Originally Posted by
helimutt
Ok, so now the trend of conversation is towards non legal charter/cost sharing etc and Wingly, whilst not being used in this instance, and being totally legal in the CAA's eyes, I saw this. I was certain that you needed 100+ hours before being a Wingly acceptable pilot. Obv not. 77 hrs in an R22 does not, in my opinion, make someone suitable to fly passengers in an R22. And I flew them for a lot of hours when I first started out. Did I take passengers for quick joyrides with me? yes I did but looking back I never should have. I knew too little. Take a look at this link. It's in the public domain on their website so I don't feel I'm doing anything wrong posting the link, but people will do all sorts to build hours. It's all legal but to me, it looks like its being run as a business by the pilot, not the odd ride in a helicopter. Too pre-planned for my liking.
https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=flights&flight=1699971
Helimutt:
Jesus! My understanding was that they had dropped helicopters from the site 2 years ago due to the fact that the pilots have to demonstrate they have insurance, and that no insurer would take on these flights. 77 hours in an R22? He doesn't know enough to know how dangerous he is. When I and a couple of others started researching this lot we registered as customers and pilots, as soon as we started really digging they threatened us with lawyers on the basis of the idiotic letter from the CAA. In fact one colleague went to enforcements with that document as we believed it was fake. Even CAA enforcements were shocked to find it was real.
A read of this page is depressing enough, but follow the links to their arrangements with various NAA's, the CAA and EASA:
https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=...ub_page=safety
I'm 60 in a few years so will have to stop single pilot AOC work by law, maybe this is a way to keep going, But maybe 30+ years and over 17 000 hours makes me over qualified.
SND