ppl cost sharing on facebook

[tomtytom]

What are peoples thoughts about using Facebook to let people know your flying and if they want to join you and cost share?

[tomtytom]

Love the enthusiasm but meant more, i almost posted a status saying hey all going flying this sat over the lakes about 1hr to 1hr 30min £40 towards fuel message me if your interested for more info' then thought it would be breaching the rules of advertising a cost share so thought instead 'hey anyone wanna go flying this weekend?' with intent of messaging individual replies then thought id ask for peoples views on here first but yeh if you like add me on facebook

[Gertrude the Wombat]

thought it would be breaching the rules of advertising a cost share

That is correct.

[tomtytom]

So if i posted (which is to my friends only anyway on Facebook) going flying this weekend if you fancy a spin (not literally) give me a shout then first 3 people or contact me i then explain the cost sharing and wat my intentions are as to were to go etc it still sounds like a grey area...... Anyone brave enough to ask caa?

[custardpsc]

Its more than breaching the rules on advertising, its known as 'holding out' to be a carrier and is heading towards aerial work/AOC. The rules on cost sharing arent the only rules you have to follow when offering to carry people....

[stevelup]

I've taken quite a few friends flying and never at any point mentioned money.

When we land, they help me refuel and it is quite obvious to them at that point that it's not cheap! Not one of them didn't then stick their hand in their pocket and give me a few quid.

I guess it depends how thoughtful your friends are... If they are the kind of people that would turn up for dinner without bringing a bottle, then they probably wouldn't offer you any money towards the flight!

[rich_g85]

I've considered doing this, but always decided against it. Something along the lines of "I've got a spare seat, anyone want to join me for a flight?" No mention (or expectation) of money though.

There's the much higher risk that the first person to reply will be some rotter from school that I'd rather not be stuck in a cramped cockpit for an hour with

[Whopity]

From time to time we see posts looking at ways of using the cost sharing option as a loophole to advertise flights and therefore fly passengers for remuneration.

The reason that its illegal to offer flights for money is to provide an element of protection for those who choose to accept the offer of a paid flight. It is akin to PSV licences for bus drivers and similar rules for taxi drivers.

The cost sharing option is there to provide a sensible way by which people who genuinely want to fly together can share the costs. If administered sensibly, nobody will really know how you do it or even care. You are even allowed to advertise such flights within a flying club.

Once you deliberately set out to persuade passengers to fly with you for money, any form of advertising gives a clear indication of intent, then you are effectively embarking on the very action that the legislation is there to prevent. You are also leaving yourself wide open to civil action if anything goes wrong. If you do this regularly within a flying club, it will not be long before someone spots what you are doing and you can bet that someone from within will report it. Most complaints to the CAA ARE come from within the aviation community.

[peterh337]

If you do this regularly within a flying club, it will not be long before someone spots what you are doing

Whopity - do you think the requirement for the cost sharing advert to be within a "club" is for that reason?

The ANO wording predates the internet by many years, FWIW, AFAIK.

[TRPGpilot]

While we sit here discussing the rules

While we sit here discussing the "rules" GA is slowly declining as cost mount. the facebook generation are what we have now. The "rules" need to move with the times, or private flying risk being relagated to stuffy old men flying smelly old planes on sunny weekends. I for one would be willing to cost share ( and advertise thew fact AND the cost) because what fun is it to fly alone?

[dublinpilot]

If you do this regularly within a flying club, it will not be long before someone spots what you are doing

Whopity - do you think the requirement for the cost sharing advert to be within a "club" is for that reason?

The ANO wording predates the internet by many years, FWIW, AFAIK.

The ANO might predate the internet, but there was plenty of other media outlets before that. I suppose nobody can ever know what was in the minds of those that wrote the leglisation (except those that wrote it!) but if I was to take a guess, I'd say that it's there because those inside a flying club are not "the general public" when it comes to flying. Unlike "the general public" members of a flying club will have a good understanding of the risk involved, and the differences between risks for private flight and airlines.

I suppose that bring up the issue or why a "flying club" member is acceptable, but not another pilot or family member of another pilot, both of whom are likely to have a better understanding of the risks then the general public. But in these cases I suppose advertising isn't likely to be needed...they just know one another

Personally I've never taken money off anyone for bringing them flying.

If the only way you can afford to fly is to cost share, then cost share with another PPL (where you can share the flying) or cost share with close friends.

Once you get to the point of having to advertise the cost sharing to non pilots, then I think you're already overstepping the mark....at least in spirit.

[rich_g85]

trpgpilot, I agree that there are many areas of private flying/GA which could use some modernisation. That said, I'm sure you'd agree that this particular rule is there for a very good reason.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If they are the kind of people that would turn up for dinner without bringing a bottle

Well, that's a poverty-stricken student thing, isn't it.

Grown-ups don't bring bottles - you're implying that the host isn't capable of choosing and providing a decent suitable wine, and as the guest probably doesn't know what food is being served they aren't in a position to choose a suitable wine anyway.

[Whopity]

The "rules" need to move with the times,

And of course that's exactly how they got there in the first place. Go back to the 1930s and there were lots of pilots offering flights in aeroplanes. At some point there were accidents and government ruled that they had a responsibility to ensure that fare paying passengers were as as safe as possible. From there the AOC was borne. Private pilots were not regulated in the same way and therefore the standard of safety is unknown. For that reason they were not allowed to carry fare paying passengers any more.

The reason why advertising in a flying club is permitted is because those who frequent flying clubs are likely to be aware of the lower level of safety regulation they enjoy. Frankly, the Internet has little relevance, clubs could have a website and if that's how they communicate with members then I doubt that any court would rule that unreasonable. The spirit of the rule is that you don't advertise in the public domain.

If you want to go back to every pilot offering flights for cash, then it will not be very long before someone has an accident and the public will demand yet more regulation, quite probably making things more restrictive than they are now.

It seems that the only people who really push this issue are those who can't afford to pay for their own flying, or those who want to bolster their own ego by impressing unknown people with their unknown skills. Thank goodness we have an aviation regulator to protect the public from such people.

[peterh337]

those who frequent flying clubs are likely to be aware of the lower level of safety regulation they enjoy.

That made me smile

Actually it's true only for some. It's not until one gets out of the school scene and becomes an owner that one realises how much dodgy maintenance goes on.

Frankly, the Internet has little relevance, clubs could have a website and if that's how they communicate with members then I doubt that any court would rule that unreasonable. The spirit of the rule is that you don't advertise in the public domain.

That's my take too i.e. the "club" can be virtual, but (and we have done this to death here already) that's not what the ANO suggests.

I think the objective is to prevent the carriage of paying passengers. The only way to stop it effectively is to make sure the pilot cannot make a profit out of it. So I doubt enforcement will take place against a scheme where the cost sharing maximum percentages are maintained. It is insurance that would worry me; an injured passenger has a big financial incentive to claim that the pilot breached the cost sharing rules. The possible fact that the passenger was a party to a crime (by knowingly going along with it) is fine; he will still get his insurance payout.

[lenhamlad]

private flying risk being relagated to stuffy old men flying smelly old planes on sunny weekends.

Not as bad as smelly old men flying stuffy old planes

[Jan Olieslagers]

Bottle for dinner (off-topic))

Grown-ups don't bring bottles - you're implying that the host isn't capable of choosing and providing a decent suitable wine, and as the guest probably doesn't know what food is being served they aren't in a position to choose a suitable wine anyway.

Of course it is rude to come invited to dinner empty-handed - and a good bottle is as good as anything, be it flowers or chocolates or cigars or whatever. But whereas the flowers are for immediate consumption (so to speak), cigars and chocolates can stand storage after travelling, and wine requires it. Except the youngest of wines, such as the infamous Beaujolais Primeur which really is only barely fermented grape juice, and which I would never bring anyway, or it had to be as a subtle insult, my host would seriously offend me by serving my bottle at the occasion. My bottle will be carefully chosen by me as a complement to her/his cellar, and stored and cherished until its moment de gloire. Decent educated hosts will have no problem here, at the contrary.

[edit: happy to concur with pboyall, on this subject and on others]

[Ds3]

Grown-ups don't bring bottles - you're implying that the host isn't capable of choosing and providing a decent suitable wine, and as the guest probably doesn't know what food is being served they aren't in a position to choose a suitable wine anyway.

Absolutely concur with pboyall and Jan, I've never even considered that in bringing a bottle you are suggesting your host should serve that bottle with dinner.

It's a gift. A thank you for the invitation to dinner. Be your gift wine, flowers, chocolates or something more personalised, that's all it is. If your gift is wine and the host decides to serve it with dinner that is their prerogative and certainly not an obligation.

[Whopity]

If they are the kind of people that would turn up for dinner without bringing a bottle

I knew a Squadron Leader in the RAF who would turn up with a bottle of homebrew and leave with a bottle of the good stuff!

[aluminium persuader]

If they are genuine friends on Facebook and your privacy settings are suitably limited, I don't see how this could be construed as advertising any more than sitting in pub with them and saying "anyone fancy a jolly next week & sharing the costs?". Not even sure how the CAA would find out.

Now, who's brave enough to test it?!

ap