What is `promoting a flight` and the ANO?

[swflyer]

Hi,

I'm really struggling with this definition of `advertising` for private flights in the ANO.

I am a enthusiastic pilot who also happens to be a web designer. I want to build a website that lists the most exciting flights I've been on with friends and then explains the trips in a nice way with pictures (I like building websites). It then lists how much it would cost if 3 of us were splitting the costs, or 4 of us etc, etc. I want to do this because generally I find that if I say to people `do you want to go flying?`, the give me blank expressions. If I say, `do you want to go to France because it's like this and we'll visit the shops and eat at this restaurant`, then they go yes please!!

So, I want to build a nice website that explains what is possible but where all we are doing is splitting the costs equally, as per the ANO.

Now, to make sure it's not a `public website`, which clearly would be in breach of the ANO, it would be behind a login system. I would only give a login password to my friends. If any member of the 'public' stumbled across it, they would simply get rejected by the system.

While in principle I can't see what's wrong with this, we are talking about the law here. In the ANO it says that you are only allowed to promote flights within a flying club. I have searched the web but I can't seem to find any clear definition of `flying club`? If my website is password protected and therefore only accessible by my friends, is that a `flying club`? or do I have to charge them £1 each to be a `member`?

The final point is that the ANO says it can only be promoted within the flying club's "premises". Well obviously this is 2012 and since the invention of websites does that mean that the website is the `premises`? After all, only my `members`/ my friends would be able to see the `promotion`.

Any thoughts on this because it just seems crazy that the only way you are allowed to entice friends with the excitement of flights is by doing a masonic style handshake and a nod-nod-wink-wink? I want to enjoy flying :)

Many thanks for your thoughts.

[Whopity]

that the only way you are allowed to entice friends with the excitement of flights So your purpose is clear, you wish to entice friends for excitement! That is precisely what the ANO is trying to prevent. If you advertise a flight within a Flying Club, then there is a fair probability that people who frequent the premises of a flying club will be aware that the level of risk associated with private flying is higher than you might expect on a public transport flight. They can therefore make a reasoned judgement as to whether they travel with you as a passenger or not.

A club may have a website, but your website clearly is not a flying club site.

[1800ed]

You could come at it from a different angle; keeping a blog about your flying trips isn't really promoting, it's merely factual details about events which have happened.

[peterh337]

I agree with your drift, Whopity, but is there any case law on this?

IMHO, IANAL, etc, but I don't think the CAA is going to fall over itself to rush to Court to test this one, because there is a fair chance that a www-based club is a club like any other.

The world is changing all the time. I hate Fa**b00k and Tw1tter with a vengeance (kids would be so much better off making real friends, and wasting less time and their parents' money on their phones) but grab 1000 teenagers and ask them if their Fa**b00k community is real or fake...

The "seat sharing" websites are obviously advertising cost sharing, primarily. Many (most?) rental-level PPLs will not do any flight unless they can cost-share, and the schools offer a very limited opportunity for digging out passengers. The cost share is agreed off the site, by email.

There has never AFAIK been an attack by the CAA on seat sharing websites.

That said, the OP should be careful because under the UK Civil Aviation Act there is no passenger liability unless the pilot is found negligent, so any injured passengers have a huge financial incentive to lie about the preceeding financial arrangements; if they can show that the pilot did something illegal they will get a payout, and if they are not pilots themselves they have nothing (no license) to lose by perjury because they can always claim they are not aviation people and do not understand the ANO... So if I was cost sharing I would probably do it in a manner which leaves a record on the ground of the agreed arrangements.

A lot of people cost share by doing it only after landing, but that doesn't solve the problem.

I am N-reg so cannot cost-share anyway, so I don't.

A flying "blog" itself is a non-issue; I have trip writeups here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/). No invitation to cost share is implied.

[swflyer]

Interesting point but if you have a disclaimer that they have to click to enter the website that says that they agree that this is a private flight operating under private rules with me your friend and therefore is not regulated under public transport...blah....blah is that ok? Would this be the same as accepting the T&C of any website?

I'm just trying to play with ideas here because there's got to be some way of doing it. If we were down the pub we would say, `come with me, it's great`, so why can't you put it on a non-public website that only your friends have access to?

Thanks for your thoughts guys.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I resisted any involvement with f****k for years, but eventually became a devout convert.

Flying isn't my only hobby, and I make no secret of a strong interest in martial arts. As it happens I just spent half of this weekend having a great time at an Aikido seminar which was largely organised through f*****k with discussions about who was going, where we would train, who was teaching - etc. I can't honestly see much difference between a private f*****k page or website for a small martial arts community and a small flying community. And once it exists, the people know and do stuff together, to hell with it, call it a club.

G

[jollyrog]

Don't send a userid and password to the CAA.

[Whopity]

but if you have a disclaimer that they have to click to enter the website

Would this be the same as accepting the T&C of any website? Lets be honest, nobody reads that bull**** or takes any notice of it, you simply click to bypass it.

The CAA is not pro-active in these matters however; it does advise the government on safety issues and rules associated with them. Come the day you have an accident, you will find that your friends are not quite as friendly as you thought when they try and sue you or your estate for their injuries or losses. I have been an expert witness in one such case and they can get quite messy. The rules are there to help you and the primary issue is cost sharing; why else would you want to entice friends to go flying other than to reduce the cost to you? Just remember in doing so you expose yourself to an element of risk and some clever lawyer who makes his money out of your missfortune will use everything in the book to prove its your fault.

[Pace]

risk associated with private flying is higher than you might expect on a public transport flight

Whopity

Being pedantic maybe? But your above statement is not quite correct! The accident rate on private corporate jets is far lower than on AOC operated jets!
Yes I am sure the same is not true taking your mates flying around in a single engine aircraft but you need to look at like for like and the equivalent would be a commercial pilot taking your mates around in a single engine piston under an AOC ???

Does a private pilot taking his friends up for a free flight mean that those friends know the risks more than the same friends paying for it?
Does that make your friends on the free flight less entitled to protection by the law on safety grounds?

Why do they not just come clean and say its just pure and simple protectionism.

Peter

What always amuses me is the dial XYZ to win a holiday of a life time just answer the following question! Is the capitol of the UK 1 Bristol? 2 Brighton? 3 London? :ugh:
What some people do to make something illegal legal? But if the legal boxes are ticked they are ticked!!!

Whopity I agree all is fine till its not! Your friends become non friends when they are lying in A&E with a broken Neck.
But do not be so sure with a perfectly legit private flight taking your mates for a free flight as you are bound to have done something wrong or if not? You will have as soon as the lawyers get involved.


Pace

[dublinpilot]

Are these friends genuine friends, or friends of friends and collegues?

If they are genuine friends, who'll look after you no matter what the CAA ask, and no matter what sort of accident happens, then you won't need a website to explain it to them.

If they are friends of friends, or distant friends, then I'd steer clear of cost sharing.

[swflyer]

How interesting. It's friends, but some of them I don't see that often.

I just thought that putting up a description and some pictures would make it much easier to explain where we could go, as they could pick what they were interested in. When people ask me, I tend to end up with excited verbal diarrhea as I explain hundreds of possibilities and bore them. Although perhaps I should keep my mouth shut in future, unless I'm found to be promoting aviation outside an official flying club `premises` :)

But, I see the point about what happens if something happens.

What an unbelievably sad state of affairs though, that we can't risk sharing our hobby with others. It really doesn't bode well for the future of GA. Cue sombre music.

[Genghis the Engineer]

No issue at-all about sharing your hobby surely, just about the way in which you ask other people to contribute financially to it.

G

[swflyer]

Oh..what I meant was with the risk of being sued by friends.

[Whopity]

Does a private pilot taking his friends up for a free flight mean that those friends know the risks more than the same friends paying for it?Not at all, but those who frequent flying clubs are probably going to have more idea than those who select a flight on a website. If they pay for it, its public transport and then you pay for a higher level of risk management (Protectionism). Not to be confused with cost sharing but will the average friend understand the difference.

Genghis has it right.
Oh..what I meant was with the risk of being sued by friends.If you are dead and they are dead, their relatives may see your estate as a big red apple.

[piperarcher]

I tend to end up with excited verbal diarrhea as I explain hundreds of possibilities and bore them

I think I would keep it simple. In the days before I would try and get an idea about where the weather is likely to be, and give options for a few places or airfields suitable, within your financial boundary. Dont give too many possibilities. In my experience it doesnt matter if it is SouthEnd, Skegness or just a meander around the local area and a few circuits. They will be happy.

If you have the chance to get a bit of the money ££ back, great, but I think if you want to start offering routes, websites, disclaimers and get decent compensation for it, then I would head down the CPL route.

[Pace]

There is a blackline where something becomes illegal running up to that black line are shades of grey.
The blackline itself can be grey but I am sure you do not want to be the test case run through the courts.
Hence the more away from that blackline you are and the lighter the shades of grey the more your likely to be safe.
But do not for one minute consider that even in a perfectly legit private flight with your pals not paying a penny that you are totally safe because you are not if something goes seriously wrong!
Some operate a limited company to protect themselves and their assets but even those are not 100% secure.
You are a target whether the flight is legit or not!
The only safe way is if you own nothing or so little that its not worth the cost in chasing you as the potential spoils at the end wont meet the lawyers costs!
Even in a private flight with no cost sharing I would still suggest a document warning of the dangers of private non commercial flight and that your PAX have been made fully aware and appreciate those dangers and that they accept full responsibility for any damage to themselves and regardless of how the accident occurs that they do not hold you responsible in any way or manner. Get it drawn up and signed on any flight!

Pace

[peterh337]

As I see it, the issue here is whether one can advertise cost-shared flights on a website, when the ANO says they may be advertised only within a flying club.

I don't think anybody is suggesting that the cost sharing percentages would be exceeded - that would be straight illegal public transport. Yes of course it goes on, all the time, but is a separate issue.

As regards genuine friends, not many of them will be genuine friends if they have lost their legs and stand to pick up a £1M passenger liability payout by claiming that they had agreed to contribute something exceeding the cost sharing maxima :) Or, of course, if they are dead and then their estates will be going after you and will be completely happy to strip you bare (vis. Graham Hill, etc), leaving you with just the legal minima for a personal bankrupcy (underpants, cutlery, not a lot else).

Even when there are no injuries at all, a spiteful associate can drop you in it. There is a well known helicopter pilot/instructor who got done for illegal flying, only because he had a dispute with a customer, the customer shopped him to the CAA, and the accused chap was an upright individual and admitted it (personally I think he should have just said the payment was for "ground school").

Getting back to the "website = flying club" I don't think this will ever be settled until (or if) somebody gets done, and I bet you anything the CAA will not want to test this, because if they do, and lose (which I reckon they would) then it would open the floodgates to all kinds of illegal charter, booked via the internet where nobody will be able to keep tabs on it. As things stand, you have the FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) of the "flying club" and nobody wants to see if they can push it.

It's like whether a GPS can be used in place of a DME. The ANO uses the words "distance measuring equipment". Now, we all know that a GPS cannot give you the distance to a point :E I bet you the CAA will never want to test this one, because if they lose (which I reckon they would, unless your lawyer is really useless) they will end up with a US-style universal GPS-DME substitution precedent. OK, we all know that de facto that is already the case in RNAV airspace but..... :E

[ProfChrisReed]

The ANO is very badly drafted, as is much UK legislation. My interpretation of what it means (as a law professor) is that no information or advertising about this particular flight can be published (with the flying club exception).

The obvious way to proceed is to give details of past flights, explaining how much they cost. This can't be seen as advertising of a future flight. If your friends and acquaintances then want to arrange a future flight with you, this gives them some idea of costs but won't infringe.

What won't work is: "I'm flying to X next Saturday, anyone want to share the trip and costs". This is unlawful, outside the club environment, even if you don't calculate the costs up front.

The purpose of the law is to prevent you running something that is like a passenger service, with the schedule set out in advance. Read the ANO with this in mind.

Sophistry about websites being premises, or a closed group of (passenger) friends being a flying club, is not worth bothering with. I looked into this type of approach when advising on an internet lottery in 1995, and took the view that no court was likely to be impressed!

As always, this is a general analysis and not advice about your website (which I haven't seen). Plus, my opinion is worth precisely what you paid for it.

[Whopity]

Very nicely put.

What concerned me about this thread is the underlying motivation. swflyer really wants his friends to contribute towards his "excitement" by paying part of his costs. What makes him think that passengers will be excited by flying with him? Most will be slightly nervous and apprehensive, after all, they don't know how good he is, how long has he been flying? The number of no shows for trial flights is an indication of how some people regard flying in a light aeroplane which in the main is more terrifying than exciting.

He would be better off going on trips with club members where they can share their experiences, knowledge and costs. At least they are all aviation enthusiasts to start with. Taking up a reluctant passenger is no fun for the pilot either.

[xrayalpha]

Prof CR has it right, in my view too.

If you say: want to come to France next weekend, it will cost you a third of the hire charge and landing fees and I expect the flight to be two hours and landing fee to be #20, then "club noticeboard" on the "premises" only.

Otherwise you are getting into passenger carrying, and so against the ANO.

However, come and join our club and then you might be able to come on experiences like this: ie last weekend we went to France, there were three of us in the aircraft and it cost a third of two hours flying and a #20 landing fee... the weekend before we went to Belgium... the month before we went to Holland...

Once actually bone-fide members of a club, whether or not you then circulate "items of interest" that are on the club noticeboard to members via email.... then that is getting darker grey. Don't know which of the 50 shades!

Of course, with the www it is really no different than phoning the club steward or CFI and saying: are there any adverts for trips on the club noticeboard and can you read the details to me!

But as my pal says: cutting edge is bleeding edge!

[englishal]

If you had a website which said:

"I am going to France on Tuesday at 10am, anyone want to come and we'll share the costs"

Then I think that would be ok, and the flight is intended anyway.

If you said.

"Who wants to go to France next week, time and date to suit, we'll share the cost"

Then that is not ok.

There is a website in the USA called "Pilot Share The Ride" where pilots can advertise flights and I think passengers can advertise that they want to go somewhere, and I presume that is legal.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

(kids would be so much better off ... wasting less ... their parents' money on their phones)
Well, that's entirely up to the parents isn't it.

We have provided none of our children with phones. They have however all acquired phones, but they have done this by working and earning the money (babysitting, paper rounds, helping on market stalls etc), which I'm sure is good for them.

We have provided then with internet access, via a house full of computer. Of a standard perfectly adequate for doing homework, that is. When they decide they want to use their computers for things like watching hi-res movies they buy their own bigger and faster ones, if they think that's a higher priority use of their earnings than better bicycles or festival tickets.

[Fuji Abound]

If you are going to restrict the site to friends why cant it be a members' web site with the member paying a small fee to join the club and gain access to whatever it is the club has to offer to paid up members.

As to the general question of taking people on "experience" flights etc I would be very wary indeed. Its fun to cost share with other pilots and people who are properly friends. However even doing this can impose pressures on you that you actually might find you are not ready to deal with. It can be very tempting to depart into weather that you wouldn't otherwise, or press on in more marginal conditions. There are good reasons for a CPL being a step beyond a PPL and more good reasons if it becomes a commercial op to meet the AOC requirements. I don't think that is a bad thing.

Are you sure you are ready to deal with those "pressures" and have the experience to know when to say NO! Just a very polite question.

[peterh337]

I am totally against illegal charter, but while we are discussing hypotheticals :) ...

The purpose of the law is to prevent you running something that is like a passenger service, with the schedule set out in advance. Read the ANO with this in mind.

Indeed but nobody can do that unless they massively breach the cost sharing rules, because no pilot is going to do the flight unless they can make a profit.

Sophistry about websites being premises, or a closed group of (passenger) friends being a flying club, is not worth bothering with. I looked into this type of approach when advising on an internet lottery in 1995, and took the view that no court was likely to be impressed!

17 years is an awful awful long time. The internet was virtually unknown in 1995. In fact my business (going since 1991, though I have been in business since 1978) only started sorting out a website in 1995!

There are good reasons for a CPL being a step beyond a PPL and more good reasons if it becomes a commercial op to meet the AOC requirements

Indeed, but a CPL is almost worthless. Anybody can get a CPL. The JAA CPL is "just" 9 exams plus a really picky VFR dead reckoning exercise which has to be done via an FTO (though it can be done outside JAA-land). What the CAA actually goes for is the AOC; that is what costs the real money, and is supposed to keep the cowboys away from charter work.

As I said above, the argument is really why it is illegal to advertise a cost shared flight on a club website, but is legal to advertise the exact same flight on a notice board in a decrepit wooden hut with water coming in through the roof?

How about having the said wooden hut, with a notice board on the wall, and a projector shining onto the noticeboard, and the projector being connected to a PC running an RDP server, and having a webcam monitoring the noticeboard, with the webcam having an HTTP server. Then you meet the requirement of the "club premises". The law doesn't say the advertised cost-shared flight has to be viewable only by a physical human presence in the physical premises.

I think the present drafting was the best the CAA could hack together, many years ago and long before the internet, to make it reasonably hard to set up cost sharing arrangements.

[ProfChrisReed]

If you had a website which said:

"I am going to France on Tuesday at 10am, anyone want to come and we'll share the costs"

Then I think that would be ok, and the flight is intended anyway.

Not if the UK ANO applies - this is precisely within the wording of what would count as public transport. Of course, this might be entirely legal in the US and other places. I'm not sure that it should be illegal in the UK, but it is until the ANO is changed.

I am totally against illegal charter, but while we are discussing hypotheticals http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif ...

Quote:
The purpose of the law is to prevent you running something that is like a passenger service, with the schedule set out in advance. Read the ANO with this in mind.
Indeed but nobody can do that unless they massively breach the cost sharing rules, because no pilot is going to do the flight unless they can make a profit.

Isn't a realistic scenario that of an hour builder, running a daily 10am flight to X, with the passengers picking up a large portion of the cost? I can see why the CAA wants to prevent that kind of thing.

The aim (to the extent that you can ever discover the aim of UK legislation from its wording [and yes, this does make me cross!]) seems to be that public transport pilots should be trained to ahigher standard. The general public is allowed to cost share if the flight is purely for fun. Then the restrictions, as drafted, try to capture fun flying by ruling out everything which might be perceived as a transport service. Thus anything which says "Departure 10.00" isn't allowed, unless those told arealready pilots or trainee pilots, in which case they understand that this means "10, if the aircraft works, and once I've had my tea, subject to weather and changing my mind".

I think the present drafting was the best the CAA could hack together, many years ago and long before the internet, to make it reasonably hard to set up cost sharing arrangements.

For certain. And of course, we can't expect our lawmakers to spend time updating out-of-date laws, or explaining what laws mean to those who are expected to comply with them. Far more important things to do.

It strikes me as verging on the scandalous that almost no-one here (maybe even no-one) is capable of understanding the ANO, and it's not their fault.

[Fuji Abound]

Indeed, but a CPL is almost worthless

It is, but its another stepping stone.

Most professional qualifications are of little value in themselves but they are a necessary rung on the ladder.

For commercial ops an aoc is a prerequisite and they are tough to come by; as you say only the most committed cowboys get through, by which time they may have swaped their badge for a sherrifs.

I have raised the issue before but i always find the idea of pleasure flights wrapped up as a trial lesson a bit dubious. I know of schools that offer trial lessons and circumstances where i think both parties know there is no intention of the trial lesson leading to anything further. Does the trial flyer understand the additional risk of a pleasure flight in a sep? I guess not. However equally i guess the instructor is more likely to say no when he should than a newish ppl.

[peterh337]

Isn't a realistic scenario that of an hour builder, running a daily 10am flight to X, with the passengers picking up a large portion of the cost? I can see why the CAA wants to prevent that kind of thing.Indeed but if he advertises the same regular flight in the said wooden hut, it is 100% legal :)

seems to be that public transport pilots should be trained to ahigher standard. The general public is allowed to cost share if the flight is purely for funI don't disagree but that is just one interpretation.

You could debate what expectation of extra safety a paying passenger has in a beaten up spamcan (even one on an AOC; most AOC planes seem to be beaten up wreckage... look at the Islanders and Trilanders) and that's before I come back to the whole thing being 100% legit if the flight is advertised in the said wooden hut and the prospective passenger is a member of some "club" (for which no fee needs to be charged anyway).

It doesn't make any sense to me - other than just FUD to keep a lid on illegal charter while allowing cost sharing in physical schools/clubs, pre-internet.

As regards getting an AOC, anybody with £ 5 figures can get an A to B AOC, by throwing some money at a consultant who knows how to set it up. Same with ISO9000, etc. I have seen some of the worst dishonest crooked cowboys get AOCs, and all manufacturers who make absolute crap (with apologies to Mr Ratner) were the first to get ISO9000.

[mm_flynn]

While I would agree with ProfChrisRead about the generally poor level of drafting in the ANO, I think the principles the ANO is trying to achieve are reasonably clear (with some interpolating between the lines)


Providing flying services to 'the public' should be regulated and undertaken by 'professionally' licenced organisations and individuals
It is acceptable for a service that is very specialist and does not carry other people or their property to have a lower level of structural organisation
Private people also fly and they may well have friends/club mates. (My Assumption Here) And these individuals will be much more familiar with the nature of the person flying and the type of operation and as responsible citizens should be allowed to choose to participate or not without undue interference from the State.


This then results in the structure we have which is

Public Transport (of people or goods) requires a professional organisation to manage/control/be accountable, etc. Hence all these activities must be undertaken under an AOC. The AOC terms will specifiy in detail the training and licencing requirements of the pilots and other key participants
Other forms of service (Aerial Work) which do not involve risk to the general public either as passengers or their goods, should be undetaken to a level of professionalism that does not take unreasonable risks in the pursuit of profit (Hence the higher airworthiness requriements under old CAA rules for public vs private aircraft and the need for a CPL for 'commercial' non-public transport work
FInally, we have private flights which are lightly requlated. But how do we distinguish these from the two regulated ones. One obvious way is 'is anyone being paid?'


It is this last point that then introduces all of the complexity because lots of people are paid in respect of any flight. A typical rental flight will have the club paid for the aircraft, the airport paid for landing/takeoff fees, the fueler for fuel, Eurocontrol (if you are more than 2 tonnes), etc.. So just because money changed hands doesn't prove anything about the commerciality.

So, I think (once again an assumption of mine), the CAA tried to get around this by recognising that these payments are all reasonable, but that the pilot can not make anything like a profit and must stand a reasonable part of the cost. Hence excluding fixed costs and allowing only costs directly related to the flight. Furthermore, to avoid taking the p!ss (i.e. 'cost sharing' a fully loaded biz jet), the CAA have the 'we are talking about small groups of known friends' concept. Which leads us to it is only 4 people at a time and it is not generally advertised (which then would have banned club fly outs so I suspect this clause is a 'fix' rather than a strategy).

In this context, I think the original poster 'advertising' future flights would fall foul of the CAA intent, unless it was accessible only to a very close group of friends that effectively were a flying club. Describing past flights, in the context of a website that said, 'call me an we can arrange for you to make this flight as well', would seem to not meet the spirit. Telling someone, do you want to go flying with me next weekend, look at my website and pick a destination or two and depending on weather we will go seems perfectly reasonable.

The FAA has a 'common purpose rule' for cost sharing private flights. If you are all flying to the city to go to the same convention that's OK to cost share. If three of you are going to the convention and a fourth person tags along for a lift to the city (and pays a share) then that is not OK. (Note UK DfT rules apply to N-reg ops in the UK, hence Peter's comment about cost sharing not being allowed).

[Genghis the Engineer]

all manufacturers who make absolute crap (with apologies to Mr Ratner) were the first to get ISO9000.

It's commonly believed, incorrectly, that BS5750/ISO9000 are about high quality. They're not, it's about consistent and known quality.

I'ts perfectly legitimate to say you'll produce crap, consistently produce crap to known procedures, and thus obtain ISO9000 accreditation.



Similarly you can get an AOC by only just adhering to the minimum standard of every safety procedure, whilst providing shocking customer service. It would be lovely to believe that such companies will then be shunned and go out of business, but given that Ryanair continue to turn a healthy profit, this is clearly untrue.

G

[Pace]

mm

You cannot be convicted on the spirit of something only on the Letter!
It is bad enough in the UK to get criminals convicted nowadays because of minute get outs.
The ANO seems amazingly wishy washy and maybe that is why so few prosecutions are bought in illegal charter.
What constitutes a friend? There are people on this site who I have never met or conversed with who I would classify as friends?
If a friend brings along a friend who is not your friend?
I also find it a joke that the CAA value someones safety by whether money exchanges hands.
I would say very few one off fun flights are with people who are any more familiar with the risks and dangers of flying with a PPL in single.
To them a pilot is a pilot qualified to fly whether they have got 50 hrs total or 500 hrs total.
Are these people less entitled to the protections placed on the same people paying for it!
We all know the spirit of what the CAA have tried to achieve but its the detail that counts.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace - it is an interesting area. In particular your comment about a pilot being a pilot is one I share. I suspect the public views a pilot little differently from someone that drives a car. You have either got the license or not. I suspect the public do recognise the importance of experience; we are all slightly nervous of getting into a car with someone who has just passed their driving test, but I suspect that is as far as they go.

As we have discussed the authorities rightly set the bar higher for pilots or drivers who provide public transport services. (except in the case of taxi drivers I guess who at most only have to pass a knowledge test, which says more about their ability to get from A to B) than to drive safely. They also set the bar higher for instructors although applying the same analogy anyone can teach someone to drive a car.

and so my earlier point was as soon as you allow people to cost share or to take people for pleasure flights (dressed up as trial lessons) you have already eroded the perceived "protection" of allowing the public to fly with a pilot with the assumption he has the necessary skill set to conduct the flight.

I well recall taking some friends flying the day after I passed my PPL. They knew I had just passed because I told them. I might not have told them. We did an aerial tour of the local cabbage patch. We might not have done - we could just as well set off for the South of France. I suspect they thought I was as well qualified to fly anywhere and in any weather as any other pilot.

I agree with the sentiment expressed by others. There are a few areas where the ANO should be clear; this is one of those areas and its really not good enough the law is not clear.

[mm_flynn]

mm

You cannot be convicted on the spirit of something only on the Letter!
....
Are these people less entitled to the protections placed on the same people paying for it!

....
We all know the spirit of what the CAA have tried to achieve but its the detail that counts.

Pace
Quite correct on your first point which is why tax avoidance is such a thriving industry. However, if you comply with the spirit (as well as the letter) then you are very unlikely to get hassle. If you want to stand on the line, with your nose right at the limit, flipping the CAA the bird you should expect to get hassle (and expect to have to pay lawyers to fight your corner). These are choices people must make. I was simply pointing out the probable logic and therefore how close to the line different choices might be.

With regard to your other point, I find it quite reasonable and totally consistent with the general principles of Western Society that a paying customer is entitled to a substantially higher duty of care than a random person.

We don't want to live in a world where all drivers have to be registered taxi drivers (using approved vehicles) to carry a passenger or where your kitchen needs to meet the requirements for a food manufacturing plant to have a guest eat your food or any of the other requirements we as a society place on commercial providers of goods and services that are not applied to providing those same goods and services in a private context.

This is not that we value the private lives of people less than the commercial lives, but that we as a society have decided the government should establish specific minimum standards of process/structure/training so we don't need to do a detail due diligence on every service provider we use.

[Pace]

MM

I actually agree with you but am pointing out a fact that for use of a better term there is a lot of grey and for the sake of confusion the CAA need to be more specific.
We all know the spirit which is that the CAA do not want PPLs setting up mini air taxi operations and are trying to accommodate cost share for genuine private flights with friends but we are in a regulation nit picky society.
It always amuses me the amount of ways people try to get around the law to make money.
The most common one being dial xyz to win a luxury holiday for two calls cost y per min. Simply answer the following questions. which is the tallest a man standing upright, a mouse or a miniature poodle :ugh:
So do not blame or look down on people who try to operate to their advantage within the law it is not them at fault but the law.
And yes those who cut it fine may find themselves as test cases on that law in the courts.

Pace

[peterh337]

We could always discuss the FAA "common purpose" rule ;)

It is extremely strict compared to the UK one, and I am sure it is widely disregarded in the USA.

On the ANO, I think the CAA have done the best they can while preserving PPL cost sharing.

To take one case: if the owner of a flying school rents one of the school's planes and cost shares it 75% (3 passengers), he is actually paying less than his 25% because he recovers a part of his rental via salary+dividends from the school. The CAA confirmed to me in 2003 that this is legal.

[ProfChrisReed]

On the ANO, I think the CAA have done the best they can while preserving PPL cost sharing.

They haven't done the best they can because they haven't explained the rules in terms that pilots can understand. Worse, the way they have drafted it leads to foolishness.

Example: Pilot A goes flying with friend B and pilot A's daughter comes along. Cost sharing has been agreed. But Pilot A has just lost her job, so friend B says "We'll split the costs 50/50". Unlawful.

Same example but it's passenger B's daughter and B has just lost her job. 50/50 cost split. That's OK.

peterh337's example is another one.

All these fall within what the CAA is trying to permit, but the first is unlawful, the second not, and the third caused debate until the CAA clarified it (and note that it might still be unlawful but the CAA has promised not to take action, which is not quite the same thing).

Pah!

[Pace]

and note that it might still be unlawful but the CAA has promised not to take action, which is not quite the same thing).

The CAA might promise not to take action and all is fine until its not fine!
IE there is a major accident a claim and that is cited as CAA law!
Its either there or should be removed or changed.

Pace

[mm_flynn]

Example: Pilot A goes flying with friend B and pilot A's daughter comes along. Cost sharing has been agreed. But Pilot A has just lost her job, so friend B says "We'll split the costs 50/50". Unlawful.


Are you sure? The law says the pilot must pay at least, not exactly his share and that there can not be more than 4 people in the aircraft when cost sharing is happening. This is true in both cases (the pilot has paid half and there are three people)

So both of your two examples are legal as intended. Peter's is a somewhat complex set of facts and I have some sympathy with the inability to legislate specifically for every variation of facts.

[Golf-Sierra]

So both of your two examples are legal as intended. Peter's is a somewhat complex set of facts and I have some sympathy with the inability to legislate specifically for every variation of facts.

This indeed can get very messy. What if A and B are in fact parents of the child but have divorced, and they decide to split the costs three ways with A paying 1/3 and B paying 2/3?

I think the company one is relatively easy if it is a limited company - the plane belongs to the company not the individual. May be more complicated if it is a sole entrepreneur type of outfit.

If A and B are both pilots would that change anything? If A invites B to go along on a flight (A pays 100%), but then A says "B, Why don't you take controls for a while?" would B then be breaking the rules of the ANO? He is flying but is not paying after all.


Golf-Sierra

[englishal]

How far does cost sharing go?

For example, say Peter says "Alan, my TB20 is stuck in Jersey and I am hard at work, as you are going to be there, can you pick it up for me and drop it in Shoreham, I'll pay for the fuel". (well I can hope can't I ;) )......

Or say I let Peter fly my aeroplane one day and I pay for the costs...

Are they legal scenarios? I am sure it has happened many times.

Also, say you have a group owned aeroplane and it is Annual time and the aircraft has to go to say Shoreham for maintenance. If the group ask one of the owners to fly the aeroplane but the entire group covers the costs (fuel for example), is this legal? Happens all the time.

How does holding a CPL alter this? In the first instance, as I hold an FAA CPL and Peter is not paying me for my services, then I can't find any reason that this would be illegal, even under Dft rules for foreign registered aeroplanes....?

[ProfChrisReed]

englishal's examples are all OK under the cost sharing rule, which only applies to payments by passengers. They might be a problem under some other rule, but I can't face looking at the ANO again.

Oh, and mmflynn spotted my error - had to re-read the ANO to see why, and I was working on the basis that the rule prevented a passenger paying more than his/her proportionate share, whereas in fact it means that the pilot must pay not less than the pilot's proportionate share. The perils of posting after dinner, but it reinforces my point about the impenetrability of the damn thing!

If the relevant part of the ANO read something like:

(1) The pilot must pay no less than his proportionate share of the costs.

(2) The planned details of the flight may only be advertised to the members of a bona fide flying club.

then this whole thread would be unnecessary.