Cost Sharing: Heli Flights

[miket_68]

HI,
Not sure if this is the right area, but feel free to move it if it is not.
I am currently hours building whilst studing for my ATPL exams.
If I take some friends up with me can some one confirm I am allowed to share the cost with them, R22 Half each, R44 quater each.
As we all know you list of friends will soon run out when asking them to share the costs of their jolly over their house etc.
Is it legal to then 'extend' your circle of friends by advertising that you are looking for passengers to share the costs of some helicopter flights.
Obviously stating you are a PPL and not a CPL telling them the differences etc.
I am not thinking of a huge double page spread in my local newspaper just a sheet on my companies notice board etc.
I am not taking money to fly, I am sharing the costs accordingly.
They get a cheap flight, I get a cheap flight, NO INSTRUCTION takes place.
Everyone's happy. Does that include the CAA ?
I have looked about sharing costs but nothing seemed to cover this particular angle.
Cheers
Mike http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/icons/mpangel.gif
Angel

[PPRuNeUser129638]

Hi Mike

Am quite sure that this would be regarded as illegal by the CAA.

You would clearly have a pecuniary interest in offering such flights; as you would be offsetting your training costs: that is far more than is intended by the principle of pro rata cost sharing.

More importantly, if you advertise such flights, you are in effect 'holding out' and offering flights with an inherent financial gain. For this you need not only a CPL, but an Air Operator's Certificate.

It's a nice idea, but something the CAA will not permit and would, at the very least, disregard any flight hours gained by such means " for the purposes of gaining a licence."

As to a PPL pro rata cost sharing privae flights - 100% legal. Just be circumspect as to the volume and circle of people you offer it to.

TT

[Twiddle]

Can't recall the exact reference but i'm certain theres a proviso for advertising in your flying club.

[Whirlybird]

I can't recall the exact reference either, but I'm pretty certain it says somewhere that cost-sharing flights can't be advertised, except within a flying club of which both the pilot and cost sharers are members.

However, if you happen to have loads of relatives, friends, and acquaintances, cost sharing is quite legal. It doesn't say anywhere that you can't do lots of it.

[Twiddle]

So run this ad instead "friends wanted, 140 per hour, guaranteed free flight in r22" tada

[Camp Freddie]

ANO - Part 14 (General), Para 160

the relevant bit highlighted in bold, but the bottom line is mostly NO, unless you keep the whole thing within the flying club.

Public transport and aerial work - exceptions - cost sharing

(1) Subject to paragraph (4), a flight shall be deemed to be a private flight if the only valuable consideration given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight falls within paragraph (2) and the criteria in paragraph (3) are satisfied.

(2) Valuable consideration falls within this paragraph if it is:
(a) valuable consideration specified in article 157(3)(c);
(b) in the case of an aircraft owned in accordance with article 162(2), valuable consideration which falls within article 162(3); or
(c) is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the pilot in command;or falls within any two or all three sub-paragraphs.

(3) The criteria in this paragraph are satisfied if:
(a) no more than 4 persons (including the pilot) are carried;
(b) the proportion which the contribution referred to in paragraph 2(c) bears to the direct costs shall not exceed the proportion which the number of persons carried on the flight (excluding the pilot) bears to the number of persons carried (including the pilot);
(c) no information shall have been published or advertised prior to the
commencement of the flight other than, in the case of an aircraft operated by a flying club, advertising wholly within the premises of such a flying club in which case all the persons carried on such a flight who are aged 18 years or over shall be members of that flying club; and
(d) no person acting as a pilot shall be employed as a pilot by, or be a party to a contract for the provision of services as a pilot with, the operator of the aircraft which is being flown.

(4) If valuable consideration specified in article 157(3)(c) is given or promised, the flight shall for the purposes of Part 3 of this Order (other than articles 19(2) and 20(2)) be deemed to be for the purpose of public transport

[miket_68]

Thanks

Once again the oracle that is the PPRUNE collective answer my questions with such speed and accuracy, even if its not all good.
Many Thanks.
Any one want to be my friend ? £140 / hour, I seem to recall seeing that advertised somewhere else, maybe in a phone booth.
Mike

[Twiddle]

Luv you long time.......

[Flying Lawyer]

Air Navigation Order 2005

Public transport and aerial work—exceptions—cost sharing
160. —

(1) Subject to paragraph (4), a flight shall be deemed to be a private flight if the only valuable consideration given or promised in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight falls within paragraph (2) and the criteria in paragraph (3) are satisfied.


(2) Valuable consideration falls within this paragraph if it is—

(a) valuable consideration specified in article 157(3)(c);

(b) in the case of an aircraft owned in accordance with article 162(2), valuable consideration which falls within article 162(3); or

(c) is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the pilot in command;

or falls within any two or all three sub-paragraphs.



(3) The criteria in this paragraph are satisfied if—

(a) no more than 4 persons (including the pilot) are carried;

(b) the proportion which the contribution referred to in paragraph (2)(c) bears to the direct costs shall not exceed the proportion which the number of persons carried on the flight (excluding the pilot) bears to the number of persons carried (including the pilot);

(c) no information shall have been published or advertised prior to the commencement of the flight other than, in the case of an aircraft operated by a flying club, advertising wholly within the premises of such a flying club in which case all the persons carried on such a flight who are aged 18 years or over shall be members of that flying club; and

(d) no person acting as a pilot shall be employed as a pilot by, or be a party to a contract for the provision of services as a pilot with, the operator of the aircraft which is being flown.

(4) If valuable consideration specified in article 157(3)(c) is given or promised the flight shall for the purposes of Part 3 of this Order (other than articles 19(2) and 20(2)) be deemed to be for the purpose of public transport.

"If I take some friends up with me can some one confirm I am allowed to share the cost with them, R22 Half each, R44 quarter each."

• 1 pax: Pilot must pay 50% (minimum)
• 2 pax: Pilot must pay 33.3% (minimum).
• 3 pax: Pilot must pay 25% (minimum)
• 4 pax or more: Not allowed under the cost-sharing exception which applies only if no more than 4 persons are carried including the pilot: 160(3)(a)

Note:
The cost does not have to be shared pro rata between all those on the flight; the percentages above apply only to the pilot. ie How the pax agree to share the balance between themselves is of no consequence: 160(3)(b)


"Is it legal to then 'extend' your circle of friends"
There is no requirement that all or any of the pax must be friends of the pilot.


"by advertising that you are looking for passengers to share the costs of some helicopter flights."

• The wording of 160(3)(c) is ambiguous. It provides that "no information shall have been published or advertised prior to the commencement of the flight".
  In the context of 160, it appears to state that no information regarding the specific flight shall have been published or advertised. If that interpretation is correct, then an advertisement offering cost-sharing flights in general would not fall foul of the criteria stipulated in (3) because it does not provide information about a specific flight.
  However, IMHO it is far safer to assume that advertising/publishing anything relating even remotely to the flight means the pilot cannot take advantage of the cost-sharing exception.
• Some advertising is permitted, but only if
  • the aircraft is operated by a flying club and
  • the advertising is wholly within the premises of the flying club and
  • all pax are aged 18 years or over and
  • all are members of that flying club.

"Obviously stating you are a PPL and not a CPL telling them the differences etc."
There is no requirement to inform the pax, but IMHO it is good practice. (On occasions when I've cost-shared, I've always ensured my pax are aware that I'm a PPL not a professional/Commercial pilot.)

" just a sheet on my companies notice board etc."
Don't put yourself at risk of prosecution for illegal public transport.
Far wiser, as Torquetalk says, to be "circumspect."


Torquetalk

Under UK law:

"You would clearly have a pecuniary interest in offering such flights."
The pilot having a 'pecuniary interest' doesn't take a flight outside the cost-sharing exemption. Anyone who cost-shares has a pecuniary interest, whether to off-set training costs or to off-set the cost of a hobby.
"the principle of pro rata cost sharing"
There is no requirement that the cost be shared pro rata. (See above.)
"an inherent financial gain"
See above under 'pecuniary interest'.
"the CAA ..... would, at the very least, disregard any flight hours gained by such means for the purposes of gaining a licence."
I see no logic in disregarding the hours when P1 experience was actually gained in those hours but, that said, I gave up many years ago trying to fathom the inscrutable workings of the CAA mind so you may be right.


FL

[Whirlybird]

"the CAA ..... would, at the very least, disregard any flight hours gained by such means for the purposes of gaining a licence."

I've never heard that before. Where is it written? I was under the illusion that even illegally gained hours were still counted as flying hours.

[rotorspeed]

Just out of interest, anyone know of any definition of what forms the "cost" that is to be shared? Pretty obviously DOCs only, but even if fuel can be estimated fairly precisely, as many of us know rotary maintenance costs are very hard to assess accurately.

[Pandalet]

Most SFH outfits seem to provide their helicopters 'wet', so you're not paying separately for fuel, just one set amount per (flight) hour. However, if you land away, does the landing fee count as part of the flight costs? Or are your pax allowed to pay that in its entirety?

As a hypothetical situation, if one had to travel for work, and decided to SFH a helicopter there and back, and one then claimed the cost of said flight back from ones employer (as a travel expense), I believe this is totally legal.

[Gaseous]

Is direct costs just fuel/oil? I seem to remember you cant include insurance,maintenance, depreciation etc. etc. in shared costs. Of course all those r22s out there use at least 20g/hr

[Flying Lawyer]

Air Navigation Order 2005

Interpretation
155. —(1) In this Order—

‘Direct costs' means, in respect of a flight, the costs actually and necessarily incurred in connection with that flight without a view to profit ...............

That creates a distinction between cost-sharing in a hired aircraft and in an aircraft owned by the pilot.

SFH

• Direct costs:
  • Wet Hire: Hire costs incl fuel.
  • Dry Hire: Hire costs plus cost of fuel.
  • Landing fees (whether home or away), handling fees, navigation charges etc

Owner-pilot

• Direct costs:
  • Fuel.
  • Landing fees (whether home or away), handling fees, navigation charges etc
  • It does not include any contribution to annual running costs, insurance, depreciation etc, Those are are indirect costs.

It follows that a SFH pilot benefits more from the cost-sharing exception than an owner-pilot. Although that might be considered unfair, it keeps the position simple because direct costs are easily identified, calculated and, if there was to be an investigation, checked.
The cost-sharing exception is a concession. I can't now remember when it was introduced but, when I started flying, cost-sharing wasn't permitted. It happened frequently but people were discreet about it. The CAA then caught up with real world practice, accepted that genuine cost-sharing was harmless and changed the law. The criteria stipulated in the cost-sharing provisions are intended to stop private pilots conducting what in reality are public transport flights.


"Are your pax allowed to pay (landing fees) in entirety?"

• The pilot must pay at least his/her proportion (relative to the total POB) of the direct costs of the flight.
• So, pax can pay the landing fee(s) in entirety provided their doing so does not mean that the pilot has then paid less than his proportion of the total direct costs of the flight. ie You cannot cost-share with pax as per the provisions set out above and then accept payment of landing fees (handling fees, navigation charges etc) on top because that would mean the pilot has not then paid his legally required minimum proportion of the direct costs of the flight.

BTW, I've occasionally seen some posters fussing about whether pax can pay for the pilot's lunch in addition to their contribution to the direct costs of the flight etc. I don't see a problem.



FL

[rotorspeed]

FL

I find your analysis hard to believe in entirety and it is certainly flawed in principle. In reality the SFH cost includes pretty much all the indirect costs of operating an aircraft such as all calendar maintenance, depreciation and insurance - operators are certainly going to build these in or it wouldn't be commercially viable. What's more the cost includes profit - for them. I do of course appreciate that the direct cost to the hirer is what he/she has to pay though and that this is what matters.

With regard to owner-pilot aircraft on the other hand I would strongly argue that the majority of maintenance is a direct cost of operating the aircraft and can be reasonably appportioned on an hourly basis and costed to a given flight. With increasing uptake of PBH/SBH schemes for engines and other major components direct costs are clearly set. So would you say such contracted hourly SBH costs can not be included? I do however accept that turbine aircraft are much less likely to be the subject of cost sharing but there must be some and the principle is very important here to avoid breaking the law. My Robinson knowledge is limited but I recall that there is factory set total rebuild cost every ?2000 hours, for example, surely making a fair direct cost easy to establish.

If your interpretation is correct and someonebody wanted to make extensive use of cost sharing then perhaps the best thing would be for owners of aircraft to establish a structure by which they would effectively rent it to themselves at a market rate which then forms the cost to be shared!

[Helinut]

rotorspeed,

I am sure that FL can defend himself, but I think the clue is in the legal requirement that FL quotes. Don't shoot the messenger.

It isn't his fault that it does not seem fair or inequitable. It is the way the legal requirement was written.

[Flying Lawyer]

rotorspeed

"I find your analysis hard to believe in entirety and it is certainly flawed in principle."

Fine. In the words of the old adage: 'Advice is only worth what you've paid for it'.

"In reality the SFH cost includes pretty much all the indirect costs .............. etc"

You've answered that point in your final sentence.

".............. I would strongly argue that the majority of maintenance is a direct cost of operating the aircraft."

The contribution permitted under the exception is not to the "direct cost of operating the aircraft" but to the direct costs of the particular cost-sharing flight: Article 160(2)(c).
You're free, of course, to argue that what I've described as indirect costs are actually direct costs. My intention was to discourage pilots from putting themselves in a position where they might find themselves having to argue that they did nothing illegal - or worse, having to concede that they did.

I happen to think owner-pilots should be permitted to accept contributions to certain specified indirect costs, but that's not what the exception says.


FL

[Kit d'Rection KG]

Flying Lawyer...

...is this all pro bono or are you keeping a note of the charges?

If pro bono, then how would you define this particular bono???

[Gaseous]

Some of us are grateful for FL's pearls cast before swine free of charge. Thanks FL. (seriously, thanks)
This is another example of stupid, poorly drafted, ambiguous, unfair and plain idiotic law which makes Britain such a great place to live and keeps our legal friends in such elevated esteem and wealth.
Considering how much we pay our regulators you would think they could make a half decent attempt at coming up with clear, fair rules.

[rotorspeed]

It would seem that the CAA are not as unreasonable as some might think regarding what can be included in direct costs of flights in an owner-pilot aircraft and therefore shared in accordance with the regulations.

I understand that the CAA's legal department have verbally confirmed that maintenance costs that can be clearly demonstrated to directly relate to the duration of the flight (eg costs of component overhaul lifed on time, not calendar) can be reasonably included. Which is the sensible view.

If it is relevant to anyone I certainly think it is worth making your own enquiries to confirm this, rather than assuming such costs cannot be included.