Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 19
#1885758
RisePilot wrote:This bit must have been dreamed up by the old grizzled chaps that think of scraps of paper on a "corkboard" in the club as a modern means of disseminating information.

...no information has been published or advertised before the commencement of the flight other than, in the case of an aircraft operated by a flying club, advertising wholly within the premises of such a flying club


This bit is from very old ANO text that has been exempted from in ORS4 since 2014, it's not new or a proposal, it's just the CAA spelling out what the ANO currently says.
JAFO, Cowshed, Dusty_B liked this
#1885759
russp wrote:Responded to with ... I cant support the proposals as the cost sharing element of flights on a personally owned aircraft is already tiny and these proposals would potentially put my accepting a passenger paying the landing fee and buying a bacon sandwich outside of the law! The potential extra paperwork is also onerous and unnecessary. If you wish to regulate cost sharing platforms then do that.. or start asking questions of some of the pilots clearly breaking the rules we already have via those platforms. There is no need to impose additional regulations to get the current abuse under control when simply applying the current rules would do much the same.


unless you have in flight catering, this isn't actually a part of the flight!
#1885760
@A4 Pacific

Current rules are not being enforced - why not? Because there is not the person power to do it.

It is not because the rules are not stringent enough.

More legislation which then will not be enforced either will only cause law abiding folks to be worried or unintentionally fall foul of the legislation because someone accepted a bacon butty or landing fee donation.

There is no connection between the rule makers and the real world. That is why we then up with crappy laws and no progress.
Rob P, flybymike, russp and 2 others liked this
#1885762
in principle, I support it, like I supported 600kg microlights. In practice it will end up a b8lls up because the rules will be rewritten by non-pilots.

Contributing £1 towards a flight for a stranger, in order to get someone else to pay for your flying/hour building has to stop. It's potentially unsafe and could affect the future of our hobby.

Equal shares, good luck calculating that!

Good luck tracking cash!
User avatar
By russp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1885789
Sooty25 wrote:
russp wrote:Responded to with ... I cant support the proposals as the cost sharing element of flights on a personally owned aircraft is already tiny and these proposals would potentially put my accepting a passenger paying the landing fee and buying a bacon sandwich outside of the law! The potential extra paperwork is also onerous and unnecessary. If you wish to regulate cost sharing platforms then do that.. or start asking questions of some of the pilots clearly breaking the rules we already have via those platforms. There is no need to impose additional regulations to get the current abuse under control when simply applying the current rules would do much the same.


unless you have in flight catering, this isn't actually a part of the flight!


Buying me a bacon sandwich after .. that's just as much remuneration as giving me the equivalent money.
#1885799
flybymike wrote:Valuable consideration (provided you like b***n.


In view of the rampant onset of wokeness that we are witness to, can you please amend your post as I am convinced it will offend muslims and hebrews, and this offends me.

I would also like you to apologise to pigs everywhere for all the times they have been slaughtered, right the way back to pre-history.

Rob P
flybymike, MikeB liked this
#1885800
“common purpose”

So if I take a friend because he wants to sightseeing and I enjoy flying, is that common purpose? I understand the sentiment but not the use of “common purpose” as a means of measuring it

“Fixed cost”
This should include all fees excluding fixed ones. So should include landing fees, customs etc

“Equal costs”
Again understand the intent. But this wound be hugely frustrating for me. I’d have a “common purpose” to do and A to B flight but only if the person covered the cost as I don’t have the money. I wonder if this would be better if the rule was equal cost for A to A flights only. If it’s A to B then common purpose would kick in which sound get around the “pay me for sightseeing”
#1885812
russp wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:
russp wrote:Responded to with ... I cant support the proposals as the cost sharing element of flights on a personally owned aircraft is already tiny and these proposals would potentially put my accepting a passenger paying the landing fee and buying a bacon sandwich outside of the law! The potential extra paperwork is also onerous and unnecessary. If you wish to regulate cost sharing platforms then do that.. or start asking questions of some of the pilots clearly breaking the rules we already have via those platforms. There is no need to impose additional regulations to get the current abuse under control when simply applying the current rules would do much the same.


unless you have in flight catering, this isn't actually a part of the flight!


Buying me a bacon sandwich after .. that's just as much remuneration as giving me the equivalent money.


I wonder how many hours of Court time could be wasted on this! :lol:
#1885814
flybymike wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:Contributing £1 towards a flight for a stranger, in order to get someone else to pay for your flying/hour building has to stop. It's potentially unsafe and could affect the future of our hobby.


Perhaps I’m being thick. I don’t understand this remark?


It refers to Wingly type flights arranged with a complete stranger, where the pilot only contributes a tiny amount to the actual cost of the flight, but benefits from the logged hour.

You could argue, that if the cost of hiring an aeroplane to hour build towards a commercial licence was £200, and you got passengers to contribute all of that, the pilot has benefited by £200, the cost of a solo hour. Depends on the pilots purpose for the flight.
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1885815
Sooty25 wrote:
flybymike wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:Contributing £1 towards a flight for a stranger, in order to get someone else to pay for your flying/hour building has to stop. It's potentially unsafe and could affect the future of our hobby.


Perhaps I’m being thick. I don’t understand this remark?


It refers to Wingly type flights arranged with a complete stranger, where the pilot only contributes a tiny amount to the actual cost of the flight, but benefits from the logged hour.

I believe the Wingly charter requires equal contributions.
#1885823
This is how I responded:

Survey Question 1) The survey question 1 is a leading question and I had to answer No. I do support alignment between Air Operations Regulation 965/2012 and UK Air Navigation Order 2016. However I do NOT support some of the improvements suggested in the consultation.

Survey Question 2) "Common Purpose" requires more definition. A flight from A to A may be sightseeing for the Passenger and flying enjoyment/practise for the Pilot. A flight from A to B may be for the passenger to visit a friend but flying enjoyment/practise for the Pilot. I think the intent here is good but not the way it's been implemented. I think rather than "Common Purpose" the intent is to around showing that the flight has not been arranged solely for the benefit of the Passenger. Benefits to the pilot could include recency, keeping the plane used regularly etc which are not Common Purpose.

Survey Question 3) I do NOT support a mandate for paying equal shares. I think the proposed Waiver Form should be mandatory and this should suffice in making it clear the flight is not CAT. Making equal shares a mandatory requirement might stop some flights going ahead as the pilot cannot afford it

On the definition of DIRECT COSTS please can you consider allowing:
* enroute charges
* customs and excise charges
* wear and tear - variable costs. This one is important. A significant amount of an hourly cost for non-rental aircraft (privately owned) is for variable wear and tear costs such as funding 50 hour and engine / prop TBOs. The current wording means that RENTAL aircraft can be cost shared to include these costs but that a private a/c could only charge for Fuel and Oil. This is unfair.
#1885826
These are the FAA rules. They seem to be both practical and sensible:

According to the FAA, §61.113(c) permits pilots to share operating expenses of a flight with passengers provided the pilot pays at least his or her pro rata share of the operating expenses of the flight. Operating expenses are limited to fuel, oil, airport expenditures and rental fees.

Pilots utilizing the expense sharing exception are prohibited from “holding out,” described as “communicating to the public that a transportation services is indiscriminately available to the members of that segment of the public that it is designed to attract,” without proper authority to conduct such activities under 14 CFR Part 119.

To avoid running afoul of the “holding out” prohibition, the AC explains pilots must have a “common purpose” with passengers. “Common purpose” may be determined on a case-by-case basis, but whether the pilot has his or her own reason for traveling to a particular destination is a key factor. For example, a pilot flying his plane to a wedding may share expenses with passengers who are attending the same event or have a reason to be at the same destination.

Put simply, “The common purpose test can be stated as ‘but for the receipt of compensation [operating expense sharing], the pilot would not have taken that flight.’”

The AC further describes scenarios that might be considered “holding out,” including the use of agents or salespeople, print or internet advertisement, posts on social media and use of apps, depending on the intended audience and other specific factors.

“The FAA published this guidance as part of its ongoing efforts to combat illegal charter operations,” said Brian Koester, NBAA’s director of flight operations and regulations. “Pilots are responsible for knowing and understanding the privileges associated with their airman certificate, which includes flight expense sharing provisions. This guidance provides clear examples of permitted and prohibited activity and should be a useful resource for pilots who wish to comply with regulations.”


Cut and paste? :roll:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 19