Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 19
#1886129
I sincerely doubt I would ask any of the friends I take flying to sign such a piece of nonsense. It probably doesn't really apply to me anyway, I can't remember the last time I did a formal cost-share flight.

Rob P
#1886134
RisePilot wrote:Some friends/family want to split up the cost of a flight; it's nobody else's damn business.


It’s nobody business if payment is done with other means than cash :lol:

I now some people are not comfortable with Wingly trial flights? pseudo public transport? or flying with people they don’t know? or want to stop things like Sala grey charter happening again?

But I just don’t want to get a**d with paperwork on who I fly with? why? when/where? and what arrangements we have between: cash, favour, relationship or just chemicals of the day…it’s no one else business, including CAA !

I doubt grey charter (like Sala one) will disappear because of this nonsense, it’s here forever unless someone start looking at flying patterns & evidence analysis, I doubt sending paper forms to some bureaucrates to sit on them will sort that out…

FAA rules are not perfect: an FAA CFI (read someone “very pro” who has proper CPL/ATP + proper IR unlike 90% of instructors down this side of the pond :lol: ) can get caught under “common purpose rule” if he leaves his students behind on A to B training flight…

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/he ... tation.pdf
Last edited by Ibra on Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:49 pm, edited 9 times in total.
#1886136
Rob P wrote:I sincerely doubt I would ask any of the friends I take flying to sign such a piece of nonsense. It probably doesn't really apply to me anyway, I can't remember the last time I did a formal cost-share flight.

Rob P


That’s the nub of the problem though. Many have never done a formal cost share and wouldn’t dream of doing so. When this sort of knee-jerk legislative response occurs the consequence can be that normal, legal activities get roped into the quagmire. Failure to comply becomes an offence. Awful.
flybymike liked this
#1886142
Ibra wrote:
I doubt grey charter (like Sala one) will disappear because of this nonsense, it’s here forever unless someone start looking at flying patterns & evidence analysis, I doubt sending paper forms to some bureaucrates to sit on them will sort that out…


I think the first thing that needs to be done, is stop using the term grey.

A charter is either legal or it isn't. It's black or white, nothing else.

If Ibbotson had been ramp checked, would he have been stopped under the current rules?
#1886151
Sooty25 wrote:If Ibbotson had been ramp checked, would he have been stopped under the current rules?


You mean ramp checked by CAA at Nantes before his flight? or after his landing at Cardiff?

I doubt that flight broke any of rules we are debating here, it was simply not a “cost-share flight”: he did not post it on Wingly, he did not put a clubhouse notice board, it was not a club fly-in, not buddies hour building, he was not flying his friend/family, or picking his stranded best pilot friend…

I am not even sure who paid for fuel at the pump in Nantes? the pilot? the pax? or someone else?
#1886161
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
A4 Pacific wrote:I disagree.

1) Just because we can’t prevent law breaking doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. That’s perverse!

2) After Henderson, you don’t think there’s a problem? Really? Comments about Wingly and PPLs turning up with 4 bars on their shoulders. The fairly widespread suggestion that suspicious activity is not unusual, but people don’t wish to ‘get involved’?



This is a problem of non-enforcement.

Every few weeks the little van of the German CAA is seen on the airfield and they do ask to see people's papers.

To hope that the problem goes away with other pilots being 'vigilant' seems naive in the extreme.


I agree.

In as much as the lack of precise definition makes it difficult to enforce. Leaving grey areas in which the unscrupulous and Walter Mittys can operate with impunity.

Some people want to see this lack of clarity persist. I’m not one of them.

I hope we follow the German’s example.
#1886171
Ibra wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:If Ibbotson had been ramp checked, would he have been stopped under the current rules?


You mean ramp checked by CAA at Nantes before his flight? or after his landing at Cardiff?

I doubt that flight broke any of rules we are debating here, it was simply not a “cost-share flight”: he did not post it on Wingly, he did not put a clubhouse notice board, it was not a club fly-in, not buddies hour building, he was not flying his friend/family, or picking his stranded best pilot friend…

I am not even sure who paid for fuel at the pump in Nantes? the pilot? the pax? or someone else?


I was referring to the outbound Cardiff to Nantes leg.

Would pilot, aeroplane, passenger and flightplan have passed basic scrutiny under current rules?
#1886180
A4 Pacific wrote:Some people want to see this lack of clarity persist. I’m not one of them.


I'm all for clarity and ridding the world of illegal charters - I just don't want unnecessary rules and burdensome process to impact law abiding GA pilots.

Ian
Sooty25, flybymike, Flyin'Dutch' and 6 others liked this
#1886198
MattL wrote:Ok, so let’s take a scenario of a recently qualified PPL, no IMC or IR, renting a Cherokee 6 from Oxford. He needs to build hours for his Modular CPL. He flys 4 people he has never met from his dads business as cost share people to Scotland for a stag do and back. They have to go on Friday night and back Sunday afternoon. He pays £1 each way and his ‘passengers’ pay the other £700+ each way costs.

Do we think that is reasonable and safe activity? Would that be permitted under the current regs? How would greater enforcement of the current regs work?


Under the new proposals, the same flight flown by the same low hours pilot would be legal provided he was going to the stag party and paid a higher proportion of the costs. So how would safety be in any way improved ?
johnm, GrahamB, flybymike and 1 others liked this
#1886204
Rob P wrote:I sincerely doubt I would ask any of the friends I take flying to sign such a piece of nonsense. It probably doesn't really apply to me anyway, I can't remember the last time I did a formal cost-share flight.


I might be misreading this, but the way I read it (link) is an 'and' requirement.

there has been no remuneration or other valuable consideration ..... and the conditions in paragraph (2) are satisfied.


So giving someone a lift for free becomes illegal if you don't have a common purpose, or if you don't fill in the declaration. I hope that is poor drafting, not the actual intention.

Edit to add: Whilst I'm not a fan of mandatory paperwork, I confess that I often use a variation of the charity flight disclaimers when taking non-flyers flying .... not because I expect them to cause any issue, but it does feel fair to make them aware of what they are agreeing to. None has ever changed their mind as a result!
G-BLEW liked this
#1886208
Sooty25 wrote:I was referring to the outbound Cardiff to Nantes leg.

Would pilot, aeroplane, passenger and flightplan have passed basic scrutiny under current rules?


I doubt anything would have come up out of it with regards to commercial operations or cost-sharing, maybe finding that pilot was not properly rated? (he flew ILS on arrival to Nantes in N-reg without FAA IR, not sure if he flew that on IFR FPL or just asked ATC? I think he had IMCr but it's not valid or expired)

AFAIK, DGAC does inspect flights, I have landed once when they were on standby waiting for a BizJet from Switzerland at Châteauroux, also French customs also have deep interest on N-reg aircraft, especially those who fly (paying) EU citizens, the flight clearly broke load of FAA rules (even legal EASA cost-sharing is viewed illegal on N-reg) to be likely picked up on a very thourough ramp checks on arrival...
#1886229
Rob P wrote:I sincerely doubt I would ask any of the friends I take flying to sign such a piece of nonsense. It probably doesn't really apply to me anyway, I can't remember the last time I did a formal cost-share flight.

Rob P

And I wonder whether for some, who have perhaps lost their mojo for flying following the layoff due COVID, this might be another reason to consider quitting altogether, if these proposals came to pass, on the basis that they’d consider it a layer of bureaucracy too far?

Ian
Rob P, flybymike liked this
#1886262
It's all completely misplaced and unfortunately a very dated approach to trying to solve the problem of grey charters, classic CAA beauracracy and policy wonk rubbish. Come on you lot - you can do better!

Human behaviour cannot be controlled via a more tightly controlled system, the unscrupulous and greedy will always find a way around whatever system or legislation is put in place.

There is no golden bullet or winning formula for success here and increasing beauracracy will only stifle and suffocate the GA community, particularly the young and new pilots who rely on the freedom to take friends, family, friends of friends, work mates etc flying as a way to help subsidise their fledgling careers or passion or both.

The only sensible approach is working harder and more innovatively to try and educate those potential passengers of what a grey charter is (or frankly what is ok and what is not ok - pretty black and white). Plus, perhaps and I'm not sure about this, possible occasional "dip tests" of flights undertaken if they have been highlighted as flights of concern via an anonymous feedback channel.

I'm very grateful to the OP for highlighting this and providing the link. I shall reply first thing tomorrow.

Snorker
G-BLEW, Supercat liked this
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 19