Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 19
#1886638
ANO/FCL have no concept of “pilot manipulating controls”? that surely comes from FAA? down here the PIC is simply “the dude who is sole responsible of aircraft safety” even if he uses dark magic to fly it or leave controls to pax, elf’s or autopilot :lol: the PIC has to be rated on type of course…

Unlike FAA, in ANO/FCL one can’t log flight time by moving the stick (you can log PIC time in US by manipulation of controls even if you are not rated on aircraft as long as there is another pilot who is rated, as such their rules allow dual PIC time logging between pilots, there is no such concept in EASA/CAA land, there is only one PIC in single pilot aircraft, he is defined as “the dude responsible for safety”, the others are students or passengers)

There is a tendency to over interpret legal definitions and some myths just don’t die..
matthew_w100 liked this
#1886647
This waggling of controls business comes up regularly here for some reason I dont really understand. I might have mentioned this before, but I am one of the few pilots at our aeroclub that does "Bapteme*" flights, something that predated Wingly by decades and allowed aeroclubs to offer local joyrides "at cost" to the public flown by aeroclub members. I often (not always) offer a passenger the opportunity to take the controls for 5 or 10 mins when I consider it safe for them to do so if they show an interest in flying and how everything works etc.

The majority of my flights are through the French BIA (Brevet d'Initiation a l'Aeronautique) course that our aeroclub teaches in schools. This is an extra-curricular couse for 14-17yr olds where the flights are joint sponsored by the childs parents, the military and the local government. Naturally these kids are usually as keen as mustard about flying and so I invariably let them "have a go". These Flights are probably the most enjoyable I ever do, even though they are short and local. There is just something uniquely special about being able to take youngsters who are aviation minded on their first light aeroplane flight. 8)

Regards, SD..

*Now called "Vol Decouvert" :roll: They require a minimum of 300hrs, 30hrs/year and 6hrs & 12 To/Lnds in the last 3 months - just added the last bit, the rules have changed recently after Covid.
johnm liked this
#1886658
I did trial flights in an aeroclub with “Brevet De Base” and Chief Pilot sign-off, that was years ago before FCL, I had 30h on my first “passengers endorsement flight” and it was intended for getting potential young new members, all in 30km radius, things have a lot changed since :D
Last edited by Ibra on Sat Dec 04, 2021 11:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
#1886659
skydriller wrote:This is an extra-curricular couse for 14-17yr olds where the flights are joint sponsored by the childs parents, the military and the local government.


That just about sums up how far behind the UK is in becoming TBPITWFGA.
flybymike, 100poundburger, reubeno and 1 others liked this
#1886685
Not directly relevant to cost sharing, but the CAA guidance on "Introductory Flights" is quite clear (para 2.4) that the passenger should not be given control of the aircraft unless the pilot holds a valid instructor rating:
https://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/CAA/Content/Standard_Content/General_aviation_and_events/Types_of_aircraft/Introductory%20Flights%20Guidance%20V%203.1.pdf
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1886689
GrahamB wrote:That just about sums up how far behind the UK is in becoming TBPITWFGA.


Triumph of form over substance innit and that's the malaise that started this exercise in the first place......
#1886690
Miscellaneous wrote:@Mutley as far as I can see that only relates to training organisations and not individuals?

And guidance not legislation?
My debate would be what is 'control' in this sense. If I was letting a passenger have a wiggle of the stick, I'd expect to remain in the position to grab control in a heartbeat if e.g. I made a late spot of converging traffic, or the passenger wiggled it too far. In that sense, I'm the one in control.
flybymike, Earl Grey liked this
#1886830
Responded

No’s to everything execpt the waffle about business models about which I neither know nor care.

I am entirely unconvinced that the proposed changes would meet the stated aim of reducing collusion to present illegal charters as legitimate cost sharing flights. If the passengers and pilots are prepared to lie then they will lie on the proposed additional paperwork as readily as they lie in person.

I can’t support a change to include a definition of “direct costs” without seeing that definition, nor a “common purpose” without seeing that definition.

As it stands I would be concerned that my “purpose” for a flight frequently diverges from that of any cost sharing friends. If I want to make sure the engine gets a good run and they want to sightsee, do we have a common purpose? If I want to stay current and they want a lift to retrieve their own aircraft from maintenance, do we have a common purpose? If they just want a “go” in a light aircraft and I want to visit a new airfield rather than fly round the same patch, do we have a common purpose? If me and my aircraft syndicate partner swap legs for the flight there and back and split the overall cost but he chose the location so he could visit his mum, do we have a common purpose?

It’s trivially easy to list off perfectly routine scenarios on which this requirement would have a chilling effect and so I oppose it.

Similarly the proposed additional paperwork is far more likely to deter legitimate flights than “catch” illegal ones. It is at complete odds with your stated desire to “simplify” regulation.

It will be ineffective as a tool for catching illegal charters as any collusion would surely extend to simply ticking the correct boxes on the form when required.

It is also entirely inappropriate to force GA pilots into becoming untrained data controllers for their cost sharing friends’ personal identifiable data such as signatures, and as such liable for the security of that data.
MikeB, johnm, Rob P and 8 others liked this
#1886834
aerosbitbasher wrote:Why don't we just put a simple requirement on non-commercial flights; passengers are under no obligation to contribute to a flight and they have to be told this before they get into the plane.


This is how I operate.

When I take passengers, I never cost shared in terms of looking at the actual costs and calculating a fee to be paid. Even on long trips (including trips around Europe where I've taken passengers) it has been on the understanding the passengers make a contribution they are happy with, which translates into some fuel, the odd landing fee and the occasional lunch. I was going on the trip anyway, so whatever contribution is made is a saving on what I would have spent so I'm always grateful to my passengers for whatever amount they feel comfortable and able to contribute.

On longer trips, I feel it also mitigates any obligation on my part should we get stuck due to weather or mechanical issues, that the passenger might be out of pocket having to book a commercial flight home at their expense.

I don't know that it makes sense to try and force this into regulation, as I agree with the other posters that we don't need more regulation, but the above captures the essence of what I think cost sharing should be about. I want to use it to help promote aviation, to get people interested in becoming pilots, to share the enjoyment of flying and don't want more red tape around that.
Rob P, johnm, Ibra and 2 others liked this
#1886870
NDB_hold wrote:Exactly right. If I take a passenger it’s always on a trip I was going on anyway. So the most they ever contribute is the cost they see me paying on the day - landing fee or lunch, usually the latter.


Is that what common purpose is?

As opposed to something I saw during the summer. A bloke in a Wingly sweatshirt was sitting around our airport whilst his passengers went off for the day. I must say he looked very "corporate" in his uniform.

Not much sense of common purpose there.
#1886871
This summer, as a favour, entirely at my own expense, I picked up a disabled friend from an airfield in the South of England, to fly her to Prestwick to spend a month with her also disabled partner. I elected to wear a uniform, as it can sometimes oil wheels with the larger airport I was going to, and was stopping for fuel at en-route - particularly with Covid restrictions still very much in place at that time. My call, whether good or bad.

I was challenged at the airfield I picked her up from as I looked to them to be doing a Wingly flight, and they were apparently banned there. It would be interesting to know the events which led to that attitude, and the belief that a middle aged bloke in a white shirt with gold bars (yeah, I know, but I did) would be doing a Wingly.

G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer on Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#1886872
chrisbl wrote:A bloke in a Wingly sweatshirt was sitting around our airport whilst his passengers went off for the day. I must say he looked very "corporate" in his uniform.

Not much sense of common purpose there.


I find it very hard to align the 'sense of common purpose' with the proposal

Advertising: Removal of the restriction on advertising cost sharing
flights from the ANO. This proposed change will align the ANO with the Air
Operations Regulation


My 2022 Wingly Ad.

Gentleman with aircraft wishing to defray
some of the costs of my flying wishes to
meet people who also want to defray the
cost of my flying


Rob P
johnm, MikeB, derekf and 4 others liked this
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 19