Not quite - basically PT and Aerial work is totally verboten in PtF aeroplanes, except for:-
- Instruction of sole owner
- Type conversions.
- Hire of type-approved microlights solo
- Instruction in type-approved microlights.
That's basically it. But, as with anything else, cost-sharing between syndicate owners is perfectly legitimate. So more restrictive in some areas, less in others than a private CofA.
I really don't follow this. The provision to allow aircraft without a PT CofA to be run as a group is an exemption from Art 130 2(c). That's where the 1/20 bit appears.
Are you saying that you can do anything you can in a private CofA aircraft
plus the bullet points above? Or that some of the exemptions for private CofA aircraft do not apply to PtF aircraft. If the latter, why do you believe cost-sharing between syndicate owners is legitimate?
Earlier Bookworm suggested selling a capital stake, but I prefer the option of the non-capital route, as I retain control over the aircraft
What is wrong with selling a nominal stake and setting up an agreed monthly to cover expenses+flight time?
What you\'re suggesting is pretty much indistinguishable from a commercial hire arrangement. I think you (and in particular Datcon, who\'s looking for "cast iron legal") would run into difficulty over the interpretation of a "5% beneficial share", which is required for a group funds arrangement. A piece of paper saying "5% stake" which I can\'t sell for 5% of the value of the asset and which gives me no control over the disposal of the asset doesn\'t sound like a 5% beneficial share to me. I have no idea if it has ever been tested in court.