S300 - Share the cost anyone?
I was recently informed by a CFI that in order to reduce costs I could fly with another ppl(h), say 50:50 split (in both terms of cost & time flown) and be allowed to log the whole flight time as PIC/P1 time?
Is this legal or have I misunderstood (or been ill advised)?
KM
Is this legal or have I misunderstood (or been ill advised)?
KM
Guest
Posts: n/a
under JAA if two PPL-only holders fly together they CANNOT both log PIC time. if they fly for an hour and share the flying, then they log 30 mins each
the only advantage for these two people, is if they BOTH want to build hours and want to fly further away from their home base. eg one flys from redhill to bristol, the other flys back. and they both share the cost
the only advantage for these two people, is if they BOTH want to build hours and want to fly further away from their home base. eg one flys from redhill to bristol, the other flys back. and they both share the cost
Already on page 2 and nobody has it right yet!
Although a few of you were close (about the FAA system)
Here it is:
Under the FAA system two PPLs cannot just take out an aircraft VFR and both log PIC, obviously.
A PPL can fly with a CFI and both log PIC: The PPL is Legally PIC - the CFI can log because it is a privilege of his CFI ticket (this would equate to flying P1u/s back home I guess)
Here's the Golden egg: Two PPL's can go out and practice instrument flying together - one under the hood and one as safety pilot. The aircraft is now (by regulation) a two pilot aircraft, so you can both log the time.
You can log one of two ways; PIC under hood and SIC as safety, or if you both agree that the safety is PIC (accepts responsibiliy for flight) - he or she can log PIC AND the person under the hood can log PIC as sole manipulator of controls.
In a nutshell in the US you can have two PICs on the same flight as long as you've got a hood - of course none of this really matters because we weren't talking FAA in the first place!!
Here it is:
Under the FAA system two PPLs cannot just take out an aircraft VFR and both log PIC, obviously.
A PPL can fly with a CFI and both log PIC: The PPL is Legally PIC - the CFI can log because it is a privilege of his CFI ticket (this would equate to flying P1u/s back home I guess)
Here's the Golden egg: Two PPL's can go out and practice instrument flying together - one under the hood and one as safety pilot. The aircraft is now (by regulation) a two pilot aircraft, so you can both log the time.
You can log one of two ways; PIC under hood and SIC as safety, or if you both agree that the safety is PIC (accepts responsibiliy for flight) - he or she can log PIC AND the person under the hood can log PIC as sole manipulator of controls.
In a nutshell in the US you can have two PICs on the same flight as long as you've got a hood - of course none of this really matters because we weren't talking FAA in the first place!!
Better red than ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could be right but, I'd be disappointed if you are - not least because I don't think Kopter's profile says anything about where he's 'coming from', in flying or any other terms, other than he's trying to find ways of building hours as economically as possible.
I'm not suggesting it applies in this instance, but I have noticed on numerous occasions that more people use more energy coming up with arguments why someone can't do something because of the Regs (or why what they did was in breach of the Regs) than finding arguments why they can (or it wasn't.)
Brits are by far the worst.
(Not all Brits, obviously.)
I'm not suggesting it applies in this instance, but I have noticed on numerous occasions that more people use more energy coming up with arguments why someone can't do something because of the Regs (or why what they did was in breach of the Regs) than finding arguments why they can (or it wasn't.)
Brits are by far the worst.
(Not all Brits, obviously.)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: South Wales
Age: 48
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@rudestuff
Not quite sure how that would work either, unless one of the PPL's was instrument rated in the first place in order to be flying simulated instruments. Agreed then the 2nd pilot could sit as a safety pilot, but as he had no CFII rating, he could not be giving instruction, so the number 1 pilot must hold an IR?
LB
Not quite sure how that would work either, unless one of the PPL's was instrument rated in the first place in order to be flying simulated instruments. Agreed then the 2nd pilot could sit as a safety pilot, but as he had no CFII rating, he could not be giving instruction, so the number 1 pilot must hold an IR?
LB
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would any PPL(H) whether working towards a professional qualification or not, want to pay for hours they cannot log? Would you?
1) A PPL(H) has lost their medical, but is likely to get it back again in a few months. He/she would like to do some flying to keep current, but naturally can't log it.
2) A pilot is in the UK, but has a foreign licence. They would like to do some flying, without paying for an instructor or jumping through all the hoops required to be P1 over here.
3) A PPL(H) can't afford to fly helicopters any more. He'd just like to occasionally, and doesn't care about logging the hours.
4) Same as number 3, but this PPL's rating has lapsed since he/she can't afford to keep it up.
5) The pilot isn't rated on the 300, but has flown it a bit and would like another go. Or his 300 rating has lapsed, perhaps.
Give me another 30 seconds and I'll think of some more.
Now, some of these might be illegal if having a go is illegal, or letting your "passenger" fly is illegal, with you as PIC. Flying Lawyer and Whirlygig and others, are you sure this is the case? If so, where is it written please?
I too simply don't understand all the aggro this simple request has generated, either on this thread or the one on Private Flying.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Flying Lawyer and Whirlygig and others, are you sure this is the case? If so, where is it written please?"
I didn't say it.
Nor am I convinced that letting a passenger touch the controls provided the pilot retains control of the aircraft is illegal.
I didn't say it.
Nor am I convinced that letting a passenger touch the controls provided the pilot retains control of the aircraft is illegal.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, I misunderstood you, reading in a hurry early in the morning, sorry. I certainly always assumed that as PIC, I could let my passengers handle the controls if I wanted to - bearing in mind common sense and safety of course! And so long as the PIC has control of the aircraft, as you say.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't be absolute either way, because it's a matter of interpretation.
I always assumed that allowing an unqualified passenger to touch the controls was illegal until my assumption was challenged by an aviation solicitor (and, coincidentally, former pro pilot). His argument was that provided the PiC retained control of the aircraft, then he was flying, not the passenger.
It was one of those discussions which seemed very interesting over a glass of wine but was then forgotten about and never resolved.
We thought it was going to be relevant in a case in which he was instructing me as Counsel, but it turned out not to be so the argument wasn't resolved in court.
On balance, I think his view is probably correct.
I always assumed that allowing an unqualified passenger to touch the controls was illegal until my assumption was challenged by an aviation solicitor (and, coincidentally, former pro pilot). His argument was that provided the PiC retained control of the aircraft, then he was flying, not the passenger.
It was one of those discussions which seemed very interesting over a glass of wine but was then forgotten about and never resolved.
We thought it was going to be relevant in a case in which he was instructing me as Counsel, but it turned out not to be so the argument wasn't resolved in court.
On balance, I think his view is probably correct.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On balance, I think his view is probably correct.
Of course, Air Law and common sense and/or logic aren't necessarily the same thing, are they?
But I've never seen anything in writing about it, and neither has anyone else, which is probably why we all make assumptions about it. And since it's not in writing anywhere, I'll carry on with what I've always thought.
Although a few of you were close (about the FAA system)
Here it is:
Under the FAA system two PPLs cannot just take out an aircraft VFR and both log PIC, obviously.
Here's the Golden egg: Two PPL's can go out and practice instrument flying together - one under the hood and one as safety pilot. The aircraft is now (by regulation) a two pilot aircraft, so you can both log the time.
You can log one of two ways; PIC under hood and SIC as safety, or if you both agree that the safety is PIC (accepts responsibiliy for flight) - he or she can log PIC AND the person under the hood can log PIC as sole manipulator of controls.
In a nutshell in the US you can have two PICs on the same flight as long as you've got a hood - of course none of this really matters because we weren't talking FAA in the first place!!
Here it is:
Under the FAA system two PPLs cannot just take out an aircraft VFR and both log PIC, obviously.
Here's the Golden egg: Two PPL's can go out and practice instrument flying together - one under the hood and one as safety pilot. The aircraft is now (by regulation) a two pilot aircraft, so you can both log the time.
You can log one of two ways; PIC under hood and SIC as safety, or if you both agree that the safety is PIC (accepts responsibiliy for flight) - he or she can log PIC AND the person under the hood can log PIC as sole manipulator of controls.
In a nutshell in the US you can have two PICs on the same flight as long as you've got a hood - of course none of this really matters because we weren't talking FAA in the first place!!
The safety pilot can only log the time as PIC, where he acted as a required crew member. Which means only the time, that the other pilot is under the hood and flying in simulated instrument conditions. Look here
Now we leave it at that I think.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of damp and drizzle
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since we're on the topic, I'd like to confirm something:
So it's legal to ask for people to cost share while I fly (on my PPL), so long as I'm not advertising a specific flight? I.e. posting a note at my local supermarket saying "looking for people who want to be flown around for half the aircraft hire cost" is ok, but sticking up a note on (say) my company noticeboard saying "I'm flying from Southend to Heathrow on Sunday in an R22, anybody want to come along and share the cost?" isn't? The difference being that in the ok version, no specific flight is being advertised or alluded to?
I'm not nit-picking or having a go here, I really want to understand the law and current situation, since it will shortly apply to me.
He is not publishing information or advertising a flight. He could only do that under the conditions specified in (c) above. He is looking for people to cost share. The Private Flying forum has had a 'spare seat' thread (some cost-sharing, some free) for some time without, as far as I know, any problems.
I'm not nit-picking or having a go here, I really want to understand the law and current situation, since it will shortly apply to me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Age: 51
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With one exception (see below) I don't see anything illegal in what Kopterman has proposed.
He is not publishing information or advertising a flight. He could only do that under the conditions specified in (c) above. He is looking for people to cost share. The Private Flying forum has had a 'spare seat' thread (some cost-sharing, some free) for some time without, as far as I know, any problems.
I'm mystified by the almost aggressive tone of some posters here. Those who see no advantage for them won't take up the suggestion; others may. I suspect the idea may be more attractive to those without a PPL(H). He may or may not find anyone taking up his suggestion, but I don't understand the criticism of him for trying.
Kopterman
You can not "fly with another ppl(h), say 50:50 split (in both terms of cost & time flown) and be allowed to log the whole flight time as PIC/P1 time."
You have either misunderstood your CFI or been ill advised. You are only entitled to log the time you fly.
(Edit)
Whirlygig
Surely Kopter's response to the PPL(A) who 'wanted a go' as part of the cost share was entirely proper?
FL
He is not publishing information or advertising a flight. He could only do that under the conditions specified in (c) above. He is looking for people to cost share. The Private Flying forum has had a 'spare seat' thread (some cost-sharing, some free) for some time without, as far as I know, any problems.
I'm mystified by the almost aggressive tone of some posters here. Those who see no advantage for them won't take up the suggestion; others may. I suspect the idea may be more attractive to those without a PPL(H). He may or may not find anyone taking up his suggestion, but I don't understand the criticism of him for trying.
Kopterman
You can not "fly with another ppl(h), say 50:50 split (in both terms of cost & time flown) and be allowed to log the whole flight time as PIC/P1 time."
You have either misunderstood your CFI or been ill advised. You are only entitled to log the time you fly.
(Edit)
Whirlygig
Surely Kopter's response to the PPL(A) who 'wanted a go' as part of the cost share was entirely proper?
FL
KM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Age: 51
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kopterman
This post may be of interest to you - Post #162
This post may be of interest to you - Post #162
Many thanks,
KM
Rotorbee: Er.... obviously! I said you can both log PIC if you have a hood - I kind of thought it went without saying that you actually have to be wearing it!!!
Lightning boy: You only need an IR to fly in actual IMC - anyone can put on a hood and practice simulated IMC. You just need a safety pilot suitably rated in the aircraft (ie: PPL) - you don't need a CFII unless you want to log it as instruction. Under the FAA system, you need 40hrs of instrument time, but only 15 hours of it needs to be from a CFII. The rest can be from your buddy.
Lightning boy: You only need an IR to fly in actual IMC - anyone can put on a hood and practice simulated IMC. You just need a safety pilot suitably rated in the aircraft (ie: PPL) - you don't need a CFII unless you want to log it as instruction. Under the FAA system, you need 40hrs of instrument time, but only 15 hours of it needs to be from a CFII. The rest can be from your buddy.
