Indeed so. However, I imagine that right now, they need the money...

An echo of the fatal Buddy Holly flight
 

Indeed so.

From a previous post:

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b124188433.png
Surely this function on a well known private 'flight sharing' website is fundamentally illegal and should be removed?

Although I am not the biggest fan of flight sharing sites (and would never have allowed my son to use such a service while I still had the power to forbid anything to him) this is not illegal in Europe as long as European registered aircraft are used. And as long as the cost is shared between all occupants, including the pilot, and the latter does not receive any kind of remuneration. And some more conditions are met most of which have been listed on this thread several times already.

(See for example page 4 of this document from EASA: https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...AIR_OPS_EN.pdf)

I think you'll find that most insurers don't agree - they consider it commercial (from a discussion with an underwriter this week). I think almost all PPL owners/renters who ask the question of their insurers will be shocked. Of course, very few ask as they don't want to hear the answer. The courts will decide in the end.

No, no, no! Regulations and laws are made by states, not by insureres. We are talking about legality here. Cost sharing flights (observing the relevant rules) are legal in EASA member countries. How much an insurer has to pay in case of an accident has nothing to do with that.

If flying outside of the parameters of what's insured then that is a legal issue. Technically you'd be flying without insurance.

And you'll be a danger to nobody but yourself. Spot the difference.

But what if you have a passenger on that track day jaunt?

think the point that was being made is that it'd be no danger to the public- a track is private property. A 10 year old could drive a car on a private track- not illegal. Be a different story in a public space

In the event of a claim, if an insurer judges a flight to be commercial when the insured is only insured for private flights, they could challenge the "cost sharing" law (yes the law !!!) and how it is being applied - it will then be judged in court under "case law" / "common law".

Just because a state writes a law doesn't mean to say that it can't be challenged or proved to be improperly constructed - see here for EU/EASA CASE LAW / COMMON LAW application and challanges - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/collection...-case-law.html

For example, in my view, Wingly employes pilots - if pilots don't fly for them wingly doesn't make a profit or have business. For example, Wingly sells gift certificates to people who then give them on to a third party who, in turn, contact Private Pilots who offer to fly them anywhere they want to go at the time they wish to depart - one way, return, IFR/VFR, overnight, international ..... and that's not commercial ??

My point was that it's not compulsory to have one's own insurance in order to take part in a track day (I certainly didn't).

But it's illegal to fly an aircraft without insurance.

An aircraft must be insured before it can fly

Regarding insurance is there a legal requirement to have valid insurance on a "private " aircraft as there is on a motor vehicle?

Recently Ibbotson's wife Nora and daughter Dannielle were interviewed on television. Nora stated that Ibbotson had a Private Pilots Licence and was qualified to carry passengers. It was stated that he flew purely as a hobby. When pressed about if he received payment Nora, she chose not to answer the question.

What we also know about Ibbotson is that he was a Gas Safe (Corgi) engineer, and under law entitled to service boilers, issue gas certificates and install and sign out new gas supplies. I think we all agree with with the law in the UK on gas fitting. Those violating gas regulations are rightly dealt severely by the courts in the UK.

Now then, what if a ATPL or CPL holder in the Scunthorpe before this accident decided as a hobby on his daysoff to do gas fitting for 'expenses', surely Ibbotson and local gas fitters would report him or her, likewise the local authority and Gas Safe would be pressing for a prosecution.

Whether Ibbotson was operating for hire and reward is not perhaps the issue, more to the point he was operating as a commercial pilot, yet not qualified to do so. In the same way I am not qualified to carry out surgery or act as a pro bono solicitor, solicitor being a protected title in law.

The crowdfunding page is worth visiting, for the comments. Many of Ibbotson's supporters seem critical that the football industry are not fully funding the search for Ibbotson, David Beckham has been identified as someone who should throw in some money towards the search, I ask why? Likewise they are very critical of the UK AAIB, which is highly respected worldwide, they do not understand the remit of the AAIB, in so much they are not an agency for the recovery of bodies. In the case of Lockerbie, my understanding was that not all the bodies were recovered. Of course there might had been further searches by the AAIB for the body, if they suspected that the pilot was incapacitated, but the was little indication of this.
The AAIB will know more than us, but the evidence suggest that the pilot was not qualifed to fly in IMC, or at night, icing was likely and the post mortem evidence from Sala suggests a high speed impact, so a controlled forced landing can be ruled out.