Should EASA introduce "common purpose"?

[vanHorck]

On the thread of the Cardiff football player accident, there is a lot of talk of "grey commercial" flights, where posters suspect "cost sharing claims" are abused for flights against reward.
The FAA allows the same but insists (and where necessary checks) that the pilot and cost sharing passengers have a genuine common purpose, ie they are friends or family on a joint trip.

I think this is a good principle as it will in my opinion prevent PPLs from getting into situations where there are additional pressures to execute a flight in situations of time pressure, weather ambiguity etc.

Therefore I am in favour of EASA introducing and enforcing the requirement of "genuine common purpose" as a requirement in case of cost sharing. I do not think limited financial capacity in enforcing this should be a reason not to do it. It would also align FAA and EASA regulations.

What do you think?

[EXDAC]

It would also align FAA and EASA regulations.

What do you think?

If you seek alignment of regulations regarding "common purpose" perhaps you could cite any FAA part 91 or part 61 regulation that requires common purpose for cost sharing. To the best of my knowledge there is no such regulation. Maybe what you want is for EASA to form an opinion that is aligned with a little known FAA opinion. That falls a long way short of alignment of regulations.

[2Donkeys]

Common purpose is a test for the validity of a cost-shared flight advocated by the FAA in a well known legal opinion, but it doesn't form the basis of regulation. The only real alignment of regulation that one might advocate is for EASA to align to the FAA's requirement that the pilot pays an equal portion of direct operating costs.

[asyncio]

Does anyone know why EASA removed the equal shares restriction in the first place?

I thought that most? of the various NAAs had this restriction previously, because it's a fairly obvious way of effectively cutting out a lot of grey areas, while also demonstrating the intent behind the actual laws.

[EXDAC]

Common purpose is a test for the validity of a cost-shared flight advocated by the FAA in a well known legal opinion


It maybe well known to those who have followed that Cardiff player accident thread but I disagree that it is well known. I have held FAA CPL and CFI ratings for nearly 40 years and had never heard of "common purpose" test for cost sharing before reading about it in that accident thread. I have asked other experienced pilots and they had never heard of it either.

Opinions should have no place in defining the rules pilots are expected to know and comply with. If it is a requirement it should be in the regulations.

[BEagle]

Just go back to the previous UK CAA requirements!

Pilot pays at least an equal share of the costs.
No advertising outside the flying club environment.
No more than 4 PoB.

[2Donkeys]

It maybe well known to those who have followed that Cardiff player accident thread but I disagree that it is well known. I have held FAA CPL and CFI ratings for nearly 40 years and had never heard of "common purpose" test for cost sharing before reading about it in that accident thread. I have asked other experienced pilots and they had never heard of it either.

Opinions should have no place in defining the rules pilots are expected to know and comply with. If it is a requirement it should be in the regulations.

I think that part of the problem with what you are saying EXDAC is that like the UK, the US legal system is based on common law. This means that the regulations, on which you base your point, are themselves based on a number of common law definitions. For example, you will not find in the FARs a definition of Common and Private Carriage. These are terms that are fundamental to the privileges of US pilot licences, but they are common law terms that are simply inherited in regulation rather than being re-defined. The FAA was forced to publish FAA Advisory Circular 120–12A in 1986 because so many people were confused about the terms.

The Common Purpose Test, as it is known is also derived from common law - which is why you don't find it in the regulations. The fact it is not explicitly in the regulations, does not make it any less part of the law. This point is made well in the ruling FLYTENOW vs FAA should you be interested (available online in a variety of places).

[bookworm]

Does anyone know why EASA removed the equal shares restriction in the first place?.

Je n'ai aucune idée. C’était peut-être un peu gênant pour les aéroclubs d’un grand pays centre-ouest? :)

Common purpose is not supported by the safety case.* Do I feel more pressure to complete a flight if you have to get to an important meeting than if both of us have to get to an important meeting?* I could easily envisage a change in the rules to equal shares, however.

[Mariner9]

Couldn't a similar safety case argument about cost share be made? *Do I feel more pressure to complete the flight if it costs me £30 instead of £60?*

[2Donkeys]

I don't think it is that particular flavour of safety case that is imagined here. The FAA in applying the regulations they do are seeking to avoid private pilots performing flights that might otherwise require commercially licensed pilots. They, I presume, believe that such flights offered to the public by commercially licensed pilots operating under Part 135 (or similar) is safer than flights being offered by PPLs.

[bookworm]

Couldn't a similar safety case argument about cost share be made? Do I feel more pressure to complete the flight if it costs me £30 instead of £60

Indeed it's fundamental to the case for cost-sharing that the marginal cost of doing the flight vs cancelling it is positive. If you cancel you save money. By contrast, a commercial operator loses money (the margin he would have made, over and above the direct cost) if he cancels a flight, hence extra regulation is required for commercial beyond what is required for a purely private or cost-sharing flight. (That's not the only reason for regulating CAT more strictly than private flights, but it's one of them).

[asyncio]

Je n'ai aucune idée. C’était peut-être un peu gênant pour les aéroclubs d’un grand pays centre-ouest? :)

As I work for a large French institution, I can confirm that tendancy to burn the rest of the world down, rather than give ground on a trivial issue that could otherwise be easily worked around*:{

*

[bookworm]

They, I presume, believe that such flights offered to the public by commercially licensed pilots operating under Part 135 (or similar) is safer than flights being offered by PPLs.

And that's the other aspect. There is an expectation of the level of safety offered by commercial air transport.

While a consenting adult should be permitted to make a choice as to whether they wish to be exposed to a particular level of risk, they need to have a way of knowing what that level of risk is. Otherwise we would just ban aviation for GA pilots and passengers alike unless we could reach the standards of the airlines. As long as the passenger knows what they're getting themselves into, they should be permitted to choose to take the risk, just as the pilot does.

But the expectation that operations under Part 135 (or for that matter an EASA AOC for single pilot ops in a light aircraft) radically transform safety is somewhat illusory. Here are the scores on the doors for 2002-2017 from the NTSB (https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/pages/aviation_stats.aspx):

Part-121 scheduled: 0.03 fatal accidents per million flight hours
Part-121 non-scheduled: 0.96 fatal accidents per million flight hours
Part-135 commuter: 1.54 fatal accidents per million flight hours
Part-135 on-demand: 3.6 fatal accidents per million flight hours
GA (Part-91): 12.3 fatal accidents per million flight hours

So Part-135 on demand is 100 times less safe than Part-121 scheduled, but a factor of 3-4 safer than GA.

One could argue that the factor of 3-4 is worth having, but do we really believe that passengers boarding a Part-135 on demand flight know they're 100 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than on an airliner?

[2Donkeys]

And that's the other aspect. There is an expectation of the level of safety offered by commercial air transport.

While a consenting adult should be permitted to make a choice as to whether they wish to be exposed to a particular level of risk, they need to have a way of knowing what that level of risk is. Otherwise we would just ban aviation for GA pilots and passengers alike unless we could reach the standards of the airlines. As long as the passenger knows what they're getting themselves into, they should be permitted to choose to take the risk, just as the pilot does.

But the expectation that operations under Part 135 (or for that matter an EASA AOC for single pilot ops in a light aircraft) radically transform safety is somewhat illusory. Here are the scores on the doors for 2002-2017 from the NTSB (https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/pages/aviation_stats.aspx):

Part-121 scheduled: 0.03 fatal accidents per million flight hours
Part-121 non-scheduled: 0.96 fatal accidents per million flight hours
Part-135 commuter: 1.54 fatal accidents per million flight hours
Part-135 on-demand: 3.6 fatal accidents per million flight hours
GA (Part-91): 12.3 fatal accidents per million flight hours

So Part-135 on demand is 100 times less safe than Part-121 scheduled, but a factor of 3-4 safer than GA.

One could argue that the factor of 3-4 is worth having, but do we really believe that passengers boarding a Part-135 on demand flight know they're 100 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than on an airliner?

Lots of scope for playing with the NTSB's statistics as I know you are well aware. The gap changes if one takes into account the number of fatalities as opposed to the number of fatal accidents, for example.

Probably a little off topic though.

[selfin]

Advertised cost-sharing is illegal in US-registered aircraft regardless of the licence under which the flight is operated. This eliminates common purpose from the argument.

[bookworm]

Lots of scope for playing with the NTSB's statistics as I know you are well aware. The gap changes if one takes into account the number of fatalities as opposed to the number of fatal accidents, for example.

As a passenger boarding an aircraft, I care only about the likelihood of me surviving the journey. If I die, I don't care how many people die with me.

If you start to consider the effect of aircraft size, the gap actually widens: if I'm one of 100 pax on an airliner on which one person dies, I've still been involved in a fatal accident, even though I have a 99% chance of surviving that fatal accident. My chances of surviving a "fatal accident" (an accident in which at least one person died) in a Lance or Twin Comanche are rather worse.

Or put another way, if you want to look at total fatalities in the numerator, the correct denominator is not flight-hours but passenger-flight-hours. Either way you cut it, GA looks worse not better.

If you look at the rates per mile rather than per hour, GA again looks worse because it's slower.

Only if you look at the rates per flight is there a little solace for GA, because our flights tend to be shorter on average than the 1.8 hours of a Part-121 scheduled carrier. Per flight, we may well be only 100 times more at risk than an airliner, compared to 400 times more at risk if you count hours.

[2Donkeys]

As a passenger boarding an aircraft, I care only about the likelihood of me surviving the journey. If I die, I don't care how many people die with me.



Which is why you are less interested in number of fatal accidents (ie accidents in which at least one fatality occurs), and you are concerned about the total number of fatalities per unit of measurement.

But either way, this is considerable drift from the question posed by the OP.

[EXDAC]

The Common Purpose Test, as it is known is also derived from common law - which is why you don't find it in the regulations.



My issue is not that "common purpose" is not defined, rather that the regulations on cost sharing do not say that a common purpose test should be applied. How would anyone familiar with Section 61.113 know that a common purpose test is required? Yodice used to write legal commentary for AOPA Pilot magazine. In the below referenced article on cost sharing he makes no mention of common purpose. He only says that the pilot should have a purpose for making the flight other than carrying the cost sharing passenger. That would seem to imply that, back in 1992, the common purpose test was not well known.

http://cospilot.com/documents/Pilot%20privileges%20and%20limitations_Sharing%20expenses.pd f

Thanks for the references though. That case makes a very interesting read.

[2Donkeys]

He only says that the pilot should have a purpose for making the flight other than carrying the cost sharing passenger. That would seem to imply that, back in 1992, the common purpose test was not well known.

I would say that in those few words, he pretty much nails a key aspect of the common purpose test. The flight had better not be for the sole purpose of taking the passenger to the destination.

Common Purpose as a test predates air travel, and owes its origins to much earlier forms of transport. It perhaps merits an AC in the same way as the 1986 example I gave above.

[EXDAC]

I would say that in those few words, he pretty much nails a key aspect of the common purpose test. The flight had better not be for the sole purpose of taking the passenger to the destination.



I agree. However, that seems quite different from the position that the pilot and passenger must have the same (or common) purpose for making the flight.

[2Donkeys]

I agree. However, that seems quite different from the position that the pilot and passenger must have the same (or common) purpose for making the flight.

Unfortunately, as with all things legalese, Common Purpose doesn't quite mean what you are attempting to make it mean.

Common purpose does not mean that both parties to a flight are both going to the same place for the same reason. It simply means that both parties would be going to the destination for their own reasons - their purposes are aligned. In other words, in the context of pilots and flying, the pilot needs to have been going to go to the destination in any case - and is not merely flying there for the purposes of conveying the passenger. Pretty much exactly what Yodice wrote.

[EXDAC]

Unfortunately, as with all things legalese, Common Purpose doesn't quite mean what you are attempting to make it mean.

Common purpose does not mean that both parties to a flight are both going to the same place for the same reason. It simply means that both parties would be going to the destination for their own reasons - their purposes are aligned. In other words, in the context of pilots and flying, the pilot needs to have been going to go to the destination in any case - and is not merely flying there for the purposes of conveying the passenger. Pretty much exactly what Yodice wrote.

I can't find the link now but it was referenced in the Cardiff thread. In that link, which I think represented an FAA opinion, it was stated that, if a pilot flew from A to B with a passenger, then the pilot had breakfast at B but the passenger attended a business meeting at B, then the flight was not a legitimate cost sharing flight because the pilot and passenger did not have the same reason for making the flight. Perhaps someone with a better memory than me can point us to that reference.

[2Donkeys]

EXDAC: You might want to take a look at a more current AOPA article written by a different Yodice, in which Common Purpose is defined as the desire to travel to the same destination:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2007/march/flight-training-magazine/legal-briefing

[EXDAC]

EXDAC: You might want to take a look at a more current AOPA article written by a different Yodice, in which Common Purpose is defined as the desire to travel to the same destination:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2007/march/flight-training-magazine/legal-briefing

Thanks. I also found this link to be informative - https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/Interpretations/?year=all&q=%22common+purpose%22&bSubmit=Search

I now think it's clear that FAA does not intend common purpose to mean that pilot and cost sharing passengers all have to have the same reason for flying to the destination. It's frustrating that I can't find the reference that seemed to imply that. Not a wasted effort though. I now have a new subject to discuss when I next give a flight review.

[Ebbie 2003]

Here's a question.

Is it illegal to advertise as an FAA PPL in a US reg airplane a flight if the amount of cost to be shared is zero?

[2Donkeys]

Here's a question.

Is it illegal to advertise as an FAA PPL in a US reg airplane a flight if the amount of cost to be shared is zero?

There are four tests for common carriage, and advertising a flight in the manner described satisfies three of those tests. The only test that your scenario does not satisfy is 'compensation'. If you are genuinely receiving no form of compensation, financial or otherwise, directly or otherwise as a result of the flight, then you are not in violation, but you might reasonably expect plenty of scrutiny.

[arketip]

All this talk about strict appliance of no compensation an common purpose, makes me wonder how many here in their PPL/hour building time did "illegal" flights.
I would guess a high percentage if not almost all.

[ChickenHouse]

Introducing 'EASA common purpose' will only do one thing, add bureaucracy for the good ones while the bad ones will give a sh#t anyways no matter what paper says. No, there is no sense in it at all other than uncover we are all unable to live common sense. Seriously, if we look at this incident - how would some paper tiger even change a little bit on that behavior? Regulations are for those who are willing to follow them, the others are unreachable by that.

[2Donkeys]

I disagree. Common purpose would dramatically alter the nature of Wingly, to name but one example. No more offers of flights to passenger-chosen destinations as such offers would fall foul of the rule.

That isnt a justification for introducing that test, but it does demonstrate that it would make a difference.

[Luc Lion]

I dislike this "common purpose" concept and I hope it will never find its way in EASA world.
It's a can of worms.

I want to be able to legally fly my daughter to her home in Great Britain even though I have no other interest in going there but letting her reach her destination. Same thing with a friend who would ask me to drop him/her in a place where he/she wants to go.
Of course, I don't ask any payment from them and I make sure they know and agree that I can cancel the flight until the last minute before departure.
If someone introduces "common purpose" in Europe, it will put those flights in a grey area.

However, I totally agree with the proposal that, in case of cost sharing, the pilot must at least bear a pro-rata part of the direct costs.
The only way to put commercial flying with a PPL licence to a stop is to ensure that the pilot looses money when doing such a flight.

To limit the pernicious effect of internet sites like Wingly, it would suffice to state that publicity for cost-sharing flights is only allowed if the destination and date/time of the flight is pre-decided by the pilot and indicated in the advertisement. Any internet site that tolerates advertisements breaking this rule would be fined.

[2Donkeys]

I dislike this "common purpose" concept and I hope it will never find its way in EASA world.
It's a can of worms.

I want to be able to legally fly my daughter to her home in Great Britain even though I have no other interest in going there but letting her reach her destination. Same thing with a friend who would ask me to drop him/her in a place where he/she wants to go.
Of course, I don't ask any payment from them and I make sure they know and agree that I can cancel the flight until the last minute before departure.
If someone introduces "common purpose" in Europe, it will put those flights in a grey area..

With respect, you've misunderstood the concept of common purpose. Common purpose is only a consideration where there is a cost sharing arrangement (or where the pilot is receiving some compensation in connection with the flight). When you say "Of course, I don't ask any payment from them", common purpose ceases to have any impact on such flights, and it certainly doesn't put them into a grey area.

[selfin]

"The only test that your scenario does not satisfy is 'compensation'"

The FAA and NTSB Board both view the accrual of flight time as compensation when considering whether an operation in common carriage occurred or is likely to occur.

See Administrator v. Blackburn, 4 NTSB 409 (1982) affirmed in Blackburn v. NTSB, 709 F.2d 1514 (9th Cir. 1983), Administrator v. Mims, 7 NTSB 850 (1991), Administrator v. Wagner, NTSB Order No. EA-4081 (1994), Administrator v. Murray, NTSB Order No. EA-5061 (2003), Administrator v. Clair Aero, Inc., NTSB Order No. EA-5181 (2005), Administrator v. Wallace, NTSB Order No. EA-5461 (2009).

See also Memo (May 1982) from Bernard Geier, Chief, General Aviation and Commercial Division, to Chief, Flight Standards Division; and the memo (18 May 2009) to Don Bobertz, Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel Western Pacific Region, AWP-007 from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200.

See also interpretations from the Office of the Chief Counsel for FAA to Judy Lincoln (30 Oct 1990) and to John W Harrington (23 Oct 1997).

[2Donkeys]

All true Selfie, but in the question posed to us, the assumption is that the costs of the flight will be met by the pilot in full. That does not meet the hurdle for compensation.

[selfin]

The operator bearing the cost of the operation is not a sufficient defence.

Administrator v. Wallace, NTSB Order No. EA-5461 (2009):

In Administrator v. Clair Aero, Inc., NTSB
Order No. EA-5181 at 11 (2005), we stated that, “intangible
benefits, such as the expectation of future economic benefit or
business, are sufficient to render a flight one ‘for
compensation or hire.’” In Clair Aero, we cited several cases
in which we had previously recognized this interpretation,
including Administrator v. Blackburn, 4 NTSB 409 (1982), which
the Ninth Circuit subsequently affirmed. Blackburn v. NTSB, 709
F.2d 1514 (9th Cir. 1983). We also note that in Administrator
v. Wagner, NTSB Order No. EA-4081 at 6 n.11 (1994), we stated as
follows:It is well-established that “compensation,” which is
one of the elements of “common carriage,” need not be
monetary. Intangible rewards such as good will or the
expectation of future economic benefits——both of which
would likely have resulted from the flight if [the
respondent] had not been charged——can also constitute
“compensation.”

[Luc Lion]

So, it's a can of worms that'd better stay closed in EASA land.

And speaking about compensation, I often have been invited for a meal by a friend I had flown earlier. Of course I didn't do the flight for the meal. But if I have to have second thoughts before accepting the invitation because of legalities, it's gonna be a really pissing legal framework.

[Mariner9]

The FAA Common Purpose rule didn't help Ibbotson or Sala.

[selfin]

Fortunately most pilots can be trusted to conform their behaviour to the rule of law.

[Mariner9]

Those that don't often pay for it. Is it a reason to make ever more draconian laws? Wont stop the lawbreakers.

[ChickenHouse]

I disagree. Common purpose would dramatically alter the nature of Wingly, to name but one example. No more offers of flights to passenger-chosen destinations as such offers would fall foul of the rule.

That isnt a justification for introducing that test, but it does demonstrate that it would make a difference.




... and no more helping the fellow pilot from next stand in your hangar if his aircraft has to stay unplanned at the shop and we now simply fly there and get him back home ... do you really want that? We are a rather large group of pilots at my place and it is a real airmen environment. We help each other and I want that to stay. So, if one is bringing his plane to the shop and needs a lift back home, I want to be able to do that, even if I have no bloody 'common purpose'. I am pretty sure we find enough examples were this would be BS and my life experience - you never ever get this covered by 'regulations'. Oh, and I do prefer to live in a reality, not some theoretical bubble of digital dictators.

[selfin]

The common-purpose rule has no relevance to flights offered to the public on a compensation basis. These flights are common-carriage operations are subject to 14 CFR 119, making a requirement for an air operator certificate among others, and 14 CFR 135 or 121.

The common-purpose rule is only relevant to operations excluded or exempted by 14 CFR 119 and the pilot acts under a US pilot certificate. A relevant example is a cost-shared flight which is not advertised to the public. Advertising in online closed groups may be regarded as advertising to the public. See interpretation given 3 Oct 2011 to Haberkorn.

In an interpretation given 21 May 2014 to Andy Dobis: "It is important to note, however, that the privileges and limitations conferred upon pilots are a separate and distinct issue from whether these flights would be considered a commercial operation for a part 119 air carrier or commercial operator certificate is required."

In the appellate decision made 18 Dec 2015 in Flytenow Inc. vs. Federal Aviation Administration (link (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/14-1168/14-1168-2015-12-18.html)): "The common-purpose test has no bearing on whether compensation in the form of passengers' expense sharing, together with holding out to the general public, tends to show that a private pilot is operating as a common carrier."

ChickenHouse, if the common-purpose test is not passed and there is compensation in respect of a non-advertised flight then it is probably a private carriage operation. See 14 CFR 119.23(b).

[Jonzarno]

What is the definition of “Common Purpose”?

For example: I agree to fly someone from Cambridge to Glasgow and we fly there in my aircraft with him bearing half of the cost. Our common purpose is a desire to go to Glasgow. Is that enough? Or when we get there, do we then have to remain joined at the hip for the duration of our time there?

Supposing when we get there we each go to a separate and unrelated business meeting before flying back together that evening. Does that destroy our common purpose?

And what then about the return flight? When we fly back together, I want to go back to my home in Cambridge, and my passenger wants to go home to Kent. Am I allowed to drop him off at Biggin Hill when I have no absolute need to go there myself?

And after all that, suppose the “common purpose” is declared to be: “we both wanted to go for a flight”?

Personally, I think a better test of legitimacy would be: “Is the flight genuinely planned to happen anyway, whether someone shares the cost or not?”. I would also insist on the pilot paying at least an equal share.

That means that a pilot posting a flight on a site such as Wingly would have to specify a date, time and destination. The common purpose then would simply be a desire to get to that specific destination. That’s not to say that they can‘t cancel the flight if they don’t get a rider, or accommodate a reasonable request for an earlier or later departure time.

That would allow pilots to offer genuine cost share flights and, at least if properly policed by the flight share sites and the authorities, it should stop the “let me know where you want to go and when, and I’ll take you if you pay 99% of the costs” ads.

[Gomrath]

Direct cut and paste from FAA Bulletinfrom 2010.
​​​​​​
Quote:
The FAA, however,
interprets “compensation” very broadly. For
example, the FAA has long held that logging flight
time for the conduct of a flight is compensation.
Most of us, and especially those of us seeking that
coveted left seat at a major air carrier, know how
valuable flight time can be. So, if someone requests
that you use your superior piloting skills to take them
to that resort of their choice and you decline any
monetary payment, but still log that flight time while
not paying the costs of operating the aircraft, you’ve
received compensation.

[Luc Lion]

Gomrath,
that's exactly the type of non-sense that MUST NOT make its way to Europe.

Transposing it to road transportation to highlight how absurd it is:
If your neighbour asks you the favour of driving him to town in your own car, even if you don't ask any monetary payment, you need to have a taxi driver licence because you are receiving a compensation through increasing your driver experience.

We are used to lawmakers and lawyers making regulations that defy common sense but, no thanks, we have enough of that in aviation.

[meleagertoo]

On the contrary, I think hours as valuable consideration is vital to include in the compensation list. It is something you'd otherwise have to pay for - ergo getting it for free is payment.
I also think common purpose is an excellent open-ended criterion that can be used if necessary to nab illegal charters. Best left undefined like 'conjested area' for flexibility whan needed.
And finally, equal cost share. Utterly essential to combat the blatant abuse of the system by Wingly.

[Mariner9]

And finally, equal cost share. Utterly essential to combat the blatant abuse of the system by Wingly.

Wingly don't "blatantly abuse the system", they in fact do exactly what you are proposing by requiring (in their T&Cs) an equal share to be contributed by the pilot. Thus, changing the rules to equal cost share would have zero effect on their modus operandi.

[Ebbie 2003]

Luc Lion et al.

Logging flight time is valuable consideration for some but maybe not for others.

A PPL hour building towards a commercial license = valuable consideration.

A PPL not building hours yes he has "fun" flying he adds to his hours but is it valuable consideration - well yes, if he says like to fly six hours a month and if I fly this chap I will do my six hours but this will be two of them and so I have benefitted to the tune of two hours I have four hundred quid in my pocket I wouldn't otherwise have, or maybe this month I fly eight hours.

On the car example - I agree other than if for driving my friend I am paid - in an accident if anyone is foolish enough to admit the arrangement the insurance would be invalidated.

Consider my previous question - I have an FAA reg airplane and an FAA PPL - I advertise but do not charge - Wingly I do not take the money, but of course the px have paid Wingly - is there an offense there (this is a real example by the way, I did it just to see how it works)?

Now what if I meet a couple take them flying, no charge, when we land they give me a couple of bags of Maltesers as a thank you - I am two bags of choccies up on the deal - is there something wrong - there was no agreement concerning Maltesers at the outset - what if there was? Another real example by the way.

Seems to me that semantic legalistic wriggling on the issue of cost sharing is a joke - you fly for a fee you are commercial - you need a commercial ticket - if it is your niece, your cousin, best mate, a stranger off the Internet it is irrelevant - the question is the fee. If I make a loss on the trip and charge a fee - also irrelevant - the issue it the fee (the benefit one gained) - valuable consideration is what the law calls it - hard to define but you know it when you see it.

I started the Wingly related Dodgy or Legit discussion a year or so ago - to me in the UK context it appeared dodgy - I was concerned then about low hours pilots (less than 100 total time) seeming to be offering what looked like commercial services.

If one chooses (FAA this, maybe someone can tell me if there are similar UK rules) to fly at a charity event - you know 15-minute trips around the lighthouse - the FAA Rules require a MINIMUM of 500 hours (up from 200 - so something going on there!), this 500+ hours can only do four such events in any year (some types only one); the local FSDO has to be notified a week in advance; no flights more than 25 miles from the airport and not to another airport; and there are other admin hoops. If instead of a charity/community event - I do the same things, same public, same airport - I can to it with 50 hours, notify no one, fly 200 miles from the airport and do it three times a week if I like. Something doesn't quite add up - the most interesting thing is the increase from 200 to 500 hours minimum time - something must have caused it no idea what.

Six or more year ago I was asked to fly in a charity event (yup, flights up around the lighthouse) I pointed to the rules (I had about 130 hours at the time and the minimum was at that time 200, and not time to notify the FSDO 1,500 miles away) - to this day I have not got over the scorn poured on me by the local flying club and aviation authority (here not US) for saying I couldn't as it would break the rules - I did rent them my airplane though and they had a guy do the trips who hadn't flown for a few of years had zero solo in that time - but did a few touch and goes with an instructor to get legal before flying all and sundry out to the lighthouse and back (a very nice 1000ft aaltitude diagonally across the international airport until reminded about the "circuit thing") - oh, and with the top latch on the Archer closed but not the main one, until I pointed out the exterior handle sticking out at ninety degrees, useful things binoculars!

While it was not Wingly - it appears that Mr. Sala fell foul of some form of dodgy arrangement - I expect some form of regulation to follow not sure what but there must be a reaction - I suggest something like the FAA charity/community rules would be a good start - well worth a read.

[Luc Lion]

it appears that Mr. Sala fell foul of some form of dodgy arrangement.
What I find outrageous about this dodgy arrangement is that
1. the organiser did not warn Mr Sala that it would not be a professional flight performed by an air-taxi company (as he might be used to) but rather something similar to the flights of Mr John Doe, CEO of the successful company DogsEat****, who bought his own airplane and hired a pilot to fly him around.
2. the organiser did not act like the CEO of DogsEat**** and did not hire a CPL (IR) with enough experience for safely flying a FIKI non-turbine aircraft through approaches with light or moderate icing.

[spitfire]

Wherever the regulatory line is drawn, people will seek to push beyond that line. Personally, I support the FAA's position on cost sharing. It does very little to restrict a responsible-minded pilot; but does a lot to keep a lid on dodgy activities.