Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 19
#1885834
So any flight that the pilot would not have taken were there no contribution to costs by a passenger is not permitted? That would certainly render quite a few of my flights with friends illegal.

Me: "where do you fancy flying today, Bill? We can split the cost".
Bill: "How about going to the beach at Clacton?"
Me: "Sorry, I wouldn't have gone there if you hadn't given me the idea, so we can't go there..."

Is this what the CAA wants? To be fair, they did not include the full FAA wording, but 'common purpose' seems intended to mean the same thing.
russp, GeorgeJLA liked this
#1885837
it seems the FAA guidance is more detailed and would definetly preclude the example in the previous post. This is most definetly NOT what I think in the UK we see as Common Purpose. By extension, you'd never take your partner/family flying unless you happened to be doing it for some other reason.
#1885841
I don't know (@marioair . What it seems to be trying to outlaw, or at least discourage, is for a pilot to state that they want to go flying with someone if they share the cost and that the pilot doesn't mind where they go. This seems unreasonably restrictive. Surely the legal point should be that the pilot cannot make any money (or other tradeable goods/services) from the flight on top of the cost. If the intention is to stop Wingly acting as a grey charter then talk to Wingly and work something out. Don't make every private pilot's life more difficult than it need be.
#1885872
THIS IS ABSURD!

A prime example of law of unintended (?) consequences and a knew jerk reaction.

Examples

1) So the FAA as well as now the proposed U.K. interpretation is that ferry flights with coat sharing are illegal.
- you can’t take your friend to from an airport where he’s stranded
- you can’t get someone to pick you up from an annual/maintenance flight
2) if your partner says “fancy going to Le Touqet” you can’t go as you didn’t suggest it
3) if your family are visiting and want to see what light aircraft flying is like you can’t do it because you hadn’t already booked the flight and you already know what light aircraft are likes

And so on
russp, GeorgeJLA liked this
#1885873
This is total rubbish - they are living on another planet. If implemented - this will kill off 50-60% of private flying - and will thus kill off private aviation.

They are trying to stop illegal charters - but instead of enforcing the laws and catching the bad guys, they are putting a massive burden on, (and penalising) every private pilot that ever takes his friends to Sandown for lunch - or is asked to give someone a lift to collect deliver or collect their plane from their maintenance base.

I am a moderately experienced PPL and I own a reasonably fast 6 seat aircraft. As a result, I am frequently asked to fly other pilots to deliver or collect aircraft from maintenance locations - or if an aircraft goes tech somewhere, I might be asked to fly the pilot and perhaps an engineer, plus his tools and spares - to retrieve the stuck aircraft. Up to now, the a/c pilot / owner has simply replaced the fuel I use on the trip.

I couldn't demonstrate common cause because if my mate's aircraft hadn't gone tech -I would not be going there - and I certainly can't afford to be that charitable that I fly all my mates around the country entirely out of my own pocket. Under the proposed rules - this would have to stop - and everyone would have to travel by car or public transport.
(How would that work taking an aircraft to Europe for maintenance as we did a couple of weeks back)?

Another friend (a well known forumite) has his own shareoplane, however when it was not available, he may have asked me to fly him & his wife / family to his holiday home. I would be combining going there for a nice fish lunch - whilst giving my friend a lift to his holiday home - where he might stayfor some days. At some future date, I would again fly there for a nice lunch - and combine that with giving my friend a lift home. Frequently, I might invite a student or inexperienced PPL to join me as a learning experience. How would I demonstrate "Common purpose" on such trip?

Just last night, a friend texted me asking me to fly him up to the North of England to collect a new aircraft he has purchased. Under the new rules, I would be forced to say "Im really sorry mate, I can't do it as I can't afford to pay 50% of the cost of that flight, you will either have hire a commercial charter - or go by surface transport".

At my club, we organise flyouts twice per week where anywhere from 3 - 12 aircraft will fly from our home airfield to perhaps 2 or even 3 other airfields in a day. In the Sumer, these trips go to mainland Europe every 4-5 weeks.
The purpose of these flyouts is twofold. First as a social event - but secondly to give student pilots and low time PPL's, the opportunity to fly to different airfields and learn from the (usually) more experienced PIC.

We meet up in the clubhouse and discuss what aircraft, pilots and passengers we have - and where to fly (discussing weather, aircraft types and their capabilities / restrictions, required runway lengths - and of course - where has the best cafe). All of which is very educational for the novice pilots. We then allocate passengers to each aircraft and depart. No money is asked, offered or accepted. But if a passenger offers to buy lunch or pay a landing fee - this is generally accepted.
With lots of different and interesting aircraft types, it is very common for passengers to leave home base on one a/c, then on a different a/c for leg two - and a different one again for the 3rd or 4th legs.
I have 6 seat aircraft - and I frequently fly with 3-5 pax on board. With passengers swapping aircraft at each stop, pilots sometimes don't even know the names of all the passengers they have on board until they are strapping them in !
Each of these (relatively simple) flyouts might cost me (and the other owner pilots) between £150 - £300 in fuel, whereas one pax might buy a £10 breakfast and another a £15 Landing fee.

I believe that this experience is highly beneficial for the students and low time PPL's. However if I have to fill in a passenger declaration form and have it signed by every passenger before each and every flight - then I, for one, will simply not bother. It is just too much hassle. I, and most of my colleagues) will simply withdraw from these flyouts and just fly (or swap flights) with fellow aircraft owners. To the significant detriment of our current passengers.

Is this really how the CAA plans to make the UK the best place in the world for GA?

My last word - why should aircraft owners be penalised and be limited to cost sharing the "Direct Costs" of a flight whilst renters can legally share the full cost of renting the aircraft?

Depending on the aircraft type and how much flying it does, the allowable "direct costs" of a particular flight could quite easily be less that 25 or even 20% of the cost of operating that flight.
Even the Inland Revenue accepted this fact - and (although some time ago), used to allow me to claim my travelling cost as "The cost of renting a similar aircraft - less 10%". The 10% being the notional profit that a flying club or FBO might make from renting that aircraft.

Rant over. I need to take some time to construct my response to the CAA as I feel it might be very difficult for me to remain civil and constructive.
johnm, marioair, 100poundburger and 14 others liked this
#1885877
Why are private pilots being attacked?
What if I owned a large car and a friend (with only a small car) asks me to drive him to (say) Birmingham airport to collect his wife and family returning from holiday? Do I have to get them to sign a form confirming that they are aware that I a private (not a Comercial) driver and that being privately owned, my car mat not be maintained to public transport standards?
What if he offers to buy the petrol for the trip? Would I be legally obliged to refuse his Financial contribution?

This proposal is a typical knee jerk reaction. They need to be seen to do something - whether or not it has severally negative side effects.
Rob P, xtophe, russp and 1 others liked this
#1885901
Of course in the wonderful world of "UK Flavour EASA-land" there is a danger that any heavy handed regulation might (by accident) apply to gliders as well as they are part 21 aircraft...... in a high performance two seater it is not unusual for the P2 to pay the launch fee (given the owner(s) have forked out a 6 figure sum for the aircraft in the first place)..... which would of course become illegal under these rules - totally bonkers :roll:
User avatar
By russp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1885906
ls8pilot wrote:Of course in the wonderful world of "UK Flavour EASA-land" there is a danger that any heavy handed regulation might (by accident) apply to gliders as well as they are part 21 aircraft...... in a high performance two seater it is not unusual for the P2 to pay the launch fee (given the owner(s) have forked out a 6 figure sum for the aircraft in the first place)..... which would of course become illegal under these rules - totally bonkers :roll:

This applies to any aircraft .. not just part 21 aircraft.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 19