I see little in that ruling that indicates any change in view by the FAA. I would have thought these sites were not allowed after just reading the regs which IMHO are clear. The FAA has never liked cost sharing and is very nervous about commercialisation of private operations.
I bet France alone has about as many private GA pilots as Germany and UK combined
I definitely don’t think so. I’ve seen some estimates from the three CAAs but can’t find them right now.
Also, French GA appears to have a different “mission profile” to UK and Germany, in that nearly all traffic in France is short hops (50-100nm) at very low levels. There is almost no “touring” / going places. When one flies in the UK and Germany, one sees a fair bit of traffic when enroute. In France one sees almost nothing when enroute. In fact I don’t think I have ever spotted another aircraft in France in the Class E airspace (base generally FL065) which is so perfect for going places.
Back to cost sharing, I don’t see any evidence that the national CAAs really care – so long as it isn’t abused to run quasi-AOC ops for carrying paying passengers. When that happens, they make sure the sky falls in on you. This is one of the very few things which the UK CAA prosecutes.
Seat sharing websites have always been known to be basically advertising cost shared flights. Let’s face it, not many pilots will fly with a complete stranger they found on some website. For a start, there is a good chance that the person you found will weigh 120kg or some such. The CAAs could easily hit that scene by pretending to be interested pilots and then recording the conversation in which cost sharing is discussed. AFAIK nobody has ever been done for that.
The relaxation of the ban on open advertising is good, but I hope it doesn’t result in open AOC busting, because the regs may then be tightened up. Even under the old system, there were some interesting schemes. I recall reading about one which the CAA tried to bust and could not.
I see little in that ruling that indicates any change in view by the FAA.
I agree. Somebody was just taking the micky and got stopped, by the looks of it. Actually the FAA is very reluctant to change any of the FARs, which is another good thing about the US system: they don’t do pointless changes.
In my 20 years or so of renting I never cost shared once
For my 9 years, the most I have been compensated is £20, or a meal somewhere. Most flights I do are because I want to, and passengers are selectively invited because I like them, and they either would absolutely love the experience (young aviators) or they have been good to me. As much as I would like the money, the whole cost sharing thing is a PITA, and I’d likely be doing the flight anyhow. For the PPL’s I know in the SE UK, most think the same.
Unless Peter, you are talking about cost-sharing in the sense that one qualified PPL flies one leg, and the other qualified PPL flies the other leg? Then in my case it is 90% as I generally 90% fly with my other share-owner.
Unless Peter, you are talking about cost-sharing in the sense that one qualified PPL flies one leg, and the other qualified PPL flies the other leg?
I think you are right; this is how most of it is done.
It has to be because non-flying people are not likely to discover a “seat sharing” website in the first place.
I don’t do cost sharing at all because I am N-reg and in UK airspace it would breach the ANO article on aerial work (225?).
Americans either almost never cost-share, or they cost share “quietly”. I have no idea which of the two they do.
We don’t rent a lot after training, so cost sharing by my observation and FWIW tends to be taking flights in each other’s planes. No discussion of expenses.
Over here that would be a hassle with insurance. As soon as you start insuring a plane (one that you own yourself) for others to fly as PIC, the cost rockets.
“Named pilots” is OK but that will limit cost sharing to the named pilots. I used to do this when I was G-reg…
I should be clear that by “taking flights in each other’s planes” I meant with both pilots on board. That said, my insurance has an open pilot provision. Anybody legally qualified can fly the nose wheel plane and for the tail wheel plane anybody with 25 hrs in type and 100 hrs TW. So we can typically log the time if we want. It’s fun to collect types in your logbook but I don’t do it unless I land the thing at least once!
You might remember the juvenile thrill I had after a little bit of IMC and then landing my friend’s 172 at Friedrichshafen from the right seat. It doesn’t take much to excite me 
As soon as you start insuring a plane for others to fly as PIC, the cost rockets.
That surely depends a lot on the country. Over here, standard terms include five named PPL pilots, and anyone with a “higher license” (which means CPL, or IR, or FI, or ATPL, or…)
And you can relatively easily change the named pilots anytime…
I don’t do cost sharing at all because I am N-reg and in UK airspace it would breach the ANO article on aerial work (225?).
Oh, that must be why I dont do cost-sharing either then ;-)
LeSving: Large assumptions there. I bet France alone has about as many private GA pilots as Germany and UK combined. Just a guess though, I have not seen any numbers.
So let’s check the facts. France has (2013) 26979 privat pilots, the UK about 28000 (2005), and Germany 69520 (2013). So I guess you are right, not.
