Cost Sharing - CAA Update

[gceyg]

Hi Guys!

What is all your views on this change to Cost sharing and Advertising (Item 3)

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/InformationNotice2015029.pdf

Best Regards!

[xrayalpha]

My thoguhts;

Don't set up an Air Taxi business under the "old" regs!

Seriously:

3.1 ..... the requirement for those costs to be shared equally and for the flight not to be published or advertised is removed.

So, you can advertise your "new business"


3.2 The Guidance Material

"note word Guidance"

GM2 Article 6.4a(a);(b) of the Operations Regulation states that:
‘Direct cost’ means the cost directly incurred in relation to a flight, e.g. fuel, airfield
charges, rental fee for an aircraft. There is no element of profit.’

Note: While there is no element of profit for the flight, nothing to say the rental person cannot make a profit.


3.3 It should be noted that the sharing of annual costs is not permitted under this arrangement.
The Guidance Material GM3 Article 6.4a(a);(b) of the Operations Regulation states that:
‘Annual cost’ means the cost of keeping, maintaining and operating the aircraft over a
period of one calendar year. There is no element of profit.’

This is saying the pilot can't get money for the annual costs, but if they are renting, then the aircraft owner obviously can - since that is a main component of the rental calculation!

So, my conclusion:

Set up aircraft ownership in a limited company, or your spouse's name (ie a separate legal identity), rent it to yourself at an inflated cost. Then the flight is "not for profit".

Or just do it as a business and "hire" the pilot, who flies for free but gets the hours in. Heck, even some American airlines run their business this way.

[Sillert,V.I.]

Interestingly it neatly ducks the issue of whether a passenger may operate the controls.
9.6 Can the passenger operate the controls of the aircraft?

An introductory flight does not count towards the grant or issuance of a licence. If someone wishes to have a go at flying the aircraft they are advised to arrange a flying lesson at a Registered Training Facility or Approved Training Organisation.

[PA28181]

Interestingly it neatly ducks the issue of whether a passenger may operate the controls.

What is the relevance of that to cost sharing?

This should solve that question, from IN-2014/09

An introductory flight does not count towards the grant or issuance of a licence. If someone
wishes to have a go at flying the aircraft they are advised to arrange a flying lesson at a
Registered Training Facility or Approved Training Organisation.

This whole subject will obviously ruffle a few feathers but what a great piece of common sense at last....

[Sillert,V.I.]

What is the relevance of that to cost sharing?


None, but it's the CAA who brought it up in the information notice, so presumably they felt the need to comment on this subject, even if their comment doesn't exactly clarify anything save that non-pilots manipulating the controls isn't specifically prohibited and that introductory flights cannot count as part of any flight training required for the issue of a licence.

Personally I'd agree the whole document is a rare triumph of common sense over bureaucracy.

My concern is that some selfish eejit will try to use the additional leeway given by these changes to push the boundaries of what should properly be regarded as commercial activity and spoil it for the rest.

[PA28181]

My concern is that some selfish eejit will try to use the additional leeway given by these changes to push the boundaries of what should properly be regarded as commercial activity and spoil it for the rest.


Inevitable, there are always a few bad apples in any barrel.

[Saab Dastard]

There was another recent thread on this topic.

I posted the following there, and it would seem to have relevance here as well:

Anyone considering this should read the ANO (UK) or equivalent document for their country.

There are two guides for the UK that summarise the relevant parts (emphasise that these are guides, ANO is always definitive):

https://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?pageid=8791
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/InformationNotice2015029.pdf (referenced by the OP above)

The most pertinent section appears to be this:
Quote:

5 How to determine whether or not a flight which is not commercial air transport is public transport

5.1 To determine whether or not a flight which is not commercial air transport is for the purpose of public transport of passengers, the first question is whether or not there are any passengers on board. This is not always entirely straightforward as an occupant may claim to be a member of the crew.

5.2 Having determined that there is at least one passenger on board, the next question is whether any payment has been given or promised which, if it had not been given or promised would mean that the passengers would not have been carried. If there is any payment which could fall into this category, consider what would have happened if the passenger had presented himself for carriage and announced that such a payment would not now be made. Would the passenger still be carried?



SD

[gceyg]

Hey guys,

Thank you all for your feedback so far. This purely isn't a question its just me being curious what you think of the change that someone can advertise and essentially pay 1pence towards a flight!

[Legalapproach]

non-pilots manipulating the controls isn't specifically prohibited

See article 50 of the ANO and some of the following articles. There is an argument that a person manipulating the controls of an aircraft is piloting it (even if under guidance and only temporarily) and a person 'piloting' an aircraft must hold an appropriate licence unless undergoing training for the grant etc of a licence. Whilst there is no definition of 'pilot' in the ANO why would you need the exemption for student pilots, if you could simply designate them as 'students' and not qualified pilots? The OED definition of a pilot is 'a person who operates the controls of an aircraft'.

The ANO provides:

50 (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a person must not act as a pilot of an EASA aircraft that is registered in the United Kingdom without holding an appropriate licence granted, converted or rendered valid under the EASA Aircrew Regulation.
(2) A person may act as a pilot of an EASA aircraft without holding an appropriate licence granted, converted or rendered valid under the EASA Aircrew Regulation when undergoing flying training, including solo flying training authorised and supervised by a flight instructor, in accordance with the EASA Aircrew Regulation as amended from time to time.

50A (1) Subject to articles 51 to 60, a person must not act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft to which this paragraph applies without holding an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under this Order.


50A applies to the member of the flight crew of an aircraft; flight crew includes a pilot and a similar exemption as to training applies.

If you carefully read the wording of the CAA advice you will get some idea of the potential problem. Article 50 is brought to you by the wonderful people at EASA and I suspect that the CAA are sensibly skating around it as strictly the regs would prohibit, for example, such things as letting your children or spouse handle the controls when you take them flying.

[Level Attitude]

Interestingly it neatly ducks the issue of whether a passenger may operate the controls.9.6 Can the passenger operate the controls of the aircraft?

An introductory flight does not count towards the grant or issuance of a licence. If someone wishes to have a go at flying the aircraft they are advised to arrange a flying lesson at a Registered Training Facility or Approved Training Organisation.Note: This paragraph only applies to 'Introductory Flights', not to 'Cost Sharing" flights

In this instance I wish the CAA had used its prerogative to unequivocally ban the possibility.

I see nothing wrong with a passenger flying with a 'friend' being allowed to 'have a go' at the controls - irrespective of whether the cost of the flight was shared or not.

However, an unknown member of the public who has arranged/booked, and is paying for, an 'Introductory Flight' has no business asking for, or being offered, the chance to control the aircraft just because they happen to be sitting in a seat from which the controls are accessible.

They have booked and paid for an introduction to flight in a light aircraft. If they wanted an introduction to flying a light aircraft then they should have booked and paid for a Introductory Flying Lesson.

[PA28181]

One of the glaring omissions (unless I have missed it) is the requirement to explain in detail to the prospective "introductory" punter, the conditions he is flying. IE: No CPL, No FI etc, there are laid down requirements for people to carry out charity flights with the public I assumed there would be something similar, unless it's all left to the ATO to take full responsibility?

[Sam Rutherford]

I still believe that this statement is the 'killer blow':


5.2 Having determined that there is at least one passenger on board, the next question is whether any payment has been given or promised which, if it had not been given or promised would mean that the passengers would not have been carried. If there is any payment which could fall into this category, consider what would have happened if the passenger had presented himself for carriage and announced that such a payment would not now be made. Would the passenger still be carried?




I read this to mean that if your mate decides not to pay - you still have to take him flying otherwise you're in breach of the regulations.

[bookworm]

I read this to mean that if your mate decides not to pay - you still have to take him flying otherwise you're in breach of the regulations.

5.2 of that document describes the situation before the ANO exceptions (para 6 of the same doc) are applied, let alone the derogations in 379/2014.

[cockney steve]

They have booked and paid for an introduction to flight in a light aircraft. If they wanted an introduction to flying a light aircraft then they should have booked and paid for a Introductory Flying Lesson.

That is a very subtle distinction. To Joe Public, it's an introduction to handling the controls......if it were designated a PLEASURE FLIGHT , J. P's expectations would be somewhat different........
I submit that to call it "an introduction to flying a light aircraft" is disengeious, bordering on deliberate deception....even adding "in" ,- as "introduction to flying IN a light aircraft ", is still somewhat ambiguous.

Calling a "Pleasure- Flight" by another , deceptive , name is sharp practice.

When I went flying with my mate, I used to take the pump-chitty and settle the bill.....his protests fell on deaf ears and as we always necked it post-flight, there was little sanction he could apply.I can see potential for a lot of aggro and resentment between Cof A types and Permit holders, if, indeed, the rules are relaxed......the only justification for the ridiculous expense of C of A, is the artificial regulatory limitations on operating the Permit types....come Night and IFR priviledges, the value gap becomes a wide chasm. In view of the safety-record of Permit types, how is the regime of Cof A justified for GA?

Public hire seems just as risky, training is quite possible on a Permit type....
No wonder UK GA is bumping along on the bottom!- this whole thread pontificating on the mass of contradictory and ambiguous rules/laws and nothing clear-cut and definitive has yet emerged. :confused:

[Pace]

GM2 Article 6.4a(a);(b) of the Operations Regulation states that:
‘Direct cost’ means the cost directly incurred in relation to a flight, e.g. fuel, airfield
charges, rental fee for an aircraft. There is no element of profit.’

Note: While there is no element of profit for the flight, nothing to say the rental person cannot make a profit.

This is a nonsense and a contradiction! It goes on to say rental fees? What rental will you get that does not include fixed costs as well as direct costs and an element of profit?

What private operation will include fixed costs as well as direct costs but with no element of profit?

So if you rent an aircraft but don't use your own you can accept direct costs as well as fixed costs and profit. But if you use your own you cannot accept fixed costs which are real costs even without profit?

so as one poster said run your own aircraft under a company but when using cost sharers charge the aircraft out with fixed costs direct costs and a good healthy dollop of profit and your legal ?

what nonsense

[xrayalpha]

Hi Pace,

Don't you just love laws!

Now, at Oban, where they have not found someone to run an Islander for an hour a day five days a week for three years for 2.1 million....

We could set up a company, buy a Cessna 182 and run an air-taxi service and keep the change from that 2.1m !

Might hack off Border Air, who have an AOC and all that involves, and already fly scenic routes there.

[Level Attitude]

This is a nonsense and a contradiction! It goes on to say rental fees? What rental will you get that does not include fixed costs as well as direct costs and an element of profit?

What private operation will include fixed costs as well as direct costs but with no element of profit?

So if you rent an aircraft but don't use your own you can accept direct costs as well as fixed costs and profit. But if you use your own you cannot accept fixed costs which are real costs even without profit????? I don't understand the confusion
This is 'Cost Sharing' and the rules haven't changed.
Direct Costs = What it costs the PIC to fly that particular flight and nothing else.
Whether that be only £20 for the fuel used in their own aircraft or the, possibly, £100s it cost to rent the aircraft.


We could set up a company, buy a Cessna 182 and run an air-taxi service and keep the change from that 2.1m !NO, you could not:
4.3 Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No. 965/2012, as amended by Regulation (EU) No. 379/2014, states that:
'Introductory flight' means any flight against remuneration or other valuable consideration consisting of an air tour of short duration, offered by an approved training organisation or an organisation created with the aim of promoting aerial sport or leisure aviation, for the purpose of attracting new trainees or new members.’

4.4 NCO.GEN.103 (Introductory flights) of the Operations Regulation states that the flights shall:
(a) start and end at the same aerodrome or operating site, except for balloons and sailplanes;That is a very subtle distinction. To Joe Public, it's an introduction to handling the controls......if it were designated a PLEASURE FLIGHT , J. P's expectations would be somewhat different........"an air tour of short duration"
If someone buys a Bus Tour they do not expect to have a go at driving the bus.
IF JP's expectations are that they will handle the controls then the "organisation" has misrepresented what they are offering.

The one thing I do find confusing is that ATOs are specifically stated as being allowed to do this - but no mention of whether this is a general permission or whether it has to be listed as one of their 'approved' activities - and what about RFs?

[Level Attitude]

What a load of boll*cks, your children, spouse or friend are not acting as "flight crew" or "pilots" under Art 50 just because they might briefly have a go at flying your own aircraft or one you have rented, they are neither under any official instruction to gain a licence and while they are having a go you are the official pilot in command of the private flight. Practically this might indeed be "a load of boll*cks" but, legally, it most definitely is not.

A pilot is defined (not by EASA nor the ANO, because they give no definition) as either:
1) Someone who is qualified to fly aircraft
or
2) Someone who controls an aircraft in flight

A person can certainly do 2) irrespective of if they are 1)

Think of a young, unlicensed, joyrider. They were certainly the 'driver' of the car and, if they are caught, they will receive points on their non-existent Licence.

Now think of an unqualified person stealing an aircraft. They are certainly 2) 'acting as a pilot' and, if solo, they are also 1) acting as PIC.
The two are not the same.

So, an unqualified person handling the controls in flight, with the permission (and under the supervision) of the PIC is certainly 2) 'acting as a pilot' - especially if they dive the plane and go "daga, daga, daga".

[sunday driver]

Here's (https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5422ebbb40f0b613460000a7/dft_avsafety_pdf_025533.pdf) an example of why CAA might be concerned about a PPL letting a mate have a go.

SD

[500ft]

Here's an example of why CAA might be concerned about a PPL letting a mate have a go.

I would suggest that accident may have been prevented by letting the passenger have a go. They would have a greater sense of what the controls do.

[xrayalpha]

Of course, this one shows how a quick shot, or two, at the controls can be a life-saver:

Hero passenger lands light aircraft at Humberside airport after pilot friend passes out at the controls - then dies - Home News - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hero-passenger-lands-light-aircraft-at-humberside-airport-after-pilot-friend-passes-out-at-the-controls--then-dies-8868202.html)

[Legalapproach]

Above The Clouds

Many thanks for your concise legal input.

Having spent many years defending pilots against the CAA legal department's interpretation of various aspects of the legislation (some even more creative than this) I am extremely grateful for your assistance in statutory interpretation and must remember to use the expression "Utter Bo**ocks" more often in court.

Level Attitude has the point.

Please let us be clear, what many of us do in the air and what the ANO says maybe two very different matters but consider what would happen if, unless you hold an instructor rating, your aircraft crashes whilst a family member is practicing a landing. You think that your insurers and the CAA will give the ANO the same interpretation as you? Good luck on that one.


Oh, and duty of care? Well I am currently defending a pilot being tried for manslaughter in respect of an alleged breach of a duty of care and, again, there has been some very interesting and creative interpretations made by the prosecution.

[Level Attitude]

You will be pleased to know I am an instructor and examiner :ok: Yes. But are you a lawyer?

There is nothing, that I can see, in the rules that specifically permits a passenger (as opposed to a PUT) to 'have a go at the controls', but there are sections that can easily be interpreted to mean that it is not allowed.

To reiterate: I think it is great for passengers, flying with a friend, to try out controlling the aircraft - to any extent that the PIC is happy with.

However I do not currently want to see this tested in court because I think the rules, as are, say it is not allowed. Unfortunately I think a court case is now much more likely: An, unknown, member of the public who wants, sees advertised, books, pays for and expects "an air tour of short duration" but is then offered the 'opportunity' to fly the aircraft.

[kenparry]

Although the brief CAA notice, ORS4 No 1094, does not directly address the issue of cost sharing for aircraft in shared ownership, it does say at para 2b that all ANO provisions applicable to a private flight must be complied with.

So, if you read ANO Article 269(3), for such aircraft the opportunity to share costs is still limited to among the co-owners.

[SWBKCB]

Latest CAA blog - "Sharing the cost of recreational flying"

Sharing the cost of recreational flying | UK Civil Aviation Authority (http://www.caa.co.uk/Blog-Posts/Sharing-the-cost-of-recreational-flying/)

This summary doc is linked in the blog

Information and guidance on the circumstances under which the (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1589%20-%20cost%20sharing%20GA%20guide_v2.pdf)

[POBJOY]

The worms are already well away from the can and 'W.........' all over the place, including m-lights and night flights.
It all rather begs the question why anyone would bother with an AOC (answer most pleasure flight operations do not bother anymore),as the cost alone precludes any sort of business return.
Flying clubs seized on the 'trial lesson' route and it has given them a new lease of life in some cases however they are now been affected by the 'cost share business'.
Of course its a business; as along the line someone is creaming off a good % seemingly without putting themselves at any risk of prosecution.
The whole business of AOC 'public transport regulations' is supposed to be safety based; with a huge investment in time and effort just to produce an 'ops manual' before you even get around to try and find 'examiners' and pilots that an operation needs. What you ended up with was an unaffordable 'safe' operation where pilots were licenced on type and tested and examined by a CAA ops inspector. You may think this is all over the top for a 20 min flight in a C172 down the beach and back, but those were the rules (and still are). I always remember reminding pilots that they were in a very responsible position in a single, and that they were also responsible to ensure that in the event of a emergency they could LAND the machine in a suitable place without hurting anyone. This meant that the choice of route and height had to be taken into account as it was no excuse to say (there was nowhere to land). As Leg App alludes its when the COURTS get involved that the real test comes, as the blame culture will follow the trail back to the money even if it bankrupts you or your house gets taken, and the CAA themselves are not going to fall on their swords to protect you.

[robin]

Back in the day we used to have to be checked out as PPLs to work towards AFI status. Then we had to have BCPLs.

Recently PPLs can be checked out to do trial lessons for a club.

But now any newly minted PPL can sign up to Wingly and blag free flying with anyone who wants to go anywhere.

Inevitably there will be incidents as the pressure to deliver for the paying customer pushes inexperienced and under-qualified pilots into marginal conditions.

It may be legal to do a Wingly, but is it sensible.

[BEagle]

Recently PPLs can be checked out to do trial lessons for a club.

That is incorrect. To provide an air experience flying lesson a pilot must also be an FI. A PPL/FI who has not passed the CPL exams may only conduct and air experience flying lesson for a prospective LAPL holder.

A-to-A, day VFR 'Introductory flights' may be conducted by non-FI PPL holders, but the associated regulations and CAA policy are quite specific. These may only be a minor part of an ATO's activity.

'Wingly' cost sharing has been banned by some flying clubs and aerodromes for aircraft rented from clubs based there and it seems that some insurers are beginning to take note, from some reports.

As usual, if the greedy few end up causing the rules to be hardened to the detriment of others, they will only have themselves to blame.

[ak7274]

Further to Beagle's post, The CAA quite clearly state in their guidance to Introductory flights Chapter 2 para 4.
"An introductory flight should consist of an air tour of short duration. The PIC cannot hand over control of the aircraft to the passengers at any time unless he/she is the holder of a valid instructor’s certificate."

This is also relevant to CRIs in that, they aren't qualified to teach ab into, so are not able to hand over control on an introductory flight.
As a CRI, I did one at the weekend and had to turn down the instructor fee. 😭

[Ebbie 2003]

Sam, the para is intended to kill off the airtaxi idea.

I say I sm going Rochester to Bodmin, you want to go, we agree to split the costs - say 10% to je 90% to you - 100% legit.

Now if you come to me and say "I want to go to Bodmin, 90% to me and 10%" to you that can be legit but ONLY if I fly to Bodmin on the agreed day even if for some reason you decide not to go. I seems a good way to spot people setting up non-legit airtaxi services.

Seems to that what will control this may not be the aviation authorities but the insurance companies, if they say you are not civered you would be foolish to do it - renters would probably ban some types of rental without renters having their own hull insurance.

The FAA have something similar to this in the bill that just passed congress a couple of weeks back - we are into the 90 dats for the FAA to propose the rules, it will be interesting to see what they put in place.