from the air. Furthermore, I don't accept that 'common purpose' necessarily reduces pressure to complete a flight; one could equally argue that it is just as likely to increase it when the pilot has an equal stake in getting to a destination such as a business meeting with colleagues, or a weekend break with friends.

I support the desire that third parties should be giving 'informed consent' based on an understanding that the regulatory framework around private flight is less strict than that of commercial operations. This however applies whenever a third party is carried, not just when a contribution towards cost is made, and I think that the argument that there is a higher expectation of safety when payment is made is a spurious one, outside of the most extreme examples of illegal public transport. I believe the proposed consent form with the requirement for filing for six months is unecessary and ill-advised, as it exposes private pilots to breaches of data protection legislation. Clear guidelines to pilots with a template of points to cover in a passenger briefing are all that is required.

There is a point to be made regarding 'direct' costs. The direct, incremental aircraft costs of operating a flight can often be significantly greater than merely fuel and oil. Lifed parts, most notably engine and propellor, carry a replacement cost of operation as do other consumable parts such as tyres and brakes. These 'operational overheads' are built in to aircraft rental costs, but private owners do feel disriminated against in this regard as they are currently unable to defray these costs. I believe this should be addressed. Accurately assessing these costs for any aircraft on any one day would be almost impossible, but a percentage, for example 40%, of fuel costs would probably be realistic overall and gear such recovery appropriately to the type of aircraft used.

In summary, these proposals are poorly considered and display a lack of objective analysis. I find it disppointing that consultation has been reduced to commenting on a pre-formed set of conclusions which would appear to be being driven by an agenda other than evidenced safety grounds. This is not the open, consultative engagement with the GA community which we were led to believe was to be the model going forward.
#1887110
Genghis the Engineer wrote:In the meantime, here's an interesting recent event in France, which surely shows where the various authorities' mindsets are coming from.


DGAC has lost it's legal battle on cost-sharing flights vs EASA, they are not even interested in regulating these,

https://sfdas.org/wp-content/uploads/D% ... nnage..pdf

Actually they are now encouraging to bring Wingly flights within "Aeroclub oversight", some even get the FFA logo on their flight as being approved by FFA & DGAC, the qualifications and insurance conditions are similar to those for "trial flights", most "customers" from the public tend to like FFA/DGAC label aon those advertised flights...

The rules are like this,

https://www.ffa-aero.fr/SITEFFAPROD_WEB ... ut2016.pdf

For public transport flights outside AOC scope where the pax pays everything, DGAC are setting a harsh tone:
- 1.5kE fine per flight outside AOC scope
- 1y prison and 75kE fine without AOC
- 3y prison and 45kE if making money and hiding it

The latter are some funky website with fractional ownership (1E to buy an aircraft) in turbine/jets aircraft that were flown by ATPL/CPL+IR holders with few guys who like Bluewings in that PA46 BEA report,

https://www.sky4u.aero/
https://www.gie-aviation.fr/
https://www.blr-aviation.fr/
By reubeno
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1887119
Genghis the Engineer wrote:In the meantime, here's an interesting recent event in France, which surely shows where the various authorities' mindsets are coming from.

https://www.intecaerospace.com/?p=9263

G


I go back to the examples shared a few pages back

flyingearly wrote:Enforcement could easily be directed at people who are pro-actively advertising multiple flights with pre-determined dates, scheduled ahead of time


The issue is the way the flight sharing platforms allow people to describe and promote flights which makes them look like something they are not.

However, I don't really understand why this couldn't be addressed in the current regulatory framework or by the CAA simply raising the issue with the operators of the flight sharing platforms to tell them to better police the system or face regulatory changes. But either way don't penalise the rest of us that cost share in the way it was always intended to work.
#1887121
As previously recommended, I've asked for my original response to be retracted and submitted a new response with
1. Further regulation on law abiding pilots won't solve the problem. If you want to tweak the rules for law obliging PPL's the changes need to be minimal an non-onerous.
2. Don't think you should be able to charge anything until the flight has been completed.
3. No obligation on passengers to contribute; this must be included in any advert for the flight and in the pre-flight briefing. If the passenger wants to contribute great, but let's make it hard for black charters to get income off the back of their flights.
4. No requirement for common purpose, it's meaningless, hard to prove and easy to fall foul of.
5. Pilots must not portray themselves as professional pilots, no uniforms, no captains hats, no ties, nothing more formal than trousers and a white shirt.
6. Owners should be able to include some of the fixed costs into the cost of the flight.
7. The CAA need to inform the public how to check if their flight is legal, and make it easy for them to check. This is as much an awareness problem for the great unwashed as it is a regulation problem for pilots.
reubeno liked this
#1887126
Interesting points, discussing...

aerosbitbasher wrote:As previously recommended, I've asked for my original response to be retracted and submitted a new response with
1. Further regulation on law abiding pilots won't solve the problem. If you want to tweak the rules for law obliging PPL's the changes need to be minimal an non-onerous.

To some extent I agree, it is historically something that "governing man" likes to do in Britain particularly, which is that when things go wrong when existing rules have been broken, they tighten up those rules anyhow. BMAA inspectors and G-STYX, child protection laws and various abuses, restrictions on legally owned firearms after crimes have been committed with illegally owned firearms. The list is endless.

2. Don't think you should be able to charge anything until the flight has been completed.

Interesting perspective, but unrealistic. For example a passenger who offers to pay for the fuel at the start of the flight. When money is paid really should be irrelevant - it's how much, and if at-all.

3. No obligation on passengers to contribute; this must be included in any advert for the flight and in the pre-flight briefing. If the passenger wants to contribute great, but let's make it hard for black charters to get income off the back of their flights.

Again, strikes me as totally unrealistic. Is it unreasonable for somebody to say "well, I'd love to do a trip for lunch to X, but can't afford it this month", and somebody else to reply "well if I pay for half the fuel, I'd love to go too". That has effectively formed an obligation to contribute, but a totally reasonable one.

4. No requirement for common purpose, it's meaningless, hard to prove and easy to fall foul of.

As I see it, the real problem here is that "common purpose" is barely defined, but yes. Pilot wants to go flying, passenger would like to drop in on Auntie Mabel who lives next to an airfield a hundred miles away. Technically no common purpose, but compatible purposes.

5. Pilots must not portray themselves as professional pilots, no uniforms, no captains hats, no ties, nothing more formal than trousers and a white shirt.

That is definitely verging on the facile. If we start policing what people can, or cannot, wear we're going to disappear up our own backsides. For that matter, some people may be around an airfield in a uniform for other totally legitimate reasons, do we really say that they can't take a mate flying and share the costs unless they've changed clothes first?


6. Owners should be able to include some of the fixed costs into the cost of the flight.

Yes, absolutely. Personally I know roughly what my real hourly costs are over the course of a year from my logbook spreadsheet. If I do, anybody else can too.

7. The CAA need to inform the public how to check if their flight is legal, and make it easy for them to check. This is as much an awareness problem for the great unwashed as it is a regulation problem for pilots.


Depends what you mean by "legal" - permit/CofA, licence and rating currency? Rental agreement? Insurance? It really is unrealistic to expect passengers to check any significant proportion of what's in place to make a flight legal.

The best that can be done, I'd venture, is to make available some simple system that allows and encourages passengers to check that a flight is under arrangements that make it public transport, for which they're expected to pay a commercial rate.

G
By Lefty
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1887162
"Pilots must not portray themselves as professional pilots, no uniforms, no captains hats, no ties, nothing more formal than trousers and a white shirt"

I get your drift - but it is really getting a bit ridiculous. Not least because many of my flying buddies / flight sharing friends are also flying instructors and we frequently work in the morning then share flights in the afternoon (pretty much every Friday of the year in fact!)

Most importantly :
1. We must ALL reply to the consultation
But then,
2. Whatever our individual views of these perceived "grey charters", please can we not accept a the imposition of knee jerk rules which are likely to place severe restrictions on the majority of law abiding PPL's - but are likely to have zero impact on the wrong doer's. 99.9% of PPL's are operating within the law - but there are a small number that are are effectively running (illegal) air taxi businesses These guys are breaking the law because it is not enforced. What makes you think they will abide by the new rules?
3. I want to be able to continue to share costs with my friends, family and fellow pilots.
4. I will be suggesting more proactive, intelligence led investigation by the CAA. These people are effectively running (illegal) air taxi businesses - and the current flight records will point them out - for example
The same aircraft will be used day after day for flights to "interesting places".
A small group of (usually non owner) pilots will be flying the same aircraft on a very regular basis.
The aircraft will frequently land, drop off passengers and depart again within a few minutes.

These are warning flags that the authorities can already easily detect from Flightplans, GAR's and other data they already have. So why ask ordinary PPL's to fill in tons of forms for every cost shared flight - when they already have the data needed for the investigations?
russp, MikeB, G-BLEW and 1 others liked this
#1887205
Lefty wrote:"Pilots must not portray themselves as professional pilots, no uniforms, no captains hats, no ties, nothing more formal than trousers and a white shirt"

I get your drift - but it is really getting a bit ridiculous. Not least because many of my flying buddies / flight sharing friends are also flying instructors and we frequently work in the morning then share flights in the afternoon (pretty much every Friday of the year in fact!)

Most importantly :
1. We must ALL reply to the consultation
But then,
2. Whatever our individual views of these perceived "grey charters", please can we not accept a the imposition of knee jerk rules which are likely to place severe restrictions on the majority of law abiding PPL's - but are likely to have zero impact on the wrong doer's. 99.9% of PPL's are operating within the law - but there are a small number that are are effectively running (illegal) air taxi businesses These guys are breaking the law because it is not enforced. What makes you think they will abide by the new rules?
3. I want to be able to continue to share costs with my friends, family and fellow pilots.
4. I will be suggesting more proactive, intelligence led investigation by the CAA. These people are effectively running (illegal) air taxi businesses - and the current flight records will point them out - for example
The same aircraft will be used day after day for flights to "interesting places".
A small group of (usually non owner) pilots will be flying the same aircraft on a very regular basis.
The aircraft will frequently land, drop off passengers and depart again within a few minutes.

These are warning flags that the authorities can already easily detect from Flightplans, GAR's and other data they already have. So why ask ordinary PPL's to fill in tons of forms for every cost shared flight - when they already have the data needed for the investigations?


I agree the only solution is intelligence led policing.

Sadly and perhaps being seen to do something is easier than doing something that requires time, money and no recompense.
#1887246
For brevity on the replies and rebuttals to my previous posts - all fair and valid comments which are hard to dispute, they're what makes these forums so good and makes me glad I'm not responsible for drafting the rules!

The CAA can't be everywhere all the time, watching every flight, nor would we want them to be. These things predominantly seem to come to light once a flight has taken place, gone wrong and people have been hurt/killed, in which case it doesn't really matter which rules and regs which were bent or broken, lives have already been destroyed. All to often we also seem to learn that it's been going on for ages under many a 'blind eye'.

I don't want to live in a police state. I certainly don't want to ask pilots to 'shop' each other for every infraction they think they may have observed (somewhat the antithesis of a just culture). But I do think this thread is begging to ask a question - what can, or should, we as GA advocates* do to prevent bad actors from generating bad press about our hobby and who give the regulators ammunition/obligation to try and dream up yet more ways to make our lives just a bit harder?

Should we directly challenge those operating the flight? Should we step in and make sure members of the general public are really aware what conditions the flight they're getting onto is operating under? Are the airfields to challenge operators when an aircraft's movement patterns give an eyebrow cause to head skywards? Point at and humiliate the plonker sitting in the waiting room wearing a 'Wingly'** captains hat whilst trying to look professional for his 'passengers'?

The policing intelligence or social pressure for change needs to come from somewhere, where's the balance where we, as the GA community, are helping to get this right before the regulation is enforced upon us?

*(wording chosen to try and avoid the technical pedantry over ratings, authorisations etc that I don't comprehensively understand).
**other flight share platforms need to help get this right too
gasman liked this
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 19