Good thread, great news.
Thanks for all this guys.
Any way we can start a fundraiser for Mr. Bordeaux?
A show of support is usually a good way of saying thanks, and it won’t be the money that’s of importance, it is the message of thanks from our pilot community that would be valuable.
The saga continues.
Now that cost-sharing is legal in France, the FFA (aeroclub federation) are trying to reign it into a form that makes it acceptable to them, taking care of the perceived safety, tax and insurance issues.
Now I am pretty sure that the insurance is not an issue. That is just FUD and wishful thinking by the naysayers. That leaves the tax and safety issues.
As far as the tax is concerned the FFA want to offer a “passenger” membership. AFAIU only FFA members will be allowed to book trips on airplanes belonging to an affiliate club. I suppose the passengers will also be supposedly more knowledgeable about the risks they take than the general population.
On the safety front the president of the aeroclub will have to approve the pilots allowed to perform cost-sharing flights, and the pilots will need to be approved by the “head of training” (chef pilote) which is a glamorous title given to the only paid CFI in most clubs.
So those who want to, will need to like a** licking and will probably be expected to perform various volunteer work for the club.
I suppose that after all the criticism of cost sharing, the FFA needed to find an out without losing face, and they found a way to skim some off the top as well by introducing a new type of membership.
And Wingly will be the only cost sharing platform for French aeroclubs.
You probably know what carpooling is : a driver offers spare seats in a car when he (she) travels, in exchange for a little money (or not).
Aircraftpooling would be the same thing with a pilot and an aircraft.
In 2016, the French civil aviation authority (DGAC) had almost literally forbidden aircraftpooling as soon as the seats were advertised on the internet. It said that this kind of offer was actually public transportation and therefore the pilot had to hold an airline transport certification and should be able to offer the same kind of guarantees as an airline. Moreover, any website advertising aircraftpooling had to be able to guarantee actively that the security measures were similar to those offered by airlines, including the maintenance of the aircraft and the training of the pilots.
It was too far from sharing a seat in one’s car and it made aircraftpooling virtually impossible for more than a year, lest of being held responsible for something you had no part in and no control on.
But in June 2017, these restrictions were regarded as an abuse of power by the French highest administrative court, le Conseil d’Etat, which simply ruled against them and canceled them, pure and simple.
( Text in French )
The DGAC considered that the risk was higher during an aircraftpool flight with passengers recruited via internet because the pilot would be subject to more pressure to get to destination. On the contrary, the court said that there was no evidence that the pressure would be any higher than the pressure felt during a flight organized with relatives or acquaintances. The court also said that according to a study made by EASA, there is no specific risk inherent to aircraftpooling and that the comparison of 2 studies, one made in the 90’s before the use of internet to aircraftpool, the other made later, when aircraftpooling via internet existed showed no increase in the rate of deaths linked to go-itis. (It even says that the rate was lower.)
Therefore it is now and again possible to advertise spare seats in an aircraft in France, at least as far as French authorities are concerned.
What are the regulations and the situations in your own countries right now?
TThierry wrote:
What are the regulations and the situations in your own countries right now?
All the same for those living in the EU as it is EU law and directly applicable in all countries. The local CAAs are prohibited from imposing further restrictions as the French Conseil d’Etat demonstrated to a mad DGAC.
What I have read somewhere, is that, as a result of the hard clash between the French and EU on this, is has been agreed that in order to make use of the EU mandated right to share expenses with anyone for a given Part-NCO flight, the pilot will have to complete an internet course on how to take care of passengers. The course is said to be made available by early 2018, and a certificate showing completion of the course is supposed to be required for pilots sharing expenses with their passengers.
As I understand it, the above solution was a compromise eventually agreed by France and EU. Obviously this is a different story from what @TThierry states, and i cannot find the reference.
The reference for the EU rule is regulation 379/2014 amending regulation 965/2012:
(4) Article 6 is amended as follows:
(a) paragraph 1 is deleted;
(b) the following paragraph 4a is inserted:
‘4a. By way of derogation from Article 5(1) and (6), the following operations with other-than-complex motor- powered aircraft may be conducted in accordance with Annex VII:
(a) cost-shared flights by private individuals, on the condition that the direct cost is shared by all the occupants of the aircraft, pilot included and the number of persons sharing the direct costs is limited to six;
(b) competition flights or flying displays, on the condition that the remuneration or any valuable consideration given for such flights is limited to recovery of direct costs and a proportionate contribution to annual costs, as well as prizes of no more than a value specified by the competent authority;
(c) introductory flights, parachute dropping, sailplane towing or aerobatic flights performed either by a training organisation having its principal place of business in a Member State and approved in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011, or by an organisation created with the aim of promoting aerial sport or leisure aviation, on the condition that the aircraft is operated by the organisation on the basis of ownership or dry lease, that the flight does not generate profits distributed outside of the organisation, and that whenever non-members of the organisation are involved, such flights represent only a marginal activity of the organisation
It said that this kind of offer was actually public transportation and therefore the pilot had to hold an airline transport certification and should be able to offer the same kind of guarantees as an airline.
The directive did not actually require an ATPL for costsharing. It required either a CPL, or a PPL with an IR and 200 hrs (?) experience, or an instructor’s rating. It’s is a little blurry now, but it was done earlier in this thread.
the pilot will have to complete an internet course on how to take care of passengers. The course is said to be made available by early 2018, and a certificate showing completion of the course is supposed to be required for pilots sharing expenses with their passengers.
I have not heard about this. I think that the regulatory situation is quite clear now. Part-NCO prevails. The French flying clubs however still refuse letting their airplanes and members be involved in costsharing. The FFA is trying to provide a framework for costsharing within aeroclubs and has created a partnership with Wingly. I believe that what is referred above in terms of the certificate for costsharing is a FFA/Wingly thing and will therefore have no impact on operations with privately owned airplanes.
The directive did not actually require an ATPL for costsharing. It required either a CPL, or a PPL with an IR and 200 hrs (?) experience, or an instructor’s rating. It’s is a little blurry now, but it was done earlier in this thread.
Indeed, according to the DGAC the pilot did not have to have an ATP licence, but an airline certification, even worse.
The directive did not actually require an ATPL for costsharing. It required either a CPL, or a PPL with an IR and 200 hrs (?) experience, or an instructor’s rating. It’s is a little blurry now, but it was done earlier in this thread.
Indeed there was no need for an ATP license, but for an ATP certification, even worse. (“L’activité de co-avionnage n’est envisageable que dans le cadre structurel du transport public qui impose à son organisateur d’être titulaire d’un certificat de transporteur aérien (CTA) et d’une licence d’exploitation garantissant et intégrant l’ensemble des exigences de sécurité, tant sur le plan de la qualification des pilotes que de la certification et de la maintenance des avions.”)
TThierry wrote:
Indeed there was no need for an ATP license, but for an ATP certification, even worse.
From the context I understand that what you are referring to is an AOC (Air Operator Certificate).
Although that was the DGAC’s point of view, they never legally required an AOC for costsharing.
Here is the full text of what actually was in effect in France for about one year:
What they did require in terms of pilot licensing was either
– PPL with 200 hrs TT and 25 hrs in the last 12 months. In addition to that the pilot must hold either an IR or an instructor’s license. OR
– CPL, OR
– ATPL
There was also some requirement wrt aircraft equipment, but pretty easy to satisfy.
Thats’s it.
This is now a distant memory.
