Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

The Alps claim another one: Commander 112 D-ELPO (and cost sharing/advertising discussion)

gallois wrote:

it wouldn’t exist would it.

I was just pointing out that what johnh is highlighting that “in this case Europe is more liberal than the US” which is surprising honestly. In my humble opinion its not on the fact cost sharing is allowed, its the safety aspect (not many regulatory constraints) to be able to go on a somehow advertised 300Nm flight over the mountains in marginal VFR weather or not even, you can not shift that responsibility to the pax who are mostly completely unaware of the potential risks. In FAA land you could only legally do this under PART 135….which is almost like a mini AOC set up..commercial/ifr/stricter maintenance etc..just comparing the two regulatory regimes…if you had advertised or made an offering….

EBST

gallois wrote:

The problem is that the European idiosyncrasies you write about are, in this case, those requested by GA pilots. If pilots didn’t want Wingly it wouldn’t exist would it.

I have been looking at platforms like that with mixed feelings from the start. Not because they are a bad idea. But because they violate one of the basic differences between commercial and private flying: The advertizing of flights to an unlimited number of people.

As long as I’ve been flying, cost sharing has been a vital tool for PPl pilots to make flights happen, they could not have afforded themselves. And there is nothing wrong with that in principle that like driving e.g. in a camper or car, that friends and family who fly with you are allowed to share the cost of the flight without implying that the operation is commercial. One criteria always quoted as being the difference between private and commercial ops was clearly that advertizing was severely restricted and the criteria for that was whether the offer is open to the general public or not. Normally, the argument got appeased by stating that within clubs or so, the offer was NOT public but within the club’s confines and I think that is also what wingly claims.

THIS example however is the total opposite of it. It is ballantly open (on facebook) and therefore clearly aimed at a wider audience .And that is not only at least a grey zone but it sets a very bad example which regulators may use to tighten regulations, even though imho it is more than enough to enforce the existing ones. Weather it was intended to make a profit or rather sponsor part of the cost is beside the point. His posting openly solicited passengers with whom he has no connection and whose expectations may well differ from what is intended in the cost sharing philosophy.

That the FAA totally prohibits cost sharing may well have to do with the legal culture over there and actually be a protection of the pilots from being sued like commercial ops would be. Personally I would regret if the same regulation was in force in Europe, not only because the legal environment is widely different but primarily because cost of flying here is also a lot higher than in the US. Done properly, cost sharing is a great thing, but if abused, it can go VERY wrong indeed.

johnh wrote:

So… you can take your mates for a joy-ride, cost-sharing. It is on the hairy edge to say “I’m going to xxx on Saturday, does anyone want to come with me” – though if you put it on FB that is definitely “holding out”. Saying “hey, I’m a pilot. I’ll take you wherever you want to go” – whether on FB or something a lot less public – is a definite no-no.

exactly.

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 28 Nov 16:26
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

That the FAA totally prohibits cost sharing

Mooney, this is wrong. What is totally prohibited is the advertising, ‘holding out’ in FAA-speak. And of course illegal air taxi ops. @johnh summed it up perfectly in his earlier post.

Last Edited by 172driver at 28 Nov 16:37

I doubt this flight was illegal. There is no restriction on advertising. Only cost sharing is restricted to the extent that the pilot cannot make a profit; he needs to incur some cost and that can be €0.01.

What he did was for sure provocative but IMHO it was legal. He could have probably justified the charges.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Emir wrote:

What difference CPL makes?

Assuming that the issuing country (in this case presumably EASA state issued part-FCL) in one of the more serious countries, the CPL (theoretical and practical flight) is trained and examined to a much higher standard than PPL. That´s not to say that you can´t find a “better” and more experienced PPL holder than CPL holder, but don´t think that your PPL is neither trained nor examined to the same level – it is not! The competency, including decision making and responsibilities, are focus areas of the training towards the CPL and the examination will (should) include these and other topics, that you simply don´t find (or even touch) during training and examination for PPL.
I´m also not saying that a CPL would have made a difference in this crash, or any other crash, since obviously every single airline crash occurs with ATPL holders!

Last Edited by Yeager at 28 Nov 17:24
Socata Rally MS.893E
Portugal

Peter wrote:

I doubt this flight was illegal. There is no restriction on advertising. Only cost sharing is restricted to the extent that the pilot cannot make a profit; he needs to incur some cost and that can be €0.01.

What he did was for sure provocative but IMHO it was legal. He could have probably justified the charges.

If the community believes, what you say @Peter, that the subject flight was indeed legal based on todays available information, then I god damn hope that EASA changes the current regulations to whatever it takes to avoid anything even remotely close to this. Presumably the victims, other than the pilot, had no knowledge of what type of flying (flight operation) they were paying for (because they were clearly charged monetarily as per information), and this should have been a commercial flight (with all the inconvenient bureaucracy included!). Sorry, it´s BS to think this was anything else but commercial, even if the “intention” was something else. I have precisely the same opinion about that other scam wingly or whatever the name is! “Experience flights” in an organized environment, under DTOs or ATOs – sure thing.
Sharing is caring and it´s great to keep up the spirits and attract attention to private aviation, of course, but not with commercial transactions and unknowing passengers (because that´s what they were – it´s not just a sign the paper exercise).

Socata Rally MS.893E
Portugal

172driver wrote:

That the FAA totally prohibits cost sharing

Mooney, this is wrong. What is totally prohibited is the advertising, ‘holding out’ in FAA-speak. And of course illegal air taxi ops. @johnh summed it up perfectly in his earlier post.

Ok, so what is the situation there? I understood that the FAA is much more restrictive than EASA on that subject and was led to believe that it’s pretty much banned altogether, with few exceptions. Whereas in Europe it is generally allowed but with restrictions such as advertizing.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

The FAA allows cost sharing as long as there is a “common purpose”. That means that if my friend and I are going to a sports match, say, in another town, then he can fly with me and we can share costs. Or if we decide to go for a $100 hamburger together. If I’m going there for a meeting and he’s going there for a meeting at his, different, company, it’s shaky ground. There have been rulings back and forth on this topic. As far as I know nobody has ever been busted for a marginal case like this.

The one thing which will for sure get you in trouble is “holding out”. MAYBE you could pin up a notice in the club (or the modern equivalent) saying, hey, I’m going for a $100 burger at xxx on Saturday, anyone want to come along and share costs? Then there’s “I have to fly to xxx on Friday, anyone else need to go there and want to share costs?” (seriously dodgy).

Clearly the goal is to prevent illegal air taxi operations. But if your FSDO is in a bad mood on the day you mess up a landing and draw attention, who knows.

LFMD, France

Yeager wrote:

If the community believes, what you say @Peter, that the subject flight was indeed legal based on todays available information, then I god damn hope that EASA changes the current regulations to whatever it takes to avoid anything even remotely close to this.

The actual gist is that cost sharing in EASA land is allowed up to the full cost of the airplane operation, but not beyond that. The advertizing is something that will have to be clarified. The commercial aspect depends primarily on the purpose of the flight to make a PROFIT. This is not allowed under cost sharing.

The pretext of Wingly and other similar platforms is exactly that: It wants to get together pilots who are looking to cost share their trips and passengers who wish to go along on such trips.

Before EASAs new cost sharing, I always understood that cost sharing is only allowed between people who are in a restricted environment, but not with the general public. So you CAN costshare with in a club, a family, your friends, but you can NOT advertize and seek people you are in no relation with. Apparently EASA has liberated that but this of course opens up the door to misuse.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Why speculate instead of referring to the actual regulation?

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top