Basically, outside maintenance, the French regs for annexe 1 are SERA NCO.
As of today instruments for VFR night can be installed by the builder. Avionics for IFR must be installed by qualified personnel.
I was referring to airspace regs. Most countries (in Europe at least) do have these. Otherwise you could just import an N-reg Lancair (etc) and do what you like 
But please explain to me why IFR is such a “dangerous hot thing” in the UK regarding Annex I.
I never argued that, and it is off topic; done to death many times.
The airspace regs are the same for annexe 1 annexe 2 and ULM.
Otherwise you could just import an N-reg Lancair (etc) and do what you like
What do you mean? N-reg experimental would need explicit permission for each and every crossing of a border because USA is not ECAC. Besides, you cannot import any N-reg without also changing it to LN in Norway, wich is what many do, and then do what they like
The airspace regs are the same for annexe 1 annexe 2 and ULM.
Exactly.
The airspace regs are the same for annexe 1 annexe 2 and ULM.
Do you mean the cost sharing regs in France are airspace based and not aircraft reg based?
and then do what they like
??
France doesn’t really govern foreign regs. That is EASA regs. It would be very difficult outside of some sort of intelligence to know whether a UK pilot flying.an N reg on an FAA licence is cost sharing and even if they were cost sharing, as we know it, then its not illegal anyway.
However if that aircraft was flown VFR in class A airspace then that would be an infringement, just as it would be in a Fox Papa , certified F reg or a ULM.
So no they are not aircraft based and they are not airspace based they are licensing based.
This is about cost sharing.
It appears this is not a widely known topic!
Peter wrote:
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’m pretty sure you’re saying the same thing, but there may be doubt about whether cost-sharing is prohibited in the first instance; it depends on how the prohibition is drafted. Depending on how clear the legislation is, it might be possible to argue that is is not prohibited in the first place.
The UK national law (Air Navigation Order) works as follows: a person cannot act as a member of the required flight crew of a non-Part 21 Aircraft unless he or she has a licence. Licences (and ratings) grant certain privileges. The privileges of a UK PPL(A) allow the pilot in command “to fly for the purposes of non-commercial operations”, with certain exceptions (instructing, examining with the relevant rating) and otherwise “unless authorised to do so by the CAA.” A “commercial operation” is
any operation of an aircraft other than for public transport—
(a)which is available to the public; or
(b)which, when not made available to the public, is performed under a contract between an operator and a customer, where the latter has no control over the operator,
in return for remuneration or other valuable consideration.
It seems to me that a cost-sharing flight would fall within (b) (or (a) if advertised), and so is prohibited with a PPL. The pilot would need a CPL. But, there is an exception for cost-sharing flights (ORS4 No.1554, which exempts the pilot in command or operator from having to comply with laws that only apply to commercial operations (such, in this case having a CPL), provided, among other things, that “the only valuable consideration given or promised for the flight or purpose of the flight is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the pilot in command”.
UK Part-FCL licences are covered by UK Part-FCL (the old EASA rules), and the cost sharing exception there, of course.
Interesting.
A clue to the weird wording may be in what has been removed in recent years i.e. a sentence saying that a cost shared flight may be advertised only within a flying club and all participants must be club members.
The CAA dropped this, possibly due to EASA regs overriding it, or due to the obvious workaround of the “club” being wholly online
The wording is especially bad given the relatively useless CPL (on its own), except as a company pilot.
But all this stuff is the same for Annex 1 AFAIK, and G-reg. UL, I have no idea but have a vague recollection that cost sharing is banned. If so, it gets even more funny since some Annex 1 types, under 650kg, can be either Annex 1 or UL…
Peter wrote:
In any civilised country, if there is no reg prohibiting something, it is allowed.
Reminds me of the description of European legislation principles…
In France, everything is allowed unless forbidden.
In Britain, everything is forbidden unless allowed.
In Italy, everything is allowed, even if forbidden.
In Germany, everything is forbidden, even if allowed…
