There is a complicated debate around this.
For example it is alleged that “zero equity” syndicates cannot make use of TBO extensions, and/or maintenance by the members (under pilot privileges only, of course), because they are “rental” which is a commercial operation.
But there are various syndicate structures, even for “zero equity” ones. And most of these are not exactly “pure rental”; they require each member to purchase a block of hours. Search EuroGA for N147KA for one example.
Peter wrote:
For example it is alleged that “zero equity” syndicates cannot make use of TBO extensions, and/or maintenance by the members (under pilot privileges only, of course), because they are “rental” which is a commercial operation.
(Alleged by whom?)
“Commercial operation” is defined in the Basic Regulation as “an aircraft operation to transport passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or other valuable consideration.” So whether the aircraft is rented or owned by the operator is irrelevant.
Part-ML also doesn’t differentiate between leased or owned aircraft, except as to who has the responsibility for continuing airworthiness.
AFAIK you can have “non-equity” setup under Part-NCO, the typical example is “flying clubs” where money does not go out of the club account and club members rent the aircraft, whatever the set-up is just don’t make money and take cash out of it 
Worth reading Part-NCO and Cap1335, section self-hire !
Unfortunately AA the UK CAA don’t interpret it that way.
Bathman wrote:
Unfortunately AA the UK CAA don’t interpret it that way.
Have you read page 13 of CAA document? exactly as A_A says “the act of hiring an aircraft does not appear to meet the EASA definition of a ‘commercial operation’” and “for EASA aircraft with a certificate of airworthiness the issue has limited relevance since the EASA regulations set the applicable requirements dependent on the particular operation”
Some maintenance caveats are still around, especially for PtF…
“Under the current ANO, when a pilot hires an aircraft for self-fly hire; it is deemed to be public transport for airworthiness purposes. This means that the aircraft must be maintained to a higher standard than if it were private, and normally have a certificate of airworthiness. It also means that a permit aircraft cannot be hired, since it is prohibited from flying for public transport, although we do allow type-approved microlights and gyroplanes to be hired on a permit by exemption. This potentially restricts the range of aircraft available.
The principle here is that if a customer goes to their local flying club to hire an aircraft, they will not be in a position to make a judgement about its airworthiness, and would reasonably expect the club to provide an aircraft in airworthy condition. However, the act of hiring an aircraft does not appear to meet the EASA definition of a ‘commercial operation’ that we propose to adopt. This would mean that self-fly hire would be non-commercial for all purposes, including airworthiness. For EASA aircraft with a certificate of airworthiness the issue has limited relevance since the EASA regulations set the applicable requirements dependent on the particular operation. It is of more relevance to non-EASA aircraft, particularly ones with a permit to fly. In light of our new approach to GA, we are considering what approach to take to this issue. It may be appropriate to retain additional airworthiness requirements for self-fly hire over and above that of non-commercial flights. However we are minded to consider self-fly hire as non-commercial and simply rely on the obligation on the purveyor of the aircraft hire to ensure it is airworthy, regardless of what airworthiness certification it holds. This would be a simple approach, and widen the variety of aircraft available for GA pilots to hire. It would place more of an onus on individual pilots to assess the airworthiness of the aircraft they were hiring, which would be consistent with our approach to allowing the GA community more opportunity to assess and control their own risk.
they will not be in a position to make a judgement about its airworthiness
I would make the same point about many syndicates, due to internal politics 
Peter wrote:
I would make the same point about many syndicates, due to internal politics
You can even make the same statement for sole ownership writing a cheque to some mechanic and coming to pick it again in 3 weeks the usual rule for syndicate politics, you fly it you have a say, you don’t fly it you don’t have a say
So whether the aircraft is rented or owned by the operator is irrelevant.
I second what Airborne_again correctly posted:
EU law is clear. NCO and so on.
There’s an exception for commercial, non-club ATOs requiring CAMO (even though the OPS rules are NCO).
Renting out airplanes commercially is national law, right? For instance, in Austria you need authorization from the local governor/government, which doesn’t cover any maintenance procedures (and I’d guess it couldn’t, because it would interfere with EU law).. Plenty of airplanes for rent here with owner declared AMPs and engine/prop extensions.
Austrian Law crappy google translation:
2nd section
Aircraft rental company
Rental permit
Section 116. (1) Commercial leasing of civil aircraft may only be carried out with a permit from the governor (leasing permit). Section 103 is to be applied accordingly.
(2) Civil aircraft may only be rented to persons who have the civil aviation license required to operate the aircraft concerned.
Section 117
text
Requirements for issuing a rental permit
Section 117. (1) The rental permit is to be issued if,
a)
the applicant is a national of a contracting party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, is reliable and professionally qualified and is the owner of the aircraft to be rented,
b)
the security of the company is guaranteed and there is a need,
c)
the civil aircraft considered for rental have Austrian citizenship.
(2) The leasing permit is conditional, limited or subject to conditions as this appears necessary in the interests of road safety.
§ 118
text
Revocation of the rental permit
§ 118. The letting permit is to be revoked by the governor if
a)
one of the prerequisites pursuant to Section 117 (1) no longer exists or was not met at the time the license was issued and this deficiency still persists, or
b)
the operation has been idle for more than a year.
Some also set up a club (2+ people, non profit). This club rents the airplane from the owner. Club members rent the airplane from the club.
Ibra wrote:
The principle here is that if a customer goes to their local flying club to hire an aircraft, they will not be in a position to make a judgement about its airworthiness, and would reasonably expect the club to provide an aircraft in airworthy condition.
I’m baffled that they’ve said that. It’s completely at odds with everything I was ever taught and ever read (from official sources) about responsibility for airworthiness, which is that the PIC and no-one else is responsible for satisfying themselves as to the airworthiness of an aircraft before each and every flight.
It’s almost as if, in saying that, they’re treating the renter-pilot in the same way as a member of the unsuspecting public who might reasonably expect public transport standards. Why do they say the customer is not in a position to make a judgement on airworthiness? As a pilot, they make that judgement every time they fly.
I certainly have not ‘reasonably expected’ an airworthy aircraft from a flying club when I’ve rented. Ok maybe as a customer I have (i.e. if you give me a piece of junk I ain’t paying you) but never as an aviator. I would check a rental aircraft over far more thoroughly than I would either of the shared aeroplanes I fly.
Graham wrote:
I’m baffled that they’ve said that. It’s completely at odds with everything I was ever taught and ever read (from official sources) about responsibility for airworthiness, which is that the PIC and no-one else is responsible for satisfying themselves as to the airworthiness of an aircraft before each and every flight.
Not very wise choice of words that’s for sure, but it used that to be able to rent an aircraft you need the same maintenance standard for “AOC aircraft with paying pax” (this still the case for non-EASA aircrafts), but for EASA aircrafts that has changed slightly now with Part-NCO/Part-ML which as you mention puts lot of responsibility on Owner & PIC (as it should)
Obviously everyone is still reluctant to PtF that you maintain yourself, find an LAA inspector to sign it then go rent it or use for training…the real question will you rent a friend PtF Jodel who throw money on it and fly it extensively or school C152 on CoFA that no one dares to fly ?
