I am actually flying on a UK CAA issued JAR PPL(A) so I guess that probably complicates things even more or not?
Yes
For a G-reg, all money being paid makes the flight "aerial work" (and needs a CPL pilot, plus in most cases an AOC)
unless you are covered by one of the exemptions. For these, search caa.co.uk for a leaflet called "summary of public transport" and you will be suitably enlightened
PPL Cost Sharing is one of these exemptions but this exemption applies only to
G-reg (which is the other reason why cost sharing in an N-reg is illegal in UK airspace).
As per ICAO, the G-reg cost sharing exemption is valid worldwide (unless cost sharing is banned by the local airspace owner, of course).
The use of a UK issued PPL has no relevance here, AIUI.
I haven't got a clue what the situation is with an F-reg plane (flown in the Netherlands, or other places). This would be up to the DGAC. I am sure any French pilot will know, because cost sharing is common everywhere. Or if you can penetrate the DGAC switchboard (French language desirable, IME
) you could call them. But if Holland is like the UK, they will ban cost sharing in "foreign" registered (e.g. French) planes in their own airspace. I would expect such a measure to be widespread, because (due to aviation industry protectionist practices
)
But as I say I don't think the OP is cost sharing - so long as he stays out of the plane when others fly it.
If the renter is legally acting as PIC, then you are just a passenger along for the ride and you are not in any way using any pilots license to claim any privileges/hours. I would assume that that would mean that PPL Cost Sharing regulations do not apply.
I agree. But this is not what the DfT claimed. They basically said (foreign reg case) that if the owner is flying with the renter, and the renter is paying over money, they would regard it as Cost Sharing. Of course they probably would say that...
You can sort of see their point, because if I could rent out my plane for $1000/hr and also fly with the renter, this could be a cover for on-demand charter. There are loads of dodgy charters going on all over the world, and AOC holders (who paid 5 digits for their AOC) are for ever hassling their national CAAs to bust such and such operator. The renter (with a PPL) could be a front man who sits in the RHS and behind him are the real passengers who are paying.
But imagine an accident in which a renter is injured, and stands to get a much bigger payout if he can lie a bit and nail negligence on the pilot? Under UK law (the Civil Aviation Act) the owner.operator is liable to passengers only if found negligent. So if the renter has a prang and he or his passengers is injured, and the owner is not on board, the insurance is his only recourse, but if the owner is on board (and hopefully got killed so cannot dispute anything) then the renter has a massive incentive to say the owner was PIC and was getting paid. Then he becomes a "passenger" and gets a bigger payout, but the owner (or, if dead, his estate) is going to get shafted because it was an illegal flight and his insurance will take a walk, so his estate is going to get stripped. Of, course, people never lie to get an extra 6 digits.
But as far as the CAA is concerned, anyone who wants to 'borrow it' and pay me £1000 per hour for the privilege needs to have a share in the aircraft or in the group - min 5%.
No, the min 5% share applies only to planes
not maintained to PT requirements. If you maintain it to PT requirements, you can rent it out to 500 Mongolians who all use fake names and each pays you £1000/hour
In the UK, and probably most other places, there is also the tax angle to consider. This is a major gotcha and cost me a 5-digit settlement some years ago. Nowadays, the Inland Revenue are a load of crooks who randomly hit anything to do with horses, boats, planes, prostitution, or especially anything where the business involves a hobby of the owner, and extract settlements.
A favourite line of attack is Benefit in Kind. If the plane is owned by a
limited company (and if you are renting it out you
will want to do that, because under the Civil Aviation Act the owner/operator is strictly liable for all damage on the ground) then if the owner also flies the plane, he is vulnerable to an attack under BIK. One defence is for every pilot to be a shareholder, and this is how most UK ltd co. syndicates get around it. Another is for the owner to have no interest in flying and no pilot license and never fly in the plane. But the sale of hour blocks as proposed by the OP above (which is done by most of the "zero equity" operations that exist around the UK) may well satisfy the requirement for every renter being a shareholder. IMHO it may not because the total shares which can be sold to shareholders cannot exceed 100% (obviously) but these zero-equity operations are able to sell as many blocks as they want, not limited to 24/7/365. I guess they did a deal with HMRC on this.
I am sure that Holland has similar tax rules, and a similar (owner liability limitation) reason for putting a rented-out plane in a limited company.
Personally I would think several times before renting out a plane that is even half decent. It is going to get trashed - unless you are quite fussy about who flies it. I also had a few crooks trying to do things, to lie about their flying times, etc.
The best way is to put together a syndicate of people who know and trust each other.