No "capital required" groups
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No "capital required" groups
Have seen a few of these no capital required groups offered from time to time in various mags.
Wanting to keep my hours ticking over whilst undertaking my ATPL's and it almost seems to good to be true.
Are there any snags?
Wanting to keep my hours ticking over whilst undertaking my ATPL's and it almost seems to good to be true.
Are there any snags?
It's usually a private owner trying to keep his utilisation up.
The snag then, is generally that he's going to have absolute priority over use of the aircraft, so you're likely to have a little less flexibility on availability. But, for what you're after, the odds are it'll work out.
G
The snag then, is generally that he's going to have absolute priority over use of the aircraft, so you're likely to have a little less flexibility on availability. But, for what you're after, the odds are it'll work out.
G
Sort of. I think what generally happens is that the real owner writes the rules, sells you a share for a pound with the written condition that you can/must only sell it back to him. Of-course with this sort of arrangement he can't legitimately make a profit, only have you paying actual operating costs.
So, the owner gets useage up, and hourly costs consequently down, somebody gets cheap flying with restrictions, and the CAA doesn't actually see any rules broken. Legally grey, but probably safe - which at the end of the day is what really matters.
I belonged to one for a while that belonged to an RAF station flying club, it worked.
G
So, the owner gets useage up, and hourly costs consequently down, somebody gets cheap flying with restrictions, and the CAA doesn't actually see any rules broken. Legally grey, but probably safe - which at the end of the day is what really matters.
I belonged to one for a while that belonged to an RAF station flying club, it worked.
G
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi G,
Unless the machine is on a PT CofA it would likely be illegal.
To be a co-owner you need to have at least a 5% stake in the plane, few would be worth only £20.
Happy to bow to your greater knowledge but that is how I read it.
FD
Unless the machine is on a PT CofA it would likely be illegal.
To be a co-owner you need to have at least a 5% stake in the plane, few would be worth only £20.
Happy to bow to your greater knowledge but that is how I read it.
FD
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cheese-eating Surrender Monkey land
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting point Dutchy.
A flying colleague of mine regularly rents an N-reg 172 from a local owner, and does not have a capital stake in it. Do you know how that works? Obviously it is just a part 91 aircraft. Does that make the arrangement illegal?
A flying colleague of mine regularly rents an N-reg 172 from a local owner, and does not have a capital stake in it. Do you know how that works? Obviously it is just a part 91 aircraft. Does that make the arrangement illegal?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Location, Location
Age: 52
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the agreement with the owner could be that you buy a share for 5% of value with a guaranteed buyback at same rate from, and only from, the owner?
Means finding some cash to outlay in short-term but you get it all back...
Hersh
Means finding some cash to outlay in short-term but you get it all back...
Hersh
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cheese-eating Surrender Monkey land
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hersham Boy
Congratulations. Comparing the title of the thread with your posting, you seem to have invented a new concept
The No Capital Required Group, that requires Capital.
Congratulations. Comparing the title of the thread with your posting, you seem to have invented a new concept
The No Capital Required Group, that requires Capital.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Location, Location
Age: 52
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merely a response to the traditional request for "one free lunch, please!". 
No loss in capital next best thing to no capital at all, no?
Anyone got any info on that "no fuel required" flying I keep hearing about?
No loss in capital next best thing to no capital at all, no?
Anyone got any info on that "no fuel required" flying I keep hearing about?
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An owner may sell a 5% share in an aircraft for any price, including a nominal price with an option to buy back at the same price. As long as the share is genuine (so that, for example, if the aircraft is written off the shareholder is entitled to 5% of the insurance pay out), then Article 130 of the ANO will be satisfied.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deepest Warwickshire
Age: 47
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but you all seem only to understand the concept of group ownership. 
There is such thing as "membership" where you don't actually own the aircraft and is thus a "no-capital" group.
Two "snags" I have come across...
- You need to prove to the owner that you are a sufficiently competant pilot to fly his/her baby
- There may be a minimum term contract on the monthlies.
Some membership schemes require a deposit, of which, a quantity may be non-returnable.
See the PFA Group Flying booklet, available to order on their website or by telephoning them at HQ.
There is such thing as "membership" where you don't actually own the aircraft and is thus a "no-capital" group.Two "snags" I have come across...
- You need to prove to the owner that you are a sufficiently competant pilot to fly his/her baby
- There may be a minimum term contract on the monthlies.
Some membership schemes require a deposit, of which, a quantity may be non-returnable.
See the PFA Group Flying booklet, available to order on their website or by telephoning them at HQ.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the aircraft has a Certificate of Airworthiness, see ANO 130(2)(c). If a payment is made for the right to fly the aircraft, the flight is a public transport flight, for the purposes of the C of A provisions in part III of the ANO, unless one of the exceptions indicated later in the article applies. The aircraft will therefore require a transport category C of A. This is how a PPL rents an aircraft from a flying club. You can't rent an aircraft which has a private category C of A.
If the aircraft has no C of A but operates under a permit to fly, I would be surprised if it could be rented, but perhaps the PFA has worked out some arrangement here that the CAA is happy with.
PS: Thrifty, I can't answer your question about the N registration aircraft as the answer would depend on US Federal regulations rather than upon the ANO.
If the aircraft has no C of A but operates under a permit to fly, I would be surprised if it could be rented, but perhaps the PFA has worked out some arrangement here that the CAA is happy with.
PS: Thrifty, I can't answer your question about the N registration aircraft as the answer would depend on US Federal regulations rather than upon the ANO.
Last edited by FNG; 2nd Apr 2003 at 18:11.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SX in SX in UK
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This arrangement sounds the sort of set-up that most PPLs are crying out for.
As a student at a flying club, your hourly rate also pays for the clubhouse, electricity, salaries, etc, etc. And as a PPL, you are still paying for these things. Now I appreciate that that the a/c is 'owned' by the club, you are using their facilities and should pay accordingly. I've always thought that the PPL hourly rate is too close to the student rate.
It strikes me that these type of groups are a good half-way point between Club hire and Group ownership, but I'm sure that there must be a catch in it somewhere.
As a student at a flying club, your hourly rate also pays for the clubhouse, electricity, salaries, etc, etc. And as a PPL, you are still paying for these things. Now I appreciate that that the a/c is 'owned' by the club, you are using their facilities and should pay accordingly. I've always thought that the PPL hourly rate is too close to the student rate.
It strikes me that these type of groups are a good half-way point between Club hire and Group ownership, but I'm sure that there must be a catch in it somewhere.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hampshire, UK
Age: 72
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always understood that it is not the Capital costs that must be shared, but the Operating costs - demonstrated, should it be required, by meticulous record keeping of cost allocations. I checked this by phone with the CAA a few years ago and confirmed that was the position.
My experience is that 'democratic' groups (ie equal capital, equal voice) can in certain circumstances be a nightmare (guess who speaks from bitter experience...!
), but benign dictatorship works extremely well - emphasise 'benign'! No squabbling, have a discussion by all means, and then what the owner says, goes! And if you don't like it, go - having given the previously agreed notice of leaving, put in place to protect all the remaining members from sudden hikes in their costs.
But definitely, no question of profit or hire, or unequal contributions such as reduced hourly rate for the owner.
This is a question that has been asked a couple of times. It must be possible to get a clear statement from the CAA.....
My experience is that 'democratic' groups (ie equal capital, equal voice) can in certain circumstances be a nightmare (guess who speaks from bitter experience...!
), but benign dictatorship works extremely well - emphasise 'benign'! No squabbling, have a discussion by all means, and then what the owner says, goes! And if you don't like it, go - having given the previously agreed notice of leaving, put in place to protect all the remaining members from sudden hikes in their costs. But definitely, no question of profit or hire, or unequal contributions such as reduced hourly rate for the owner.
This is a question that has been asked a couple of times. It must be possible to get a clear statement from the CAA.....
I did earlier use the term "legally grey" and I think I was right to do so.
A fairly senior manager at the CAA told me a while ago in conversation "if you can't afford the answer, don't ask the question".
I'd suggest that so long as what's going on is (a) safe, and (b) not outright illegal, asking for a definitive answer from the Gnomes of Gatwick would be a very bad move indeed since the odds are that instead of contentedly looking the other way, they'll be forced to say "NO".
Kolibear - if clubs don't make the money to run from their rental rates, they'll make it from runway, hangerage and membership rates. You'll still pay them ! If you want cheap flying, go to a true non-commercial club and operate there in a true members-run syndicate, but be prepared for the inevitable club politics.
G
A fairly senior manager at the CAA told me a while ago in conversation "if you can't afford the answer, don't ask the question".
I'd suggest that so long as what's going on is (a) safe, and (b) not outright illegal, asking for a definitive answer from the Gnomes of Gatwick would be a very bad move indeed since the odds are that instead of contentedly looking the other way, they'll be forced to say "NO".
Kolibear - if clubs don't make the money to run from their rental rates, they'll make it from runway, hangerage and membership rates. You'll still pay them ! If you want cheap flying, go to a true non-commercial club and operate there in a true members-run syndicate, but be prepared for the inevitable club politics.
G
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the only catch in this is the owner has total say in the ac.
So if it has a dodgy VOR but he never uses it it is unlikely to be fixed.
Likewise if he wants to move it elsewhere he can without asking anyone.
BUT the aircraft is not being used enough, that is why they look for other pilots to offset the fixed costs and doing something unpopular like moving it will lose the revenue stream.
The other side is if any bills etc come in (and they do) it is down to the owner.
I agree with Slipslide about benign dictatorship and since the share is no capital involved you are free to exercise your vote with your feet at any time. Try that with a capital share group that does not get on.
I think they are a great deal, long may they last.
So if it has a dodgy VOR but he never uses it it is unlikely to be fixed.
Likewise if he wants to move it elsewhere he can without asking anyone.
BUT the aircraft is not being used enough, that is why they look for other pilots to offset the fixed costs and doing something unpopular like moving it will lose the revenue stream.
The other side is if any bills etc come in (and they do) it is down to the owner.
I agree with Slipslide about benign dictatorship and since the share is no capital involved you are free to exercise your vote with your feet at any time. Try that with a capital share group that does not get on.
I think they are a great deal, long may they last.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: back at the grind stone
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can it not be legal, unless you (the owner) charge less than the actual cost of the flight direct costs (fuel) and are not in the aircraft.
Surely you (the owner) are operating just like and club, limited company of sole tradership. Ie offering the plane for rental. for a fixed cost, at a profit to the fixed costs, to cover the variable costs. As the long as it's a p-transport aircraft what's different. You both don't need an AOC. Any the persons flying the aircraft are 'club' members, not shareholders. You don't need your own office, hangar, bar ??? to be a club.
As the pilots are not share holders, you can have as many as you wish, just like any other club. And as a club you can ask for a 'security deposit', membership fees and form rules.
Yes it would be treated as a business by IR, so if you made a profit, you pay tax. Or if like someone I know it is part of your limited company it either goes on or comes off your bottom line.
I can't see any grey in that.
Surely you (the owner) are operating just like and club, limited company of sole tradership. Ie offering the plane for rental. for a fixed cost, at a profit to the fixed costs, to cover the variable costs. As the long as it's a p-transport aircraft what's different. You both don't need an AOC. Any the persons flying the aircraft are 'club' members, not shareholders. You don't need your own office, hangar, bar ??? to be a club.
As the pilots are not share holders, you can have as many as you wish, just like any other club. And as a club you can ask for a 'security deposit', membership fees and form rules.
Yes it would be treated as a business by IR, so if you made a profit, you pay tax. Or if like someone I know it is part of your limited company it either goes on or comes off your bottom line.
I can't see any grey in that.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, nothing grey at all if you have a transport category C of A, and this is how rental clubs without premises operate, but I got the impression, perhaps wrongly, that there was a suggestion of running a non-owning membership scheme on an aircraft with a private C of A.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hampshire, UK
Age: 72
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To illustrate the view that it is operating costs (both fixed and hourly), not capital costs, that must be equally shared, how about this - is there any rule that actually requires the owner of an aircraft to even be a pilot? For example I bet there are one or two pilots whose planes are in their (non-PPL) spouses name.....
Take this example: doting Aunt, doesn't fly, would never go up in one of those things - but she knows her favourite nephew does, and is a very discerning type of pilot so she buys a PFA Permit plane (naturally, he's a discerning pilot!) which she will let him fly, but owns it herself as, say, she has already used her tax-free gift allowance or maybe just likes telling her friends that she owns her own aeroplane!
Nephew pays 100% of the hangarage and insurance, all the fuel etc for the hourly costs, and charges himself £X per hour with the balance over the consumables going to an engine replacement fund. Legal? Yes, imho.
OK, bring in said-nephew's PPL cousin; with Aunt's permission they share the hangarage and insurance costs 50/50, and each pay the same £X per P1 hour. Still legal? Again, yes imho. And no capital ownership.
So if the above example is right, it should not matter who is the owner, as long as all the operating costs are split equally, and there is no suggestion of profit / hire / subsidy etc
Or am I missing something?
Slip
Take this example: doting Aunt, doesn't fly, would never go up in one of those things - but she knows her favourite nephew does, and is a very discerning type of pilot so she buys a PFA Permit plane (naturally, he's a discerning pilot!) which she will let him fly, but owns it herself as, say, she has already used her tax-free gift allowance or maybe just likes telling her friends that she owns her own aeroplane!
Nephew pays 100% of the hangarage and insurance, all the fuel etc for the hourly costs, and charges himself £X per hour with the balance over the consumables going to an engine replacement fund. Legal? Yes, imho.
OK, bring in said-nephew's PPL cousin; with Aunt's permission they share the hangarage and insurance costs 50/50, and each pay the same £X per P1 hour. Still legal? Again, yes imho. And no capital ownership.
So if the above example is right, it should not matter who is the owner, as long as all the operating costs are split equally, and there is no suggestion of profit / hire / subsidy etc
Or am I missing something?
Slip