Should EASA introduce "common purpose"?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what is “Common Purpose”?
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA BULLETIN from 2010
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 62
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
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:
We are used to lawmakers and lawyers making regulations that defy common sense but, no thanks, we have enough of that in aviation.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Barbados
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vance, Belgium
Age: 62
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
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.
viva Osh Vegas
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Wichita, KS
Age: 52
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
