It seems the US is not the only place that is suit happy.
What ever happened to accepting responsibility for one’s self?
As far as the topic at hand sharing costs and how dangerous pvt flying is compared to the over regulated commercial operators. If safety was truly at the heart of this matter
how isit that Pvt pilots can fly through organizations like “Angel Flight” or “Pals” ferring patients from out of the way locals for treatment in major medical centers.
My guess is it all BS about safety and its all about $ and turf protectionism.
C210_Flyer wrote:
What ever happened to accepting responsibility for one’s self?
What that has to do with it? Shouldn’t a president/ director of an organization be responsible for what goes on inside? If they manage to prove he was negligent (allowed things which shouldn’t be allowed)…
Shouldn’t a president/ director of an organization be responsible for what goes on inside?
In principle yes but there must be a defence / limitation of liability otherwise the “responsible person” could be personally bankrupted, his estate cleaned out, his family made homeless, etc, just because somebody not under his direct control screwed up.
That’s why I keep saying there is detail involved which nobody here is posting, so the argument goes round and round.
I guarantee that if the board of a Swedish aeroclub didn’t have that they would be found negligent
Which is what I keep saying – in this case the defence is procedural and if the procedure is followed and still somebody screws up, the president is not liable.
Otherwise (as I keep saying) only a total idiot (or somebody who lives in the gutter) would want the job.
how is it that Pvt pilots can fly through organizations like “Angel Flight”
Can you use a US Experimental (the equivalent of an unqualified person doing beyond pilot privileges maintenance on a certified type) for Angel Flights?
Our club have banned “co-avionnage”, as have all the clubs I know in the Bordeaux area.
The main issue put forward is that although it is not strictly paid transport of passengers, private pilots may feel obliged to depart in marginal conditions because they know their passengers need to get somewhere (which is a fair point).
However, it is not specified anywhere that cost sharing can only be for friends and family. This is pure conjecture on the part of the DGAC.
Basically, what they are saying is, “we think co-avionnage is bad for safety, and we want to ban it. We can’t find a regulatory reason to do so, so we’ll just make one up”.
private pilots may feel obliged to depart in marginal conditions because they know their passengers need to get somewhere
This looks like the US common purpose rule (discussed here before e.g. here). How does your club define the common purpose?
Otherwise, they would be banning cost sharing, which I am sure is both legal and widespread in France (and most places).
Peter wrote:
In principle yes but there must be a defence / limitation of liability otherwise the “responsible person” could be personally bankrupted, his estate cleaned out, his family made homeless, etc, just because somebody not under his direct control screwed up.
Perhaps you have trouble grasping it because it works differently in the UK. I’m not a lawyer, lets get that out of the way. Obviously he wouldn’t be held responsible for anything and everything. But he has certain duties. He is responsible (at least in part) for policies, procedures etc. If they have poor maintenance practices (I’m not talking about a one off screw up, an honest mistake), chances are authorities will be able to pin some of the blame on the president (we’re not talking about huge organizations). It’s understandable that he wouldn’t be keen on sanctioning something (cost sharing) that the authorities think shouldn’t be allowed (possibly because they believe it’s detrimental to safety).
And even if they convict you, on the continent it’s not likely they would clean you out, unless you have a small income. Courts generally don’t award that large compensations (PS: there should in fact be limits on that, not sure if it’s true in France). Anyone with more exposure to french courts should feel free to correct me.
Martin wrote:
Courts generally don’t award that large compensations (PS: there should in fact be limits on that, not sure if it’s true in France).
I think that’s true anywhere in Europe. Although the Europeans are becoming increasingly litigating and will sue anyone remotely likely to have been involved in a crash, multi-million dollar payouts remains a US thing
Perhaps you have trouble grasping it because it works differently in the UK
The only thing I have trouble grasping is the lack of detail in how exactly the president’s liability is limited. And it has to be limited otherwise nobody would do the job.
Perhaps someone close to French aeroclub procedures / management can illuminate this.
multi-million dollar payouts remains a US thing
They aren’t all that common over there either, but what you get is the headline-grabbing $100M award and then years later somebody’s product liability (often somebody different to the original party) insurance pays out $2M. But nobody hears about the $2M because it is not on the internet, is buried in some local court records, reporters are lazy, and it doesn’t make good copy. This was the case with e.g. the Sandel EHSI / SR22 case we discussed here a long time ago.
$2 M is multi-million 
In this context in France we are talking 10 k€ as opposed to M€…
Peter wrote:
Unfortunately while the French aeroclub scene is run by old ex Air Force men with all the patronising and arrogant attitudes to be thus expected, and with the “volunteer organisation problem” being as big as anywhere, nothing will change.
It’s not the old ex Air Force men you should be afraid of, it’s the young “by the book” ATPL types 
Seriously, I have yet to meet an ex Air Force pilot (or current for that matter) involved with light aircraft that is anything but friendly, helpful and, well if not humble, than at least not with any signs of undue arrogance. Without them, the light aircraft scene in Norway would be very miserable indeed. I guess it is the same in France.
