Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 19
#1885718
I have responded. Requirement for equal cost sharing could reduce the number of legitimate cost share flights. This is not the intention. It will also outlaw me taking a friend who wants to make a more generous contribution to the flight than exactly 50 percent. Obviously people will in general ignore that but I think it is a step backwards. Do I have to keep signed records of every flight where friends and family contribute some money towards the cost? Crazy idea.

"Something had to be done" after the Sala case but these proposals don't quite work in my view.
flybymike liked this
User avatar
By russp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1885733
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.
ls8pilot, IFly172, RDWE liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1885735
For me, with an obvious vested interest, the issue with cost sharing is that as an aircraft owner, I pay at least as much per hour for my flying as a renter (more fool me, you might say), but any cost sharing cannot include a contribution towards the fixed costs.
russp, MikeW, IFly172 and 1 others liked this
#1885742
c) 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 a case in which all the persons carried on
such a flight who are aged 18 years or over are members of that
flying club


There goes Wingly.

Rob P
#1885744
Sadly this response form only has six queries (of which only 4 queries having any real relevance). See below.

1) Do you support the alignment and improvement of the regulations in order to improve the safety of cost sharing flights and to make it more difficult for them to be used as a cover for illegal CAT or PT flights?

This is a leading query, when you don’t know how it will be done

2) Do you support the proposal to amend both the ANO and the Air Operations Regulation to include a ‘common purpose of travel’ requirement for each cost shared flight if not A to A?

Why does it matter where you fly to; there are a myriad of reasons why you wouldn't end up back at base

3) Do you support the proposal to amend both the ANO and the Air Operations Regulation to include an ‘equal shares’ requirement for each cost shared flight?

No, don’t care

4) Do you support the proposal that all passengers should complete a Passenger Declaration and Consent Form to ensure they are fully aware that cost sharing flights differ from CAT and PT pilot qualifications and maintenance standards?

No, this is asinine

5) Do you think that the proposed amendments to both the ANO and the Air Operations Regulation will have a financial impact on cost sharing flight platforms?

WTF, this such an extraneous query, what does one's personal view on a company's EBITDA margins have to do with flight safety

6) Do you have any other comments on the consultation document that you would like to share?

Tell them not to be dumbasses when making new regs
#1885747
I see they've got some spare space on page 3 of the Essential Passenger Information and Declaration Form. They could have used it to capture other essential infomation such as the address and date of birth of each passenger as well as detailing the declared costs which are being shared.
Really, they've not been trying hard enough. :roll:

</irony>FWIW I have replied opposings the proposals.

PS. It could be a consultation like the one many years ago (pre-EASA, I think) when they asked about a proposal to change the 500ft rule. It got a very negative response from across the board and the proposal was dropped. The CAA's official response went along the lines of "we thought people would object but we were required to ask".
Last edited by Mz Hedy on Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By flybymike
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1885748
A strict interpretation of “common purpose” will prevent many cost shared flights taking place, and “consent” forms from passengers will terrify them out of the flight before they have even stepped into the aircraft, unless of course they are between pilots who already know what the risks are anyway.
Question number one is loaded and worded in such a way that it might just as well have been “Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no? I mean, who the hell is going to tick the “no” box to say they are not in favour of improving safety?
#1885750
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
flybymike, rdfb liked this
#1885755
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:The problem is not that the rules are not clear.

It is lack of enforcement.


You are of course absolutely correct.

However, might I suggest we aren’t being canvassed for our views on enforcement. Probably because that ship has already sailed, and I sincerely hope we will see and hear of more visible enforcement from now on.

What the authority seems to be attempting to achieve here is a far more clear cut and easy to prove, identification of when flights are something other than they claim to be.

I have read on this forum it’s a difficult offence to prove? This will help to change that and I have responded accordingly.

It’s been far too easy to get away with this dangerous greedy fraud for far too long!
JJMurphy liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 19