From here
Peter wrote:
Cost sharing is an EASA reg
Not necessarily. You can cost share in any old aircraft, like a Ford tri motor for instance, and you have to follow national regulations because it is not an “EASA aircraft”. Besides, there are no laws against people giving you money for nothing 
(but it’s easier said than done )
How do different countries handle this, and is it determined by aircraft reg, or airspace?
I’ve never heard of this difference. The UK cost sharing regs never IIRC specified the certification level; only G-reg, and those rules apply worldwide. Same as FAA cost sharing rules apply to all certification levels and apply worldwide.
Maybe, once EASA took over this stuff, since they have no jurisdiction over noncertified (annex 1 or UL, loosely speaking) then any country which did not generate its own regs for uncertified cost sharing, ends up with no limitations at all
This I find hard to believe since you could then run public transport operations in those types
Peter wrote:
Maybe, once EASA took over this stuff, since they have no jurisdiction over noncertified (annex 1 or UL, loosely speaking) then any country which did not generate its own regs for uncertified cost sharing, ends up with no limitations at all
Without cost sharing rules, cost sharing would probably be seen as illegal charter.
In any civilised country, if there is no reg prohibiting something, it is allowed.
Cost sharing is allowed in France in both Annexe 1 and Annexe 2 aircraft on the basis of equal shares of cost amongst all passengers. Clubs have a special arrangement with the DGAC allowing them to organise the flight and collect the money without being AOCs.
AFAIK in the case of ULMs the rules of what constitutes commercial and what does not are evolving. I cannot remember the latest postion for the moment but it did not forbid cost sharing.
Clearly if it’s not prohibited, it is allowed. EASA has no jurisdiction over Annex I aircraft, according to EASA. Either the national CAA has to say that Part NCO is valid for Annex I (which becomes rather weird when looking at all the details), or separate regulations are made. What happened in Norway when Part NCO came about 10 years ago was the existing old national regulations were valid for Annex I (which had cost sharing rules since forever, as long as I have flown SEP at least, 1992).
A couple of years ago new national regulations came. They have cost sharing rules, which are more or less identical to EASA for straight out cost sharing. They do however also have additional regulations for “intro flights” and “experience flight” and similar, which can be done on a commercial basis, with some strings attached.
Peter wrote:
In any civilised country, if there is no reg prohibiting something, it is allowed.
Sure, but that’s not the point. There is certainly a prohibition about charter/taxi without permits. Receiving money from someone for a flight could very well be seen as charter/taxi and thus prohibited. You don’t need any specific prohibition against cost sharing.
LeSving wrote:
Either the national CAA has to say that Part NCO is valid for Annex I (which becomes rather weird when looking at all the details)
In what sense? The Swedish CAA has adopted part-NCO essentially as it is (with very few exception) for Annex 1 – except for UL which has completely separate national rules.
could very well be seen as
Sure, but that is “pilot speak” (i.e. making up laws by reading wishfully between the lines, as in “arrest the usual suspects”) and not “legal speak”.
This will be wholly country-dependent but in the UK the reg is structured as follows: there is a blanket prohibition on receiving any money from passengers (on a non-AOC flight) and then there is a concession for defined types of flights.
I don’t know where to find the latest but I have a collection of successive CAA statements here (search for “summary”).
Due to the potential for abuse, and loud complaints from AOC holders who quote somebody 5k for a job and then see them climb into a PA28, I would expect every “developed” country to have something similar, but one can be surprised. Look at the past debates of where IFR in uncertifieds is prohibited. Of course we know everything is allowed in Norway, there are some former Soviet Bloc countries which don’t seem to have any reg… well, at least nobody can find it, although to be fair that is also true for a lot of French regs in the annex 1 department
Airborne_Again wrote:
In what sense? The Swedish CAA has adopted part-NCO essentially as it is (with very few exception) for Annex 1 – except for UL which has completely separate national rules.
It’s in principle the same in Norway. One of the major differences is in fact “cost sharing” in a widened sense. Traditionally no commercial activity whatsoever could be done with experimental registered planes for instance, except straight cost sharing by individuals. Today one can do “intro flights” commercially, as well as “flight experience” flights by declaring an organization for that purpose. A typical example would be a round trip in a Ford Tri Motor, an old Beaver, an acro flight or whatever. These aircraft may be experimental or Annex I ICAO.
Peter wrote:
Of course we know everything is allowed in Norway, there are some former Soviet Bloc countries which don’t seem to have any reg
There are in fact explicit regs for it As of today instruments for VFR night can be installed by the builder. Avionics for IFR must be installed by qualified personnel. In the new regulations, the wording was that the builder could install everything. However the entire new regulation was simply dismissed by the local EAA Chapter here as unusable So we are stuck with these old regulations for a good while longer it seems.
But please explain to me why IFR is such a “dangerous hot thing” in the UK regarding Annex I. This makes no sense to me. Statistically IFR instruments, avionics, rating, training has saved lots of lives in Norway, while lack of these things has caused accidents (VFR into IMC by VFR only pilots/aircraft). The only problem with IFR is cost. Cost of avionics/instruments and cost of ratings. Statistically what is more dangerous (than IFR) is aerobatics and sea plane operations, but this seems to be no “hot topic” regarding Annex I.
