It is perhaps timely to draw attention to the need for reform of the requirement to operate fractional ownership schemes under an AOC. Rather than imposing heavy costs on fractional operators, a sector which serves the business community, I believe some relaxation of the rules would also stimulate competition and encourage growth in the General Aviation (GA) sector.

There is currently a European level debate on whether the European authorities are likely to be creating a private category for fractional ownership, similar to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 91, in the near future.

Some commentators have suggested that the way that fractional jet ownership companies, such as NetJets, are operating should be more clearly defined legally. But there are also suggestions that reform would serve only to increase NetJets' market dominance in Europe, as well as negatively affecting charter operators.

The CAA's view is simple - if a passenger is paying to be carried in the aircraft then it is public transport. Many variations are possible depending on questions - who is the aircraft owner, who is being carried and what is being paid for?

Many brokers suggest there are simple devices which can be used to avoid the effect of the current rules, but many of these are fraught with difficulty.

From the aviation lawyer's perspective, reform would at least be some clarification.

For example, a private jet owned by a private company, whose founder is a wealthy individual, with an employed pilot - is obviously not a 'public transport' operation. Especially, as in the US, when privately owned corporate jets are dry leased all the time and their operation is recognised as private under (inter alia) Section 91 of the FAR. US lawyers will advise that you can dry lease an aircraft and provided the lessee is the operator, this will not be regarded as public transport.

In the UK, the CAA does not regard the situation with anything like the same equanimity. The public policy rule they are seeking to uphold is that if anybody pays to be carried as a passenger, it is public transport and the operator therefore needs an AOC with all the cost and bureaucracy it involves.

This AOC application probably costs about #20,000, but the key is having the organisational structure, for example an operations manager, chief pilot and administrative person. Other staff would not necessarily be employed by the company but be 'on the books', such as a line training captain qualified on type who does the initial training and subsequent checks. The organisation would also need an operations manual (which could take up to six months to write) and agreements dealing with maintenance, aircraft leasing, public liability insurance etc. etc. This is regarded as a public transport operation after all ...

The issue of payment is complicated, as "paid" is widely defined in the Air Navigation Order (ANO) under Article 130. If "valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers" this is considered public transport.

Attempting to avoid the unfortunate case where a pilot is regarded as the operator carrying passengers and therefore should have had (but didn't) an AOC with everything that entails, UK aviation lawyers advising on corporate jets have the unenviable task of quizzing their clients.

This involves questions about exactly which company is operating the aircraft, which company is leasing it, which company is the employing the pilot and so on. Did the lessee under the dry lease operate the aircraft or was it somehow the offshore company which is the registered owner of the aircraft? Who hired the pilot? Who paid what and what was it for exactly? Even if there wasn't a payment was something else promised in return for being carried on the plane?

In Europe, ECAC (the European Civil Aviation Conference), in conjunction with member states' civil aviation authorities and with the US Federal Aviation Administration, is currently holding meetings to learn, from a technical viewpoint, what has been the FAA's experience in regulating the dynamic fractional sector.

After this consultation it will be the task of EASA to lay down the rules. However at present there is no "European" view on the best way to proceed and everything is in the melting pot.

I think the growth in the corporate jet market means that the regulators ought to look at the rules, not

only through the spectacles of the protector of the innocent public, but also with a view to promoting aviation.

Apparently some regulators think that the only fractional ownership you can have is for a group of pilots. If the only way of allowing private owners of corporate jets to have access to this market is an AOC, this will force them into the hands of companies like NetJets who currently dominate the market.

This will only reinforce NetJets' dominance. It may be possible to develop a regulatory line which is more flexible than full compliance with public transport requirements. It is true that the air charter operators say that there is no need for such a reform, along the lines of FAR Sec 91, because this will just make things even easier for the likes of NetJets. The truth is however that the market is already going in the direction of corporate jets. Why not lower the barriers for entry for competitors to NetJets? This might actually promote civil aviation and GA, a sector which needs some assistance.

Guy Facey is head of the international department at the London-based KSB Law LLP