Could Some one please explain………

Regarding tax allowable donations in the UK, these are, of course possible. However, it is the recipient of the donation who benefits rather than the donor (which is only right, in my opinion).

First of all, the recipient has to be a Registered Charity. Secondly, the donation has to be paid under either the Gift Aid provisions or a Deed of Covenant. If these conditions are satisfied, then the charity can claim back from the government. 28p for every £1.00 received from the donor.

One factor which is often forgotten is that a donation has to be just that, a “donation”. In other words, the donor cannot expect to receive anything in return for their payment. If they are allowed soimething in return, such as admission, membership, a booklet (or even a ride in an aeroplane) it won’t be considered a donation and tax relief will be blocked. Many charities appear to have forgotten this and encourage their members to pay their subscriptions or entrance fees under “Gift Aid”. The UK Treasury is currently looking into this as it appears to be an incorrect interpretation of the basic legislation. So far, they have been reluctant to make a fuss on this topic because it is poltically sensitive but they have sent out warnings to a number of charities.

Finally, if the individual making a Gift Aid or Deed of Covenant donation to a charity pays tax at the UK Higher Rate (40%), they can personally claim back the tax at the higher rate on the donation. To do this they need to make the relevant entry on the UK Self Assessment tax return form.

We have the same problem here in Norway. There is a DC-3/C-53 operating out of Sandefjord which has 28 or 32 seats available, but by order of our CAA only 19 can be used! Seem to remember it used to operate with a higher number some 15+ years ago. I guess the fatal crashes of the Dutch and German DC-3s could have been a factor for a change of rule. Didn’t the DDA sell their DC-4 for the very reason that they couldn’t sell rides in it? It took two years to get Harvard LN-WNH (ex-G-SUES) regd. here in Norway. Don’t wanna think about how long it would have taken if they had tried to reg. the A-26 and P-51 here. I think Moggy’s definition of CAA applies to every aviation authority in the world. What do the US B-17 operators have to do in order to have the paying public onboard? Seats with belts, and, or…

T J

Very quietly…

you could have an arrangement whereby you could join the B-17 club, and as a club member you could be a voluntary crew member for the occaisional flight….

The CAA are on to all the tricks. r Weaver over on GA Forum and his ‘I know I can’t be paid for flying but what if they paid me to cut the grass and I flew for free?’ et al.

Not for nothing are the CAA known as the Campaign Against Aviation. They are civil servants headed for a final salary pension at 60 whilst the rest of us have to work until we drop. They have no interest in aircraft flying, it increases their workload. They have no interest in helping out the struggling operators of the last flying B17 in the UK. “More than my job’s worth”

(Note: These statements apply to the CAA as a corporate entity. There are some real good guys working within the organisation.)

Warbird fans putting pressure on the govenment? Ha!

The majority of people in the UK are either in favour of chasing foxes with a pack of dogs, or really couldn’t give a monkey’s one way or the other. Nevertheless our esteemed government has just devoted over 700 HOURS of parliamentary time forcing through legislation based on outdated class dogma against massive organised objection plus the rest of us wishing they’d just get on and do something useful for a change.

Government succumb to pressure from warbird fans? Yea – Right.

Moggy

Mike Js point is spot on, insurance costs would far outweigh any possible extra revenue.

The DC3 was designed and certificated as a passenger carrier from the start.

The CAAs rules on persons in permit to fly aircraft is quite clear. It is the minimum number of crew required to safely operate the aircraft.

You also need to remember the CAAs purpose. It is not to promote aviation, like the FAA, but to protect the public FROM aviation.

The DC-3/C-47 is an aircraft which is certified in the U.K for he carriage of passengers.
It can therefore be used for public transport on the relevant PT CofA. The B-17 isn’t certified for the carriage of passengers in the U.K. You can therefore spend an absolute fortune to get it to meet the requirements or forget about it. It’s not a matter of the age of respective types but whether they are certified for the role you wish to carry out.
As for the Memphis Belle film.I am sure the operators of Sally B would have applied for the relevant exemption to carry out aerial work for a specific time. This doesn’t however allow for passneger flying but would allow people to be on board forthe specific purposes of the task.

In the present climate for operating warbirds, this discussion is all pretty academic anyhow. The CAA could turn around tomorrow and allow passenger flights in return for a ‘donation’, and still nothing would change.

Why not?

Simple.

Insurance.

Mike I agree with that the real Killer of the Warbird Scene is Sky Rocket Insurance Rate both here in the States and their in Europe.

But I’m sure their could be some sort of policy written if the CAA ever did allow Passengers(Wishfull thinking now)

Cheers
RER

Better believe it.

Flood

And they’d probably find some way to generate income from a camouflage paint tax or something.;)

Flood

Yea leave it up to a politician to find ways to stick the good old tax to something good 😮 :p

RER

Ok then,

Is that what the C-47 are under then the reason I ask is they where design for one thing to transport during War time Period then it would make sence to point out to the CAA that look these plane are older then are and they where desing for War also what is the difference between them and us.(please keep it civil I do know the differance I would like to hear the CAA reasons)

I’m just lost to understand the CAA over the few years maybe its time for the Warbird Community in the UK to star putting some pressure on your elected MP about have some changes done to allow groups like the Sally-B and other to be able to charge rides for a tax right off. Hey we got it to work here in the States and yes we are alot larger then you guys are but whats it going to hurt to at least try.

Remember all it takes I for one silly SOB to say hey were not going to take this BS anymore and I’m going to try to do something about it.

RER

The C47 was basically the DC3 – which was designed as an airliner.
The B17G was an adaption on its predecessors but the basic design was a bomber.
The C47 has ‘hack away at the airframe’ points and socking great cargo doors (usually) to assist the removal of walking payload in the event of an accident – the B17 doesn’t, and I’d imagine that this would be important in the eyes of the licensing authorities. This wouldn’t make a lot of difference in something like a Harvard where there would only ever be one entrance/exit, but a larger aircraft might either fly or remain grounded on whether on its ability to get all onboard out within a certain time (think of the Manchester B737 disaster – http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19850822-0).
Putting pressure on MPs could be a double edged sword – drawing attention to the warbird community could bring in unwanted criticisms along the lines that WWII German infantry re-enactors encounter: nazi accusations and complaints that it is an insult to our veterans. And they’d probably find some way to generate income from a camouflage paint tax or something.;)

Flood

Point taken.

Rob

The only way I have ever had them was Boiled, on a boat off Cape Cod. Straight out of the sea into the pot. By the time were in Harbour they were cooked.

Superb!

SallyB is in good hands. Extra cash wont hurt her one little bit but shes in good hands.

Boiled is very good but if you let them over cook they tend to be a tad tought. So did you eat the Tamalie also 😮

As for SallyB I never question that she wasn’t in good hands all I was asking is their way to generate extra cash for her and other Warbirds and if not was their a way to approach your elect MPs to see if their was a way to change the presence Tax Laws.

RER

Rob

The only way I have ever had them was Boiled, on a boat off Cape Cod. Straight out of the sea into the pot. By the time were in Harbour they were cooked.

Superb!

SallyB is in good hands. Extra cash wont hurt her one little bit but shes in good hands.

Richard you are probably right, our Maine-eac (pun intended) friend was trying to work out ways of increasing revenue by giving passenger rides.

A totally different kettle of Lobsters. 😀

Thanks MOTF,

So do you like your Lobster boiled or steamed, may I suggest Steamed the taste is far better 😀 😉

As for SallyB yes I was trying see if their was a way to keep her flying in the UK where she belongs 🙂 .

RER

Richard you are probably right, our Maine-eac (pun intended) friend was trying to work out ways of increasing revenue by giving passenger rides.

A totally different kettle of Lobsters. 😀

Is it possible for people to fly in Sally B, or other such aircraft, for free? ie. not a paying passenger, but a voluntary crew member.

If this were possible, you could have an arrangement whereby you could join the B-17 club, and as a club member you could be a voluntary crew member for the occaisional flight…. which might be just the one time per year, at the time of purchasing said club membership.

Surely that must be a way around the whole passenger issue… afterall, they had people flying aboard Sally-B when they filmed “Memphis Belle”… how did they do that if the CAA forbids passengers of any kind on uncertified aircraft?

Cheers,
Richard

Rob

Top stuff, nice drugs washed down with Moxie, theres a good chap. 😀

I really dont know whether there are any of the SallyB team on the forum. When I had a brief chat her owner last year she was more concerned with the day to day running costs. If the’vew read this thread though it may give them something to think about.

MOTF is right.. Does B-17 Preservation want to allow people to fly on board? I think we are aware of the catagories and certification needed… but it’s always nice to speculate!! Thanks for the input stateside crazymainer but there’s no way your getting your a/c back!!!

Please see my edit. 😀

MOTF,

Understood and will now stand down, just one quick question what is the folks who run the SallyB think I don’t know any of them and I’m under the undertsanding that some of them are part of the forum, would like to hear their thoughts.

Now off to take my nice drugs that MOTF reminds me to do :diablo:

RER

Please see my edit. 😀

Rob

Please take your drugs you are getting way too excited this evening. 😀

MOTF,

Its mid-afternoon here what drug are you talking about :diablo: :p

Sorry if I’m come off like a ranting foll(Yea before any of you jump on that I can be at times 😎 ) but I just don’t understand why the Warbird groups in general haven’t try to get something change maybe I miss something and there has been attempts done in the past.

As for come over to the States well I guess you can keep the 17 we have quite a few flying here but could you please send are B-24 Back across the Pond to us 😀 :diablo:

RER