UK rules on cost-sharing flights are changing 

I suspect most of us will just avoid the paperwork by keeping the cost sharing arrangements private, and if anyone asks, I paid for all of it. Burden of proof is on the accuser! I’m not interested in filling in forms to take a mate for a spin where he buys lunch.

The CAA is fundamentally incapable of providing solutions that do not involve more paperwork and less accessibility to GA in this country.

"[the CAA] admits there is very little statistical evidence to support the need for these changes..." bureaucrats in public office doing what they do best: making rules for the sake of making rules and justifying their jobs.

Hi John, I fear the proposed changes in legislation will have no effect on ‘grey charters’ because, by definition, they are conducted by people who have no regard for the law. Judging by the number of cost sharing platforms and pilots using them I’m sure that there are thousands of cost sharing flights undertaken every year, thousands of flights that have been conducted in a safe and legal fashion … flights that help keep GA in the UK alive. This is worrying news which, I fear, will make flying for the average wage earner (like me!) unaffordable. David.

Excellent example of straight down the line factual reporting passing on really useful information! Thanks Jon.

Thanks for unravelling the CAA doc Jon and sharing in such a clear manner. much appreciated and keep them coming

Wingly works very well here in France. The UK leaving EASA was pretty unnecessary… I suppose there’s pressure on the CAA to justify “taking back control” by making up their own rules on flight sharing.

On the one hand, this isn't unfamiliar, as this is (roughly) how the rules work in the US. On the other hand, as the CAA admits, there is very little statistical evidence that this has any impact on safety. Basically, they're screwing up the way in which a lot of people manage to afford to fly simply because they need to be *seen* to be doing "something" about a deadly crash involving a celebrity. Just one more straw on the back of the camel of UK GA. And, of course, it doesn't take much more than a bureaucrats IQ to figure out that shady people always find a way to be shady: They will simply advertise flights as having set schedules, and then change those with a quick phone call to prospective passengers. It also encourages rule-abiding pilots to carry more passengers than they otherwise might in order to reduce their share of the costs. This could lead to incidents due to unexpectedly reduced aircraft performance or in-cabin distractions. The only way to stop the shady actors would be a massive bureaucracy, at tax-payer's expense, of inspectors posing as passengers in order to catch and prosecute people for engaging in these behaviours, which they have already admitted have not been shown by evidence to be systemically dangerous.... SMDH.

Its worth bearing in mind that the cost sharing rules in the Channel islands are different to the UK. They are stricter and already require the pilot to pay at leat their proportionate share. If you are flying too and from the CI, then Channel Islands rules apply.

Excellent video, really clear and makes the information feel accessible. Much appreciated.

All this headache because Sala’s pilot knowingly took off with a duff aircraft. What was that guy thinking? Seriously what was going through his mind? To take a young man in an aircraft that he knew was fucked and that he had no right to be flying. That poor kid trusted him and he flew him into his grave.

Thank you for highlighting this very important topic Jon. The response to theme 3 effectively kills anything else about online advertising, common purpose etc as if a flight needs to be going ahead anyway, this means I can’t take a friend for a birthday treat to his favourite restaurant on the Isle of Wight, since he chose both the date and destination. Maybe they mean A-B flights only here, but it doesn’t say that currently! The frustrating part about all of this is it’s not going to stop any of the illegal grey charters, just impacts us legal cost shareres hugely negatively.

CAA - Campaign Against Aviation

Great work Jon! This is a fantastic explainer.

Hi Jon. Thanks very much for this overview of the proposed new reg’s. Please keep these types of video’s coming on important topic’s for us PPL’s. Just one comment in that the CAA love a form to be filled out !! 😮

Thank you for the video, John. Very mixed feelings about this.

Forms and more forms😡😡 I hope this doesn’t spill in the States.

As much as it's welcome to see changes, can't really imagine practical form of enforcing them.

That's what I do anyway (pay at least my share) but the forms are probably going to be a pain! Thanks for the heads up Jon 🙂

This is literally devastating for me and my dream career. As a rotary pilot my costs are upwards of £500 an hour. I put everything I could into getting my PPL and now rely almost entirely on passenger cost sharing for hour building. Through advertising experience flights and sharing costs with passengers I’ve got 80 hours more experience than I would have been able to do under these new regulations.

Fantastically presented video. And a very pragmatic solution from the CAA

Thanks Jon!!

Excellent info' Sir Jon🙃

Fascinating commentary. Australian private operations have always been on an equal cost share, non-advertised basis (similar to the US part 91, and now closely emulates that FAR). The Oz regs are an amalgamation of ICAO/EAA/FAA ruleset, so it will be interesting to see if there's any development as a result of this UK change. Thanks...!

They sound sensible revisions to me. The ability to cost-share is a great way to support pleasure aviation, but professional aviation is for professional pilots (and they're welcome to it). Great video!

Landmark consultation? Who did they ask?

A rule is only as good as your ability to enforce it. So while I can't really complain with what has been stated, maybe needs a little refinement over time, I can't see it changing much...

Is there change to the rules regarding foreign registered aircraft?

All sounds quite sensible to me. They have just tried to redefine 'cannot charge a fare' by defining it out of other terms. I fly with other pilots mostly and the only time I'd come close to any rules would be flying someone to pick up or drop of another aircraft for maintenance - which completely makes sense as your car can't drive itself from one airfield to another (yet). The common purpose term was ambiguous to start with; even if we're going the same place - I don't know they have the same purpose- I can't read minds. TBH - If someone wants to cost share they really need to be paying for the annual or parking, or giving me a subscription to sky demon.

Trying to find any cost-sharing activity outside of the UK in Europe, it seems difficult to find this. Is this a typical UK-topic, or do you know of companies outisde UK that specialise in this as well? Thanks for the interesting topic!

Thank you for your reply to my question however if a holder of either a Commercial licence or a new pilot ATPL(f) using his/her own aircraft or hired aircraft would the new rules apply as the aircraft would not necessarily be a regular commercial aircraft?

When are these changes coming into effect anyway?

Thank you for your video. There is something I'm not finding very clear in the document which I've had a read through and that is where do we stand when for example my person A (a pilot) takes their partner flying (non pilot) If you are able to shed any light on that I'd be grateful.

Knowing the CAA this will be available in about 10 years!!!

John as a non-pilot just a pensioner with an interest in aviationI. Do these rules applicable to PPL only or do they apply to CPL and ATPL(frozen)? Thanks

Another question John, did the UK elect to come out of EASA or was it a European decision?

Cost sharing should only occur among friends. No cost sharing with someone you have never met, simple really.

David Henderson ruined it for everyone. What a clown.

I don’t understand why you British pilots aren’t screaming blue murder about a regulatory intervention when even the regulator responsible for it admits that they have no evidence that it’ll improve safety. What is the purpose of any of this, what is it supposed to achieve, and why aren’t you all mounting the barricades to prevent it?

Seems fair enough

Love the baby blue teeshirt!