S300 - Share the cost anyone?

[Kopterman]

I've got about 100hrs on the Schweizer 300 and after completing my ATPL(H) Theory course, I'm looking to build around 50hrs before the CPL(H) Course. I was just wondering if anybody in the SE/London area wanted to do some shared flying?

My only request is that I'm able to log the P1 flight time towards my 155hrs needed!

Many thanks,

KM :)

[broottmeenoo]

Hi,
Can 2 pilots log P1 like in the US?
If not, what's the interest in sharing with you?
It's not even loggable for me, not even as "instruction received" since you are not FI...

[Whirlygig]

I'm in the same boat Kopterman (with slightly more hours!), what's in it for me? I pay half the cost and you log the hours. You won't get anyone wanting to particpate in that sort of scheme if they are a pilot as well. How much of the Air Law have you studied?

It seems as if you might be advertising for some pleasure flying?

Cheers

Whirls

[elena]

So if I fly with you, can you teach me at half the cost (you wrote "share flying") or is it something I misunderstood?

[Whirlygig]

So if I fly with you, can you teach me at half the cost (you wrote "share flying") or is it something I misunderstood?
Nope! He/she has not even got a CPL(H) let alone an FI. So, not instruction, just ...er... as I said ... pleasure flying!

Cheers

Whirls


...in a grumpy mood!

[Kopterman]

I'm in the same boat Kopterman (with slightly more hours!), what's in it for me? I pay half the cost and you log the hours. You won't get anyone wanting to particpate in that sort of scheme if they are a pilot as well. How much of the Air Law have you studied?

It seems as if you might be advertising for some pleasure flying?

Cheers

Whirls

Whirls,

This was in fact originally posted on the PPL Forum, intended for existing ppl(H) pilots that do not plan to carry on further with their studies and are thus not concerned about logging the P1 time!

I never mentioned that it would be a 50/50 share...assumptions are the mutha of all f****ups! I'm just simply looking for a possible win win scenario.

FYI I got a 92% pass mark in my Air Law exam, albeit over a year ago. There is nothing illegal about sharing costs - as far as I remember you are just not allowed to fly for renumeration!

Comments welcome...

KM

[Kopterman]

So if I fly with you, can you teach me at half the cost (you wrote "share flying") or is it something I misunderstood?

Definitely not...this would be highly irresponsible, dangerous & illegal. I'm just looking to partner up with another PPL(H) to share the costs (whatever the split) and perhaps be able to log the P1 time!

Many thanks,

KM

[Kopterman]

Hi,
Can 2 pilots log P1 like in the US?
If not, what's the interest in sharing with you?
It's not even loggable for me, not even as "instruction received" since you are not FI...

Didn't know that 2 pilots could both log P1 at the same time in the US? I can't imagine the CAA allowing this here though?

If you need the P1 time as well, then this is obviously not intended for you!

Regards,

KM

[Pandalet]

Maybe I'm just being dense here, but I'm still not seeing the advantage to someone who actually has a PPL(H) in paying to be a pax. It would be different if you were looking for people who didn't have a PPL but wanted some cheap being-flown-around time.

Also, and I may well be wrong here, but isn't there a prohibition against advertising for people to share costs with in a public way, when flying on a PPL? I seem to remember that the rules went, it's ok to share costs, so long as the pilot pays at least his fair share, no more than 4 people in the aircraft, and the flight isn't advertised. I'm sure Flying Lawyer could answer this one!

[elena]

"If you need the P1 time as well, then this is obviously not intended for you!"

Then for whom is is intended?:confused:

Not for student pilot...:(

Not for "PPL that do not plan ...":bored:

Please explain...:)

Yes, you never mentionned it was a 50/50 share, so what is it:confused:
If you don't mention it, then you are bound for "assumptions are the mutha of all f....ups!"

Don't get mad...just asking...:confused:

[broottmeenoo]

Definitely not...this would be highly irresponsible, dangerous & illegal. I'm just looking to partner up with another PPL(H) to share the costs (whatever the split) and perhaps be able to log the P1 time!
Many thanks,
KM

The "perhaps" make it sounds like you are retreating from your initial post.
Have you had second thought about this...:hmm:

[Rotorbee]

In the US you can not log both PIC-time. Only the sole manipular of the controls. Anything else is a missconception, but that part of the FARs is often missunderstud.
:8

[Lightning_Boy]

You can log PIC if you already hold a PPL. So even if you have an instructor on board and perhaps, working toward a CPL or IR, all flight time can be logged as PIC. Down side is, if you then fly in JAR land and plan to use hours flown in the US, none of these PIC hours count.

LB

[Kopterman]

In the US you can not log both PIC-time. Only the sole manipular of the controls. Anything else is a missconception, but that part of the FARs is often missunderstud.
:8

I was recently informed by a CFI that in order to reduce costs I could fly with another ppl(h), say 50:50 split (in both terms of cost & time flown) and be allowed to log the whole flight time as PIC/P1 time?

Is this legal or have I misunderstood (or been ill advised)?

Cheers,

KM

[broottmeenoo]

In the US you can not log both PIC-time. Only the sole manipular of the controls. Anything else is a missconception, but that part of the FARs is often missunderstud.
:8

Once I flew with my friend in a Baron55.
She never took the controls of any airplane before.
Then I handed her the controls for a few minutes to get the feel.
She was then "sole manipulator of the controls".

What you are saying is: she can log PIC since she was sole manipulator of the controls, you cannot even though you were MEI and responsible for this flight?:ugh:

[Whirlygig]

This was in fact originally posted on the PPL Forum, intended for existing ppl(H) pilots that do not plan to carry on further with their studies and are thus not concerned about logging the P1 time!
... and from what I saw on there, you declined the young PPL(A) lad who wanted a go - he was your only offer! OK, he wouldn't be able to manipulate the controls but he may contribute towards a flight as a taster. Contrary to what people on there say, it would be illegal for him to "have a go".

I never mentioned that it would be a 50/50 share...assumptions are the mutha of all f****ups! I'm just simply looking for a possible win win scenario.
It cannot be any more than 50% contribution (assuming 1 passenger) but it could be as little as a penny! Yes, I assumed 50% but I'm not the only one who made that assumption.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch so your win/win scenario is a trifle optimistic.

FYI I got a 92% pass mark in my Air Law exam, albeit over a year ago. There is nothing illegal about sharing costs - as far as I remember you are just not allowed to fly for renumeration! Good for you! See my point above and Pandalet's comments re advertising.

I, along with a few others, cannot see who this offer is aimed at whether Rotorheads or Private Flying except a fixed wing pilot who may want a taster of rotary i.e. a pleasure flight. Why would any PPL(H) whether working towards a professional qualification or not, want to pay for hours they cannot log? Would you?

Cheers

Whirls

[broottmeenoo]

I was recently informed by a CFI that in order to reduce costs I could fly with another ppl(h), say 50:50 split (in both terms of cost & time flown) and be allowed to log the whole flight time as PIC/P1 time?
Is this legal or have I misunderstood (or been ill advised)?
Cheers,
KM

But you said earlier you never mentionned 50/50 split, so I guess it was not your intention:bored:
So why mentioning now what your CFI told you about this "say 50:50 split":ugh:

[Rotorbee]

@ Lightning_Boy
This is only correct, if the instructor acts as flight instructor. Two PPLs, which would be the case here, can not log both PIC-time. If the CFI does all the flying, he acts as the PIC and the PPL can not log PIC-time. That is the same for two CFIs flying together for fun and not for instruction. Only the one who is the sole manipulator of the controls can log PIC. The only difference is, that when you, as a rated pilot, fly with a CFI who instructs you, you can log PIC-time. There is a reason to this and you can ask the FAA why they do things diffrent then the CAA which is the one and only real rule making agency in the world.
:zzz:

[Rotorbee]

@ broottmeenoo
We were talking about rated pilots. Are you a CFI for MEL? If yes, she could have logged PIC time. If no, then not because you can not act as a CFI, therefore the stick time is useless for her.
If you are flying along in a helicopter and you are not rated for helicopters (but anything else like hot air ballon) and the flying pilot is not a CFI Rotorcraft acting as an instructor, then you can manipulate whatever you want as long as you like, you can not log PIC.
Yup, the FARs are sometimes as complicated as JAR. And sometimes the FAA has a completely different view then you.
The difference to JAR is, that you can log PIC when an Instructor is on bord acting as one and you are allready a rated pilot in that category (or class?) of aircraft. Otherwise no PIC. :8

[Flying Lawyer]

With one exception (see below) I don't see anything illegal in what Kopterman has proposed.


Air Navigation Order 2005

160. Public transport and aerial work—exceptions—cost sharing

(1) ............... a flight shall be deemed to be a private flight if the only valuable consideration given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight falls within paragraph (2) and the the criteria in paragraph (3) are satisfied.


(2) Valuable consideration falls within this paragraph if it is —(a) n/a(b) n/a(c) is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the pilot in command; or falls within any two or all three sub-paragraphs.(3) The criteria in this paragraph are satisfied if—(a) no more than 4 persons (including the pilot) are carried;(b) the proportion which the contribution referred to in paragraph (2)(c) bears to the direct costs shall not exceed the proportion which the number of persons carried on the flight (excluding the pilot) bears to the number of persons carried (including the pilot);(c) no information shall have been published or advertised prior to 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 in which case all the persons carried on such a flight who are aged 18 years or over shall be members of that flying club; and(d) n/a

He is not publishing information or advertising a flight. He could only do that under the conditions specified in (c) above. He is looking for people to cost share. The Private Flying forum has had a 'spare seat' thread (some cost-sharing, some free) for some time without, as far as I know, any problems.

I'm mystified by the almost aggressive tone of some posters here. Those who see no advantage for them won't take up the suggestion; others may. I suspect the idea may be more attractive to those without a PPL(H). He may or may not find anyone taking up his suggestion, but I don't understand the criticism of him for trying.


Kopterman
You can not "fly with another ppl(h), say 50:50 split (in both terms of cost & time flown) and be allowed to log the whole flight time as PIC/P1 time."
You have either misunderstood your CFI or been ill advised. You are only entitled to log the time you fly.


(Edit)

Whirlygig
Surely Kopter's response to the PPL(A) who 'wanted a go' as part of the cost share was entirely proper?


FL

[Rotorbee]

I was recently informed by a CFI that in order to reduce costs I could fly with another ppl(h), say 50:50 split (in both terms of cost & time flown) and be allowed to log the whole flight time as PIC/P1 time?
Is this legal or have I misunderstood (or been ill advised)?
KM
I do not know if you misunderstood, but under the FARs, this is not legal. You and your PPL friend can only log the flight time you where the sole maniplator of the controls, and not the whole flight.

[thecontroller]

under JAA if two PPL-only holders fly together they CANNOT both log PIC time. if they fly for an hour and share the flying, then they log 30 mins each

the only advantage for these two people, is if they BOTH want to build hours and want to fly further away from their home base. eg one flys from redhill to bristol, the other flys back. and they both share the cost

[Heliport]

Kopterman

This post may be of interest to you - Post #162 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2696041&postcount=162)

[rudestuff]

Although a few of you were close (about the FAA system)

Here it is:

Under the FAA system two PPLs cannot just take out an aircraft VFR and both log PIC, obviously.

A PPL can fly with a CFI and both log PIC: The PPL is Legally PIC - the CFI can log because it is a privilege of his CFI ticket (this would equate to flying P1u/s back home I guess)

Here's the Golden egg: Two PPL's can go out and practice instrument flying together - one under the hood and one as safety pilot. The aircraft is now (by regulation) a two pilot aircraft, so you can both log the time.
You can log one of two ways; PIC under hood and SIC as safety, or if you both agree that the safety is PIC (accepts responsibiliy for flight) - he or she can log PIC AND the person under the hood can log PIC as sole manipulator of controls.

In a nutshell in the US you can have two PICs on the same flight as long as you've got a hood - of course none of this really matters because we weren't talking FAA in the first place!!

[helicopter-redeye]

I'm mystified by the almost aggressive tone of some posters here. [ FL

I guess a lot of people look at the individuals profile to assess 'where they are coming from' in flying terms.

[Flying Lawyer]

You could be right but, I'd be disappointed if you are - not least because I don't think Kopter's profile says anything about where he's 'coming from', in flying or any other terms, other than he's trying to find ways of building hours as economically as possible.

I'm not suggesting it applies in this instance, but I have noticed on numerous occasions that more people use more energy coming up with arguments why someone can't do something because of the Regs (or why what they did was in breach of the Regs) than finding arguments why they can (or it wasn't.)
Brits are by far the worst.
(Not all Brits, obviously.)

[Lightning_Boy]

@rudestuff

Not quite sure how that would work either, unless one of the PPL's was instrument rated in the first place in order to be flying simulated instruments. Agreed then the 2nd pilot could sit as a safety pilot, but as he had no CFII rating, he could not be giving instruction, so the number 1 pilot must hold an IR?

LB

[Whirlybird]

Why would any PPL(H) whether working towards a professional qualification or not, want to pay for hours they cannot log? Would you?

No, personally I wouldn't. But it took me about 30 seconds to think of the following hypothetical people who might....

1) A PPL(H) has lost their medical, but is likely to get it back again in a few months. He/she would like to do some flying to keep current, but naturally can't log it.
2) A pilot is in the UK, but has a foreign licence. They would like to do some flying, without paying for an instructor or jumping through all the hoops required to be P1 over here.
3) A PPL(H) can't afford to fly helicopters any more. He'd just like to occasionally, and doesn't care about logging the hours.
4) Same as number 3, but this PPL's rating has lapsed since he/she can't afford to keep it up.
5) The pilot isn't rated on the 300, but has flown it a bit and would like another go. Or his 300 rating has lapsed, perhaps.

Give me another 30 seconds and I'll think of some more.

Now, some of these might be illegal if having a go is illegal, or letting your "passenger" fly is illegal, with you as PIC. Flying Lawyer and Whirlygig and others, are you sure this is the case? If so, where is it written please?

I too simply don't understand all the aggro this simple request has generated, either on this thread or the one on Private Flying. :confused: :confused:

[Flying Lawyer]

"Flying Lawyer and Whirlygig and others, are you sure this is the case? If so, where is it written please?"

I didn't say it.

Nor am I convinced that letting a passenger touch the controls provided the pilot retains control of the aircraft is illegal.

[Whirlybird]

Ah, I misunderstood you, reading in a hurry early in the morning, sorry. I certainly always assumed that as PIC, I could let my passengers handle the controls if I wanted to - bearing in mind common sense and safety of course! And so long as the PIC has control of the aircraft, as you say.

[Flying Lawyer]

I can't be absolute either way, because it's a matter of interpretation.

I always assumed that allowing an unqualified passenger to touch the controls was illegal until my assumption was challenged by an aviation solicitor (and, coincidentally, former pro pilot). His argument was that provided the PiC retained control of the aircraft, then he was flying, not the passenger.
It was one of those discussions which seemed very interesting over a glass of wine but was then forgotten about and never resolved. :)
We thought it was going to be relevant in a case in which he was instructing me as Counsel, but it turned out not to be so the argument wasn't resolved in court.
On balance, I think his view is probably correct.

[Whirlybird]

On balance, I think his view is probably correct.

I'm not a lawyer, but logic tells me that he has to be correct. If I'm PIC, then my decision goes, doesn't it? And if I say I still have control of the aircraft while my unqualified passenger manipulates the controls, who's to say I haven't?

Of course, Air Law and common sense and/or logic aren't necessarily the same thing, are they? :(

But I've never seen anything in writing about it, and neither has anyone else, which is probably why we all make assumptions about it. And since it's not in writing anywhere, I'll carry on with what I've always thought. :ok:

[Rotorbee]

Although a few of you were close (about the FAA system)
Here it is:
Under the FAA system two PPLs cannot just take out an aircraft VFR and both log PIC, obviously.
Here's the Golden egg: Two PPL's can go out and practice instrument flying together - one under the hood and one as safety pilot. The aircraft is now (by regulation) a two pilot aircraft, so you can both log the time.
You can log one of two ways; PIC under hood and SIC as safety, or if you both agree that the safety is PIC (accepts responsibiliy for flight) - he or she can log PIC AND the person under the hood can log PIC as sole manipulator of controls.
In a nutshell in the US you can have two PICs on the same flight as long as you've got a hood - of course none of this really matters because we weren't talking FAA in the first place!!
And you did not get it completely right either. :=
The safety pilot can only log the time as PIC, where he acted as a required crew member. Which means only the time, that the other pilot is under the hood and flying in simulated instrument conditions. Look here (http://www.geocities.com/cfidarren/r-logsptime.htm)
Now we leave it at that I think.
:)

[Pandalet]

Since we're on the topic, I'd like to confirm something:


He is not publishing information or advertising a flight. He could only do that under the conditions specified in (c) above. He is looking for people to cost share. The Private Flying forum has had a 'spare seat' thread (some cost-sharing, some free) for some time without, as far as I know, any problems.


So it's legal to ask for people to cost share while I fly (on my PPL), so long as I'm not advertising a specific flight? I.e. posting a note at my local supermarket saying "looking for people who want to be flown around for half the aircraft hire cost" is ok, but sticking up a note on (say) my company noticeboard saying "I'm flying from Southend to Heathrow on Sunday in an R22, anybody want to come along and share the cost?" isn't? The difference being that in the ok version, no specific flight is being advertised or alluded to?

I'm not nit-picking or having a go here, I really want to understand the law and current situation, since it will shortly apply to me.

[Kopterman]

With one exception (see below) I don't see anything illegal in what Kopterman has proposed.



He is not publishing information or advertising a flight. He could only do that under the conditions specified in (c) above. He is looking for people to cost share. The Private Flying forum has had a 'spare seat' thread (some cost-sharing, some free) for some time without, as far as I know, any problems.

I'm mystified by the almost aggressive tone of some posters here. Those who see no advantage for them won't take up the suggestion; others may. I suspect the idea may be more attractive to those without a PPL(H). He may or may not find anyone taking up his suggestion, but I don't understand the criticism of him for trying.


Kopterman
You can not "fly with another ppl(h), say 50:50 split (in both terms of cost & time flown) and be allowed to log the whole flight time as PIC/P1 time."
You have either misunderstood your CFI or been ill advised. You are only entitled to log the time you fly.


(Edit)

Whirlygig
Surely Kopter's response to the PPL(A) who 'wanted a go' as part of the cost share was entirely proper?


FL

Many thanks Flying Lawyer...I think that about sums it up!

KM :D

[Kopterman]

Kopterman
This post may be of interest to you - Post #162 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2696041&postcount=162)

Nice one...exactly the kind of thing that I was looking for!

Many thanks,

KM :ok:

[rudestuff]

Rotorbee: Er.... obviously! I said you can both log PIC if you have a hood - I kind of thought it went without saying that you actually have to be wearing it!!!

Lightning boy: You only need an IR to fly in actual IMC - anyone can put on a hood and practice simulated IMC. You just need a safety pilot suitably rated in the aircraft (ie: PPL) - you don't need a CFII unless you want to log it as instruction. Under the FAA system, you need 40hrs of instrument time, but only 15 hours of it needs to be from a CFII. The rest can be from your buddy.