Another Cost Sharing Question?

[JP1]

Apologies for another question on the legalities of cost sharing?

I have searched previous posts but there never seems to be an unequivocal answer, so I hope someone can give guidance on this scenario.

Is the following scenario illegal:- Advertising on a company intranet (the company that I work for of course) that I fly at weekends and anyone that wants to come along for a flight is welcome. And that a nominal contribution would be appreciated.

[gcolyer]

As long as the Passengers don't pay more than their even share of the fuel and fuel only then it would be legal.

[IO540]

The advertising aspect is a grey area.

Cost shared seats may be advertised but only within a club and all passengers participating must be members of the club.

It remains to be argued what is a "club", etc.

The way this is normally dealt with is that you advertise the spare seat only and leave any cost sharing to be agreed informally with the people who contact you.

[JP1]

Cheers I0540

I was aware of the "flying club" scenario and thought I read a recent post of yours where you said a closed intranet was a "club" and hence satisfied the rules.

I think I will just advertise the spare seat. However, I did want to hint in the advert about a nominal contribution, so that the number of replies would be reduced, but if this means that the advert is illegal then I guess I can't.

Thanks
JP1

[Spamcan defender]

Get yourself a CPL then charge them a packet :E:E:E

Seriously though your question is very valid. The only REAL way to find out is to phone CAA and get it clarified (if you've got the patience to even attempt to contact them by phone)

Spamcan

[flybymike]

With relation to the advertising element I believe that the rules require that:
1 The advertising is done only within a club
2 That all participants are members of the club
3 That the aircraft is operated by the club
Clearly the condition imposed by item three would not be met in the above scenario

[IO540]

Item 3 would not be met in many common cases either... a lot of planes used on the GA scene are borrowed (for the one flight) informally from one school by another, or from a private owner by a school. Sometimes, a private owner is invited to come along with his plane, though this is not common since the school does not make any rental income out of it.

It is my view that a web based club is a club but in the scenario described there appears to be no element of "membership".

A CPL won't help - In Europe a CPL is almost worthless unless the holder is an employee of a company that has an AOC that covers the type of operation. The situation is only slightly better in the USA.

[Legalapproach]

This would not be legal. A company intranet would not be seen as a "club" and in any event the exemption to advertising contained in the ANO is a concession clearly aimed at members of a flying club.

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

ANO Paragraph 160 (3) (c)

[DFC]

Don't mention money in the advert.

Don't make paying a share of the costs a requirement

Those that do not make an optional contribution to the costs don't get to fly again and can be slagged off about having long pockets and short arms when it came to doing the decent thing.

After all, you are not in it for the money and you are going to fly with or without passengers are you not? Thus the contribution when it comes is simply a bonus in your chosen hobby.

Regards,

DFC

[bookworm]

Don't make paying a share of the costs a requirement

Regardless of the rules on cost sharing, the requirement aspect is important.

In the ANO:

‘Valuable consideration’ means any right, interest, profit or benefit, forbearance,
detriment, loss or responsibility accruing, given, suffered or undertaken under an
agreement, which is of more than a nominal nature; (my bold)

The choice of the term is important. If you look at the use of valuable consideration more broadly, it tends to be associated exclusively with contracts and agreements e.g. from wikipedia

Consideration under English law is anything of value (an item or service), which each party to a legally-binding contract must agree to exchange if the contract is to be valid.

Outside aviation law it tends to be the flip side that is important, that a contract is not valid unless there is valuable consideration.

So if a passenger makes a genuinely voluntary payment after a flight, it cannot be valuable consideration. Proving the nature of any payment is another matter, and the courts might take a sceptical view of the 'good samaritan'. When I'm carrying passengers for fun in circumstances where there might be room for doubt, I ask my passengers to sign a document confirming that they are not being carried for valuable consideration.

And

Those that do not make an optional contribution to the costs don't get to fly again and can be slagged off about having long pockets and short arms when it came to doing the decent thing.

is, I think, pushing it. If there is an expectation of payment by both parties, and there are consequences for the failure to live up to that expectation, that seems tantamount to a contract.

[DFC]

Is not being slagged off about being rather mean valuable consideration?

If not then the option is to pay or be slagged off and not get to fly again.

Thus payment (valuable consideration) is optional.

:D

Regards,

DFC

[dublinpilot]

The request:
Advertising on a company intranet (the company that I work for of course) that I fly at weekends and anyone that wants to come along for a flight is welcome. And that a nominal contribution would be appreciated.


Valuable consideration’ means any right, interest, profit or benefit, forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility accruing, given, suffered or undertaken under an agreement, which is of more than a nominal nature

Is it just me, or does it seem fine so long as JP1's defination of a nominal payment is the same as that of the CAA/CPS/Judge?

dp

[JP1]

Thanks for the replies.

Still slightly confused but to simplify matters can I just confirm one point

The main point I am looking for is the ability to announce (and I use that word rather than advertise) to work colleagues at my company that anyone is welcome to come flying with me. Now that I have my PPL and being a sociable sort of person I would always prefer to fly with someone rather than alone. Flying alone does not really interest me. As soon as I have taken friends, family etc for a flight (excluding my wife since she now seems to be hinting that she is never going to fly with me), then I will be left with an empty seat. I'd rather take people that have never flown, than the regulars that hang out at the flying club, because for regular flyers it would be just another flight as opposed to a new experience for a non-PPL.

The ANO quoted by legalApproach states that doing the above would be illegal.

So adding a dose of reality to the discussion, rather than the black and white approach of the ANO. Do others post notices about spare seats outside of the flying club scenario, or in doing so am I opening up a host of problems for myself?

[IO540]

As stated before, you can advertise spare seats anytime.

Just don't mention cost sharing in the advert.

[Legalapproach]

Sorry for a fairly lengthy post but simply not mentioning payment won’t suffice if you expect or subsequently receive payment for taking people flying.


Relevant extracts from the legislation:

Public transport and aerial work - general rules
157
(3) Subject to the provisions of this article and articles 158 to 163, an aircraft in flight shall for the purposes of this Order be deemed to fly for the purposes of public transport:

(a) if valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in the aircraft on that flight;

Public transport and aerial work - exceptions - cost sharing
160 (1) Subject to paragraph (4), 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 criteria in paragraph (3) are satisfied.

(2) Valuable consideration falls within this paragraph if it is:

(c) is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the pilot in command;
.
(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) no person acting as a pilot shall be employed as a pilot by, or be a party to a contract for the provision of services as a pilot with, the operator of the aircraft which is being flown.

157 (3) (a) states “if valuable consideration is given or promised”. The drafting is fairly wide. "Promised" implies a pre-flight agreement. "Given" implies simply that and could include a gratuitous payment made after the flight.

The difficulty with offering a flight and then either expecting or receiving payment is that save for the flying club scenario it falls foul of 160 (3) (c) where the wording does not require a request for or details of payment but states that no information shall have been published or advertised prior to the commencement of the flight. Information is not limited to the details of costs but would appear to be wide enough to be information about the fact that a flight will or may be taking place and that seats are or may be available.

My experience of dealing with CAA prosecutions is that their primary concern is looking after members of the wider public who may fall victim to the acts of pilots. If you offered a flight amongst a group of friends who already knew you and offered to cost share then subject to the provisions of para. 160 you have no problem. If on the other hand you make the details of your availability known to a wider audience (hence the advertise or publish) then the CAA will take a dim view. My advice would be that if the CAA came across a pilot who was advertising flights to members of the public at large (and this could include amongst members of a specific group such as fellow employees who were not genuine friends or acquaintances) and who asked for/expected or subsequently received payment or other valuable consideration in respect of the flight then they would be highly likely to take action.

If, on the other hand you simply want some company on a flight and neither expect nor take anything from your passengers the whole issue no longer arises.

Hope this helps.

[JP1]

Ok, I understand now, and that legalApproach's quote from the ANO was in reference to advertising a flight for cost sharing purposes.

Thanks
JP1

[JP1]

Ahhh,

I have just seen you have sneaked in a post between my one above and I0540.

[bookworm]

157 (3) (a) states “if valuable consideration is given or promised”. The drafting is fairly wide. "Promised" implies a pre-flight agreement. "Given" implies simply that and could include a gratuitous payment made after the flight.

My argument is that it is the very definition of "valuable consideration" that excludes a gratuitous payment.

My experience of dealing with CAA prosecutions is that their primary concern is looking after members of the wider public who may fall victim to the acts of pilots.

I think that's very true.

[JP1]

LegalApproach,

Thanks for the time to answer the question. I understand the situation clearly now.

[DFC]

On a more serious note.

The best thing that you can do is write an article for the work intranet / staff mag or the infoboard with a little story about how you got your licence. Go on then to explain a little about what the PPL is and about how everyone on a private flight such as you make simply share the costs and how this can be great for everyone involved. Make sure you finish with a note explaining where you fly from the number of seats in the aircraft you fly and roughly how much it costs to fly various places.

All simply a factual article of interest to some people in the organisation. Not a case of advertising.

Regards,

DFC

[Legalapproach]

Bookworm
"consideration" has been defined as "a compensation, matter of inducement, or quid pro quo, for something promised or done"
Valuable consideration means consideration having some value i.e. money or monies worth. Valuable consideration has a meaning in contract law. In the context of the ANO it will doubtless be argued by the CAA that a payment is valuable compensation or quid pro quo in return for the flight. I had meant to put the words gratuitous payment in quotation marks in my previous post. A payment towards the flight is unlikely to be seen as simply gratuitous, particularly if the pilot accepts a 1/4 share or similar i.e. something more than nominal. The offer of a pint/cup of tea or even a subsequent gift of a bottle of wine or box of chocs on the other hand might be seen to be a nominal payment and therefore something less than "valuable consideration".

DFC

Debatable as to whether or not your suggestion is advertising but if you start giving detail of where you fly from, how many seats the aircraft has and how much it costs to fly from A to B etc and that by inference you are prepared to fly people on a cost sharing basis it seems to me that you are publishing "information" and sailing pretty close to the wind. If a pilot in those circumstances subsequently accepted a request from strangers prompted by the publication to take them flying in return for some payment I think the CAA would take a pretty dim view and with some reason.

[julian_storey]

There are several threads on here filled with people giving themselves heartburn about this subject.

As I see it, the CAA have a duty to prevent someone with a PPL running any kind of illegal air charter operation. Clearly and for very good reasons, it's absolutely right that people attempting to do this get caught and stopped.

Equally though, a group of work colleagues who go for a jolly in a light aircraft and share the costs in some way are not participating in a commercial flight. I really can't see the CAA getting too excited about it.

Personally, I think that four 'new friends' assembled from their company intranet flying somewhere on a genuine cost share basis, having a lovely day out and helping the pilot keep current is a good thing for the pilot concerned and for aviation in general.

[bookworm]

Valuable consideration has a meaning in contract law.

And it also has a definition in Art 155 of the ANO, which I quoted.

‘Valuable consideration’ means any right, interest, profit or benefit, forbearance,
detriment, loss or responsibility accruing, given, suffered or undertaken under an
agreement, which is of more than a nominal nature; (my bold)

There's an ambiguity as to how the sentence is parsed, but my argument is simple -- no agreement means no valuable consideration.