AFAIU EASA makes a recommendation to EC which votes a decision. If you search the EU official journal, you’ll find a few of those. Just search for 216/2008 for example 
I’d like to upload the PDF report on this by EASA which has the following. Is that possible?
Conclusions and Actions.
(14) Specific risks in terms of safety related to the fact that passengers are contacted through a web platform, as opposed to the aeroclub, family and friends, or in a local pub do not appear to exist for the majority view (except France).
(15) In the absence of such evidence, the majority view (except for France) is that no additional requirements should be imposed to this activity.
(16) In relation to the opportunities that the Web-based platforms could offer to improve GA safety, a Charter, to be signed by all platforms, was developed.
(17) The draft Charter was presented to the MAB on 14 February 2017 and received positive feedback
(18) The Charter was signed by 3 platforms during Aero Friedrichshafen on April 5th (Wingly, Coavmi and Flyt)
(19) On April 7th the Agency issued a recommendation that DGAC-F should withdraw its Article 14.1 derogation
If France does not withdraw the derogation, the Commission might seek to do that, though the EASA Committee.
Email it to me, bookworm.
Very good! It will be most interesting to see how France will react. Has it happened before that EASA has opposed a member state’s use of the emergency clause (14.1) in the Basic Regulation?
Can anyone guess at the DGAC’s motivation for its relatively hard position on this issue?
We’ve discussed this a bit in the past, but it’s a combination of :
- active opposition from (some influential) aeroclub managers: competition for some of the paid work they have, fear of liability (in some clubs, the charter is written such that the club president or the chief flight officer are in charge of deciding whether it’s ok to conduct a flight or not, based on weather, pilot and plane. Yes I know, it makes no sense)
- active opposition from the air taxi companies and even the airlines
- active opposition from the then chairman of the aeroclub association as a result of both of the above
- active opposition from the main flying mag as a result of all three above, I’d imagine
- all that resulting in active opposition from the DGAC
There have been interesting exchanges in the flying mag in question, where following a very over-the-top editorial, the lawyer of one of the flightshare website got the opportunity to destroy the liability argument over three pages.
The new chairman of the aeroclub association seems to be much more in favour. The flying mag has become mildly enthusiastic and has actually made fun of the DGAC’s position. It could very well be that the DGAC takes this opportunity to change course.
bookworm wrote:
I’d like to upload the PDF report on this by EASA which has the following. Is that possible?Conclusions and Actions.
(14) Specific risks in terms of safety related to the fact that passengers are contacted through a web platform, as opposed to the aeroclub, family and friends, or in a local pub do not appear to exist for the majority view (except France).
(15) In the absence of such evidence, the majority view (except for France) is that no additional requirements should be imposed to this activity.
(16) In relation to the opportunities that the Web-based platforms could offer to improve GA safety, a Charter, to be signed by all platforms, was developed.
(17) The draft Charter was presented to the MAB on 14 February 2017 and received positive feedback
(18) The Charter was signed by 3 platforms during Aero Friedrichshafen on April 5th (Wingly, Coavmi and Flyt)
(19) On April 7th the Agency issued a recommendation that DGAC-F should withdraw its Article 14.1 derogation
Isn’t this yet another example of EASA/EU shoving regulations down peoples throats? Just recently Norway simply refused using the new EU regulations for offshore helicopter passenger transport. We are going to continue using our own. Since we are not member of EU we can do that. I bet it’s harder for France Compared to the regulations we had, this EASA cost sharing regulation is more restrictive, yet it opens up for (semi) commercializing. I have a hard time seeing the real benefit in this.
