What is `promoting a flight` and the ANO?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you had a website which said:
"I am going to France on Tuesday at 10am, anyone want to come and we'll share the costs"
Then I think that would be ok, and the flight is intended anyway.
If you said.
"Who wants to go to France next week, time and date to suit, we'll share the cost"
Then that is not ok.
There is a website in the USA called "Pilot Share The Ride" where pilots can advertise flights and I think passengers can advertise that they want to go somewhere, and I presume that is legal.
"I am going to France on Tuesday at 10am, anyone want to come and we'll share the costs"
Then I think that would be ok, and the flight is intended anyway.
If you said.
"Who wants to go to France next week, time and date to suit, we'll share the cost"
Then that is not ok.
There is a website in the USA called "Pilot Share The Ride" where pilots can advertise flights and I think passengers can advertise that they want to go somewhere, and I presume that is legal.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
(kids would be so much better off ... wasting less ... their parents' money on their phones)
We have provided none of our children with phones. They have however all acquired phones, but they have done this by working and earning the money (babysitting, paper rounds, helping on market stalls etc), which I'm sure is good for them.
We have provided then with internet access, via a house full of computer. Of a standard perfectly adequate for doing homework, that is. When they decide they want to use their computers for things like watching hi-res movies they buy their own bigger and faster ones, if they think that's a higher priority use of their earnings than better bicycles or festival tickets.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are going to restrict the site to friends why cant it be a members' web site with the member paying a small fee to join the club and gain access to whatever it is the club has to offer to paid up members.
As to the general question of taking people on "experience" flights etc I would be very wary indeed. Its fun to cost share with other pilots and people who are properly friends. However even doing this can impose pressures on you that you actually might find you are not ready to deal with. It can be very tempting to depart into weather that you wouldn't otherwise, or press on in more marginal conditions. There are good reasons for a CPL being a step beyond a PPL and more good reasons if it becomes a commercial op to meet the AOC requirements. I don't think that is a bad thing.
Are you sure you are ready to deal with those "pressures" and have the experience to know when to say NO! Just a very polite question.
As to the general question of taking people on "experience" flights etc I would be very wary indeed. Its fun to cost share with other pilots and people who are properly friends. However even doing this can impose pressures on you that you actually might find you are not ready to deal with. It can be very tempting to depart into weather that you wouldn't otherwise, or press on in more marginal conditions. There are good reasons for a CPL being a step beyond a PPL and more good reasons if it becomes a commercial op to meet the AOC requirements. I don't think that is a bad thing.
Are you sure you are ready to deal with those "pressures" and have the experience to know when to say NO! Just a very polite question.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am totally against illegal charter, but while we are discussing hypotheticals 
...
Indeed but nobody can do that unless they massively breach the cost sharing rules, because no pilot is going to do the flight unless they can make a profit.
17 years is an awful awful long time. The internet was virtually unknown in 1995. In fact my business (going since 1991, though I have been in business since 1978) only started sorting out a website in 1995!
Indeed, but a CPL is almost worthless. Anybody can get a CPL. The JAA CPL is "just" 9 exams plus a really picky VFR dead reckoning exercise which has to be done via an FTO (though it can be done outside JAA-land). What the CAA actually goes for is the AOC; that is what costs the real money, and is supposed to keep the cowboys away from charter work.
As I said above, the argument is really why it is illegal to advertise a cost shared flight on a club website, but is legal to advertise the exact same flight on a notice board in a decrepit wooden hut with water coming in through the roof?
How about having the said wooden hut, with a notice board on the wall, and a projector shining onto the noticeboard, and the projector being connected to a PC running an RDP server, and having a webcam monitoring the noticeboard, with the webcam having an HTTP server. Then you meet the requirement of the "club premises". The law doesn't say the advertised cost-shared flight has to be viewable only by a physical human presence in the physical premises.
I think the present drafting was the best the CAA could hack together, many years ago and long before the internet, to make it reasonably hard to set up cost sharing arrangements.
...
The purpose of the law is to prevent you running something that is like a passenger service, with the schedule set out in advance. Read the ANO with this in mind.
Sophistry about websites being premises, or a closed group of (passenger) friends being a flying club, is not worth bothering with. I looked into this type of approach when advising on an internet lottery in 1995, and took the view that no court was likely to be impressed!
There are good reasons for a CPL being a step beyond a PPL and more good reasons if it becomes a commercial op to meet the AOC requirements
As I said above, the argument is really why it is illegal to advertise a cost shared flight on a club website, but is legal to advertise the exact same flight on a notice board in a decrepit wooden hut with water coming in through the roof?
How about having the said wooden hut, with a notice board on the wall, and a projector shining onto the noticeboard, and the projector being connected to a PC running an RDP server, and having a webcam monitoring the noticeboard, with the webcam having an HTTP server. Then you meet the requirement of the "club premises". The law doesn't say the advertised cost-shared flight has to be viewable only by a physical human presence in the physical premises.
I think the present drafting was the best the CAA could hack together, many years ago and long before the internet, to make it reasonably hard to set up cost sharing arrangements.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you had a website which said:
"I am going to France on Tuesday at 10am, anyone want to come and we'll share the costs"
Then I think that would be ok, and the flight is intended anyway.
"I am going to France on Tuesday at 10am, anyone want to come and we'll share the costs"
Then I think that would be ok, and the flight is intended anyway.
I am totally against illegal charter, but while we are discussing hypotheticals 
...
Quote:
The purpose of the law is to prevent you running something that is like a passenger service, with the schedule set out in advance. Read the ANO with this in mind.
Indeed but nobody can do that unless they massively breach the cost sharing rules, because no pilot is going to do the flight unless they can make a profit.
...Quote:
The purpose of the law is to prevent you running something that is like a passenger service, with the schedule set out in advance. Read the ANO with this in mind.
Indeed but nobody can do that unless they massively breach the cost sharing rules, because no pilot is going to do the flight unless they can make a profit.
The aim (to the extent that you can ever discover the aim of UK legislation from its wording [and yes, this does make me cross!]) seems to be that public transport pilots should be trained to ahigher standard. The general public is allowed to cost share if the flight is purely for fun. Then the restrictions, as drafted, try to capture fun flying by ruling out everything which might be perceived as a transport service. Thus anything which says "Departure 10.00" isn't allowed, unless those told arealready pilots or trainee pilots, in which case they understand that this means "10, if the aircraft works, and once I've had my tea, subject to weather and changing my mind".
I think the present drafting was the best the CAA could hack together, many years ago and long before the internet, to make it reasonably hard to set up cost sharing arrangements.
It strikes me as verging on the scandalous that almost no-one here (maybe even no-one) is capable of understanding the ANO, and it's not their fault.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, but a CPL is almost worthless
Most professional qualifications are of little value in themselves but they are a necessary rung on the ladder.
For commercial ops an aoc is a prerequisite and they are tough to come by; as you say only the most committed cowboys get through, by which time they may have swaped their badge for a sherrifs.
I have raised the issue before but i always find the idea of pleasure flights wrapped up as a trial lesson a bit dubious. I know of schools that offer trial lessons and circumstances where i think both parties know there is no intention of the trial lesson leading to anything further. Does the trial flyer understand the additional risk of a pleasure flight in a sep? I guess not. However equally i guess the instructor is more likely to say no when he should than a newish ppl.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't a realistic scenario that of an hour builder, running a daily 10am flight to X, with the passengers picking up a large portion of the cost? I can see why the CAA wants to prevent that kind of thing.
seems to be that public transport pilots should be trained to ahigher standard. The general public is allowed to cost share if the flight is purely for fun
You could debate what expectation of extra safety a paying passenger has in a beaten up spamcan (even one on an AOC; most AOC planes seem to be beaten up wreckage... look at the Islanders and Trilanders) and that's before I come back to the whole thing being 100% legit if the flight is advertised in the said wooden hut and the prospective passenger is a member of some "club" (for which no fee needs to be charged anyway).
It doesn't make any sense to me - other than just FUD to keep a lid on illegal charter while allowing cost sharing in physical schools/clubs, pre-internet.
As regards getting an AOC, anybody with £ 5 figures can get an A to B AOC, by throwing some money at a consultant who knows how to set it up. Same with ISO9000, etc. I have seen some of the worst dishonest crooked cowboys get AOCs, and all manufacturers who make absolute crap (with apologies to Mr Ratner) were the first to get ISO9000.
Last edited by peterh337; 8th Aug 2012 at 21:43.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I would agree with ProfChrisRead about the generally poor level of drafting in the ANO, I think the principles the ANO is trying to achieve are reasonably clear (with some interpolating between the lines)
This then results in the structure we have which is
It is this last point that then introduces all of the complexity because lots of people are paid in respect of any flight. A typical rental flight will have the club paid for the aircraft, the airport paid for landing/takeoff fees, the fueler for fuel, Eurocontrol (if you are more than 2 tonnes), etc.. So just because money changed hands doesn't prove anything about the commerciality.
So, I think (once again an assumption of mine), the CAA tried to get around this by recognising that these payments are all reasonable, but that the pilot can not make anything like a profit and must stand a reasonable part of the cost. Hence excluding fixed costs and allowing only costs directly related to the flight. Furthermore, to avoid taking the p!ss (i.e. 'cost sharing' a fully loaded biz jet), the CAA have the 'we are talking about small groups of known friends' concept. Which leads us to it is only 4 people at a time and it is not generally advertised (which then would have banned club fly outs so I suspect this clause is a 'fix' rather than a strategy).
In this context, I think the original poster 'advertising' future flights would fall foul of the CAA intent, unless it was accessible only to a very close group of friends that effectively were a flying club. Describing past flights, in the context of a website that said, 'call me an we can arrange for you to make this flight as well', would seem to not meet the spirit. Telling someone, do you want to go flying with me next weekend, look at my website and pick a destination or two and depending on weather we will go seems perfectly reasonable.
The FAA has a 'common purpose rule' for cost sharing private flights. If you are all flying to the city to go to the same convention that's OK to cost share. If three of you are going to the convention and a fourth person tags along for a lift to the city (and pays a share) then that is not OK. (Note UK DfT rules apply to N-reg ops in the UK, hence Peter's comment about cost sharing not being allowed).
- Providing flying services to 'the public' should be regulated and undertaken by 'professionally' licenced organisations and individuals
- It is acceptable for a service that is very specialist and does not carry other people or their property to have a lower level of structural organisation
- Private people also fly and they may well have friends/club mates. (My Assumption Here) And these individuals will be much more familiar with the nature of the person flying and the type of operation and as responsible citizens should be allowed to choose to participate or not without undue interference from the State.
This then results in the structure we have which is
- Public Transport (of people or goods) requires a professional organisation to manage/control/be accountable, etc. Hence all these activities must be undertaken under an AOC. The AOC terms will specifiy in detail the training and licencing requirements of the pilots and other key participants
- Other forms of service (Aerial Work) which do not involve risk to the general public either as passengers or their goods, should be undetaken to a level of professionalism that does not take unreasonable risks in the pursuit of profit (Hence the higher airworthiness requriements under old CAA rules for public vs private aircraft and the need for a CPL for 'commercial' non-public transport work
- FInally, we have private flights which are lightly requlated. But how do we distinguish these from the two regulated ones. One obvious way is 'is anyone being paid?'
It is this last point that then introduces all of the complexity because lots of people are paid in respect of any flight. A typical rental flight will have the club paid for the aircraft, the airport paid for landing/takeoff fees, the fueler for fuel, Eurocontrol (if you are more than 2 tonnes), etc.. So just because money changed hands doesn't prove anything about the commerciality.
So, I think (once again an assumption of mine), the CAA tried to get around this by recognising that these payments are all reasonable, but that the pilot can not make anything like a profit and must stand a reasonable part of the cost. Hence excluding fixed costs and allowing only costs directly related to the flight. Furthermore, to avoid taking the p!ss (i.e. 'cost sharing' a fully loaded biz jet), the CAA have the 'we are talking about small groups of known friends' concept. Which leads us to it is only 4 people at a time and it is not generally advertised (which then would have banned club fly outs so I suspect this clause is a 'fix' rather than a strategy).
In this context, I think the original poster 'advertising' future flights would fall foul of the CAA intent, unless it was accessible only to a very close group of friends that effectively were a flying club. Describing past flights, in the context of a website that said, 'call me an we can arrange for you to make this flight as well', would seem to not meet the spirit. Telling someone, do you want to go flying with me next weekend, look at my website and pick a destination or two and depending on weather we will go seems perfectly reasonable.
The FAA has a 'common purpose rule' for cost sharing private flights. If you are all flying to the city to go to the same convention that's OK to cost share. If three of you are going to the convention and a fourth person tags along for a lift to the city (and pays a share) then that is not OK. (Note UK DfT rules apply to N-reg ops in the UK, hence Peter's comment about cost sharing not being allowed).
all manufacturers who make absolute crap (with apologies to Mr Ratner) were the first to get ISO9000.
I'ts perfectly legitimate to say you'll produce crap, consistently produce crap to known procedures, and thus obtain ISO9000 accreditation.
Similarly you can get an AOC by only just adhering to the minimum standard of every safety procedure, whilst providing shocking customer service. It would be lovely to believe that such companies will then be shunned and go out of business, but given that Ryanair continue to turn a healthy profit, this is clearly untrue.
G
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm
You cannot be convicted on the spirit of something only on the Letter!
It is bad enough in the UK to get criminals convicted nowadays because of minute get outs.
The ANO seems amazingly wishy washy and maybe that is why so few prosecutions are bought in illegal charter.
What constitutes a friend? There are people on this site who I have never met or conversed with who I would classify as friends?
If a friend brings along a friend who is not your friend?
I also find it a joke that the CAA value someones safety by whether money exchanges hands.
I would say very few one off fun flights are with people who are any more familiar with the risks and dangers of flying with a PPL in single.
To them a pilot is a pilot qualified to fly whether they have got 50 hrs total or 500 hrs total.
Are these people less entitled to the protections placed on the same people paying for it!
We all know the spirit of what the CAA have tried to achieve but its the detail that counts.
Pace
You cannot be convicted on the spirit of something only on the Letter!
It is bad enough in the UK to get criminals convicted nowadays because of minute get outs.
The ANO seems amazingly wishy washy and maybe that is why so few prosecutions are bought in illegal charter.
What constitutes a friend? There are people on this site who I have never met or conversed with who I would classify as friends?
If a friend brings along a friend who is not your friend?
I also find it a joke that the CAA value someones safety by whether money exchanges hands.
I would say very few one off fun flights are with people who are any more familiar with the risks and dangers of flying with a PPL in single.
To them a pilot is a pilot qualified to fly whether they have got 50 hrs total or 500 hrs total.
Are these people less entitled to the protections placed on the same people paying for it!
We all know the spirit of what the CAA have tried to achieve but its the detail that counts.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace - it is an interesting area. In particular your comment about a pilot being a pilot is one I share. I suspect the public views a pilot little differently from someone that drives a car. You have either got the license or not. I suspect the public do recognise the importance of experience; we are all slightly nervous of getting into a car with someone who has just passed their driving test, but I suspect that is as far as they go.
As we have discussed the authorities rightly set the bar higher for pilots or drivers who provide public transport services. (except in the case of taxi drivers I guess who at most only have to pass a knowledge test, which says more about their ability to get from A to B) than to drive safely. They also set the bar higher for instructors although applying the same analogy anyone can teach someone to drive a car.
and so my earlier point was as soon as you allow people to cost share or to take people for pleasure flights (dressed up as trial lessons) you have already eroded the perceived "protection" of allowing the public to fly with a pilot with the assumption he has the necessary skill set to conduct the flight.
I well recall taking some friends flying the day after I passed my PPL. They knew I had just passed because I told them. I might not have told them. We did an aerial tour of the local cabbage patch. We might not have done - we could just as well set off for the South of France. I suspect they thought I was as well qualified to fly anywhere and in any weather as any other pilot.
I agree with the sentiment expressed by others. There are a few areas where the ANO should be clear; this is one of those areas and its really not good enough the law is not clear.
As we have discussed the authorities rightly set the bar higher for pilots or drivers who provide public transport services. (except in the case of taxi drivers I guess who at most only have to pass a knowledge test, which says more about their ability to get from A to B) than to drive safely. They also set the bar higher for instructors although applying the same analogy anyone can teach someone to drive a car.
and so my earlier point was as soon as you allow people to cost share or to take people for pleasure flights (dressed up as trial lessons) you have already eroded the perceived "protection" of allowing the public to fly with a pilot with the assumption he has the necessary skill set to conduct the flight.
I well recall taking some friends flying the day after I passed my PPL. They knew I had just passed because I told them. I might not have told them. We did an aerial tour of the local cabbage patch. We might not have done - we could just as well set off for the South of France. I suspect they thought I was as well qualified to fly anywhere and in any weather as any other pilot.
I agree with the sentiment expressed by others. There are a few areas where the ANO should be clear; this is one of those areas and its really not good enough the law is not clear.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to your other point, I find it quite reasonable and totally consistent with the general principles of Western Society that a paying customer is entitled to a substantially higher duty of care than a random person.
We don't want to live in a world where all drivers have to be registered taxi drivers (using approved vehicles) to carry a passenger or where your kitchen needs to meet the requirements for a food manufacturing plant to have a guest eat your food or any of the other requirements we as a society place on commercial providers of goods and services that are not applied to providing those same goods and services in a private context.
This is not that we value the private lives of people less than the commercial lives, but that we as a society have decided the government should establish specific minimum standards of process/structure/training so we don't need to do a detail due diligence on every service provider we use.
Last edited by mm_flynn; 9th Aug 2012 at 10:19.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM
I actually agree with you but am pointing out a fact that for use of a better term there is a lot of grey and for the sake of confusion the CAA need to be more specific.
We all know the spirit which is that the CAA do not want PPLs setting up mini air taxi operations and are trying to accommodate cost share for genuine private flights with friends but we are in a regulation nit picky society.
It always amuses me the amount of ways people try to get around the law to make money.
The most common one being dial xyz to win a luxury holiday for two calls cost y per min. Simply answer the following questions. which is the tallest a man standing upright, a mouse or a miniature poodle
So do not blame or look down on people who try to operate to their advantage within the law it is not them at fault but the law.
And yes those who cut it fine may find themselves as test cases on that law in the courts.
Pace
I actually agree with you but am pointing out a fact that for use of a better term there is a lot of grey and for the sake of confusion the CAA need to be more specific.
We all know the spirit which is that the CAA do not want PPLs setting up mini air taxi operations and are trying to accommodate cost share for genuine private flights with friends but we are in a regulation nit picky society.
It always amuses me the amount of ways people try to get around the law to make money.
The most common one being dial xyz to win a luxury holiday for two calls cost y per min. Simply answer the following questions. which is the tallest a man standing upright, a mouse or a miniature poodle
So do not blame or look down on people who try to operate to their advantage within the law it is not them at fault but the law.
And yes those who cut it fine may find themselves as test cases on that law in the courts.
Pace
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We could always discuss the FAA "common purpose" rule 
It is extremely strict compared to the UK one, and I am sure it is widely disregarded in the USA.
On the ANO, I think the CAA have done the best they can while preserving PPL cost sharing.
To take one case: if the owner of a flying school rents one of the school's planes and cost shares it 75% (3 passengers), he is actually paying less than his 25% because he recovers a part of his rental via salary+dividends from the school. The CAA confirmed to me in 2003 that this is legal.
It is extremely strict compared to the UK one, and I am sure it is widely disregarded in the USA.
On the ANO, I think the CAA have done the best they can while preserving PPL cost sharing.
To take one case: if the owner of a flying school rents one of the school's planes and cost shares it 75% (3 passengers), he is actually paying less than his 25% because he recovers a part of his rental via salary+dividends from the school. The CAA confirmed to me in 2003 that this is legal.
Last edited by peterh337; 9th Aug 2012 at 13:03.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the ANO, I think the CAA have done the best they can while preserving PPL cost sharing.
Example: Pilot A goes flying with friend B and pilot A's daughter comes along. Cost sharing has been agreed. But Pilot A has just lost her job, so friend B says "We'll split the costs 50/50". Unlawful.
Same example but it's passenger B's daughter and B has just lost her job. 50/50 cost split. That's OK.
peterh337's example is another one.
All these fall within what the CAA is trying to permit, but the first is unlawful, the second not, and the third caused debate until the CAA clarified it (and note that it might still be unlawful but the CAA has promised not to take action, which is not quite the same thing).
Pah!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and note that it might still be unlawful but the CAA has promised not to take action, which is not quite the same thing).
IE there is a major accident a claim and that is cited as CAA law!
Its either there or should be removed or changed.
Pace
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So both of your two examples are legal as intended. Peter's is a somewhat complex set of facts and I have some sympathy with the inability to legislate specifically for every variation of facts.
Last edited by mm_flynn; 10th Aug 2012 at 10:20.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 49
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So both of your two examples are legal as intended. Peter's is a somewhat complex set of facts and I have some sympathy with the inability to legislate specifically for every variation of facts.
I think the company one is relatively easy if it is a limited company - the plane belongs to the company not the individual. May be more complicated if it is a sole entrepreneur type of outfit.
If A and B are both pilots would that change anything? If A invites B to go along on a flight (A pays 100%), but then A says "B, Why don't you take controls for a while?" would B then be breaking the rules of the ANO? He is flying but is not paying after all.
Golf-Sierra
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How far does cost sharing go?
For example, say Peter says "Alan, my TB20 is stuck in Jersey and I am hard at work, as you are going to be there, can you pick it up for me and drop it in Shoreham, I'll pay for the fuel". (well I can hope can't I )......
Or say I let Peter fly my aeroplane one day and I pay for the costs...
Are they legal scenarios? I am sure it has happened many times.
Also, say you have a group owned aeroplane and it is Annual time and the aircraft has to go to say Shoreham for maintenance. If the group ask one of the owners to fly the aeroplane but the entire group covers the costs (fuel for example), is this legal? Happens all the time.
How does holding a CPL alter this? In the first instance, as I hold an FAA CPL and Peter is not paying me for my services, then I can't find any reason that this would be illegal, even under Dft rules for foreign registered aeroplanes....?
For example, say Peter says "Alan, my TB20 is stuck in Jersey and I am hard at work, as you are going to be there, can you pick it up for me and drop it in Shoreham, I'll pay for the fuel". (well I can hope can't I
)......Or say I let Peter fly my aeroplane one day and I pay for the costs...
Are they legal scenarios? I am sure it has happened many times.
Also, say you have a group owned aeroplane and it is Annual time and the aircraft has to go to say Shoreham for maintenance. If the group ask one of the owners to fly the aeroplane but the entire group covers the costs (fuel for example), is this legal? Happens all the time.
How does holding a CPL alter this? In the first instance, as I hold an FAA CPL and Peter is not paying me for my services, then I can't find any reason that this would be illegal, even under Dft rules for foreign registered aeroplanes....?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
englishal's examples are all OK under the cost sharing rule, which only applies to payments by passengers. They might be a problem under some other rule, but I can't face looking at the ANO again.
Oh, and mmflynn spotted my error - had to re-read the ANO to see why, and I was working on the basis that the rule prevented a passenger paying more than his/her proportionate share, whereas in fact it means that the pilot must pay not less than the pilot's proportionate share. The perils of posting after dinner, but it reinforces my point about the impenetrability of the damn thing!
If the relevant part of the ANO read something like:
then this whole thread would be unnecessary.
Oh, and mmflynn spotted my error - had to re-read the ANO to see why, and I was working on the basis that the rule prevented a passenger paying more than his/her proportionate share, whereas in fact it means that the pilot must pay not less than the pilot's proportionate share. The perils of posting after dinner, but it reinforces my point about the impenetrability of the damn thing!
If the relevant part of the ANO read something like:
(1) The pilot must pay no less than his proportionate share of the costs.
(2) The planned details of the flight may only be advertised to the members of a bona fide flying club.
(2) The planned details of the flight may only be advertised to the members of a bona fide flying club.
