Dodgy or legit?

[Ebbie 2003]

This seems rather dodgy or are such "non-common purpose" flight services now legit in EASAland?

Man flies from London to Newcastle for half price of train | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4374926/Man-flies-plane-half-price-train.html)

[TheOddOne]

I can't see the problem. True, the risk is many times that of travelling by rail or scheduled airline but presumably that's been made plain to people using the service. The actual cost of running a Mooney from Elstree to Newcastle must be far in excess of what was actually paid - I shouldn't think £67 even covered the fuel. I see the pilot was going that way anyway and thought it was a great way of introducing someone to the joys of flying.
If you regard it as a cheap Trial Lesson, it seems to put it into perspective.

[9 lives]

Dodgy.

I wonder if the aircraft insurer thinks that this is the use of the aircraft they are insuring. If there's a claim, the owner will find out...

The traveller, who is a member of "the public", presents the story of his travel as though he "bought a ticket" on a private flight. I doubt that the private flight met the characterization of carrying the passenger incidental to the flight.

Pilots considering offering themselves to provide this type of service really should understand exactly what they are getting themselves into. Personally, for me... not even close to the bother and risk....

[flight_mode]

The service this guy used, Wingly have their own 'cost sharing friendly' insurance policy underwritten by Allianz covering aircraft, pilot and sharers. If I understand correctly the policy only pays if the original insurer refuses a claim.

[flight_mode]

Also keep in mind that this guy paid £67 for his seat. There could well have been another sharers onboard too.

[m.Berger]

Dodgy.
This is an air taxi in all but name. Professional pilots study very expensively to exercise the privileges of the commercial licence and to have we PPL holders doing their work is simply wrong.

[Ebbie 2003]

Under the FAR's this practice is downright illegal.

One needs "common purpose" - so I happen to be flying to the pace you want to go and so we share the "costs" - the costs to an owner are the marginal costs - so fuel, fees, a quid or two for the oil etc. and maybe something for the engine fund.

I am aware of a couple of companies who are trying to do this sort of thing in the US - as a result it now transpires that simply posting on the internet an intent to make a trip and seeing of anyone wants to come along or is going that way is also not legit.

Personally with my airplane, which is maintained to the public standard, I will rent you the airplane even if you can't fly and I'll even give you the numbers of the commercial pilots in the area checked out to fly it - seems this is legit, if you want to share costs no problem - the pilot will fly for free as he crawls his way towards the magic ATPL numbers.

The important thing is the it is insured for this and a commercial pilot is flying it - a random member of the public being flown by a PPL seems to me to open up all sort of problems.

The weird thing is that in the land of the EASA, who I understand clamp down on everything compared to the supposed "open" US authorities, just a notice is possible and not a cause for concern.

Turning to the FAR's again - there is a complicated set of rules even for taking members of the public on quick flights around the circuit for a charity event - minimum numbers of hours are needed, notification of the FSDO etc. but here newly minted PPL can fly someone who will likley not know his abilities and "Mr. PPL" will no doubt feel the 'pressure' to get the punter to the destination - recipe for disaster I think.

As has been said it will be interesting to see what happens when the first death or serious injury occurs.

[Talkdownman]

'Bent Charter'

[alex90]

This kind of thing isn't new... There was a company called SkyUber that made the news some time ago.

The way it is reported however, is a little misleading to say the least! It does sound as though he "purchased an airline ticket", but he really didn't, he got lucky that someone was going there anyway.

I am not surprised of some of the responses on here being a little off with regards to this practice, but this is not too dissimilar to taking your friends & family flying and them paying for share of the costs. Most people have a destination in mind (whether local or not), and most passengers don't pay the full share of the flight... The only MAJOR difference is that you don't know the person sitting next to you. He could be a criminal, drug addict, or some sort of fanatic! You just don't know - and that alone would freak me out!

It does look a little bit like an advert for wingly though...!

[Talkdownman]

you don't know the person sitting next to you. He could be a criminal, drug addict, or some sort of fanatic!
Are you referring to the pilot?

[TheOddOne]

Are you referring to the pilot?

Nice one.

alex90,

I sit next to perfect strangers around 100 times a year giving them flying lessons for the first time. I'll be planning to encourage them to take control of the aircraft after about 10 minutes from strapping in. I think that you can reduce the risk of issues by carefully laying down the ground rules in a friendly manner before starting the engine.

[RedhillPhil]

If only he'd have used Virgin trains' own website instead of rip-off Trainline he could have travelled by train for £56 and saved the fares from London to Elstree and airport to toon at the other end.

[alex90]

hahaha! Talkdownman - definitely goes both ways does it not?

TheOddOne, I always (certainly wrongly) had the belief that someone seeking a trial lesson / seeking to pursue flight training would be unlikely in being a lunatic. Especially at those costs per hour!! But I am 100% sure that I am wrong. Also - in a trial flight environment, you'd like to think that you'd be able to smell a rat, don't you? If the character looks/feels a little dodgy, you may or may not wish to continue the trial lesson whilst still on the ground. I feel when you have someone who has paid for a seat, rather than an experience / training flight, the attitude is somewhat different, and these kind of teasing questions to figure out if the person sitting next to you, who happens to have a set of controls is of sound mind...

[mothminor]

Uberair anyone?

[S-Works]

Saying this is Doggy completely disregards the skill level of a PPL holder. I take my friends and family out often for trips and considering I'm building hours towards a CPL this service could be a the best way to bring the costs down. I wasn't born with a daddys trust fund so I spend almost all the money i earn into trying to get up and flying on the weekends to get where I want to be. I dont see why I cant take new people along for my flights and split the costs with them. Im going to fly anyways ill gladly share my seats with people even if i dont make a dime whereas i'm saving up so that I can fly more.

Nothing wrong at all as long you make sure they understand perfectly clear that they are flying with a rank amateur who is building hours in order to meet the entry requirements in order to become a professional pilot where they will then be trained to carry fair paying passengers. They should understand the risk clearly they are undertaking and that they are paying you a share of the costs as a friend not for a flight service.

[Cloudee]

In Australia the regulator allows cost sharing but only if "public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of public advertisement or announcement".

[Jonzarno]

This subject has been done to death both here and on Flyer. Bottom line is that both Wingly and Skyuber claim to have official confirmation from EASA that what they are doing is legal. The FAA, on the other hand, consider this to be "holding out" and therefore they do not approve it.

[octavian]

I confess to some concern that AOPA (UK) appears to be endorsing this with adverts in the magazine and I'm pretty sure I got an email from them about it recently.

Notwithstanding my qualifications it's not for me.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If I understand correctly the policy only pays if the original insurer refuses a claim.

That sounds fun. If, for example, the original insurer has a clause that if there are multiple insurers they only pay their share .. ... ???

[ericferret]

On of the questions asked when taking out life insurance is about flying other than as afee paying passenger. Could be that your private life insurance might not pay out. You then rely on liability insurance. I am thinking about the general public not those involved in aviation who should have notified their insurer in any case. Can't see a mention of this on their web site.

[Whopity]

An email from the CAA Enforcement Branch confirmed that this activity is perfectly legal and that the Wingly site is quite acceptable to them. This raises the question, why are pilots still wasting their own money hour building, when this provides the perfect opportunity to build hours at minimal cost! Whether its safe, sensible, doing others out of jobs or within the terms of an insurance policy is another issue.

[Ebbie 2003]

I have been reading order 1188.

Interesting wording "direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the pilot in command".

So if I am a PPL and I rent the airplane - OK let's say GBP200/hr a trip from A to B of 1 hour and I have a px so GBP100 to him and GBP100 to me. Splitting the direct cost (we'll forget about landing fees).

However if I am an owner/pilot things become more complicated. So my "direct cost" (my marginal cost?) is not so clear - if it said marginal cost I would have understood. Direct cost maybe no so clear - is it fuel, oil, cut of the cost of my 500 hour time limited mags, vac pump etc. Or is the direct cost the total annual cost of operating my airplane less the fixed costs (insurance, hangarage, registration etc etc) divided by the number of hours in the year. Each one can produce very different figures - now here is the wheeze - if I am doing the flight anyway does that change my direct costs.

With the FAA system it is clear - the cost for an owner pilot is marginal cost so fuel, oil, engine fund (subject to some provisos) and we have to have been going to the destination anyway (the common purpose).

Also is the cost the cost of taking someone somewhere under the EASA rules could also include the cost of coming back home without them?

All that said it does look to be legal in the UK - something which is very liberal compared to the US.

[cotterpot]

The costs of a flight - at least here in the UK, do not have to be split equally.

It is now quite in order for pilot to pay less than passenger.

[Ebbie 2003]

The Wingly site says an unequal split (I presume in favour of the pilot!) is illegal as it is commercial, I assume them not covered on their longstop insurance.

This is the origin of the "dodgy or legit" question - some of the fees seem to be more than a simple straight split - all the more so if the airplane is owned by the pilot.

Being indoctrinated by the FAR's rules on this sort of thing and the expectations of the "illiberal" approach of EASA to such things it was a bit of a surprise to the see the story when getting my daily fix of right wing Uk stories from the DM online site.

[alex90]

https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/Aircraft-ownership-and-maintenance/Guidance-on-cost-sharing-and-introductory-flights/

Cost Sharing Legality Bit:
The requirement for those costs to be shared equally has been removed. How much each individual person pays is not prescribed, but the pilot must pay something.

Advertising of flight bit:
A flight can now be advertised in advance, but it should be made clear that it is a cost sharing flight, and not commercial air transport under an Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC), since it is an offence to advertise the sale of a public or commercial air transport flight without being in possession of an AOC.

BUT something to note about the "cost"
Direct costs include fuel, airfield charges and any aircraft rental fee. Any other costs not directly related to the flight, for example the annual cost of keeping, maintaining and operating an aircraft, cannot be shared and no profit can be made.

So basically - you just need to setup a company, and rent your aircraft to yourself for whatever you deem appropriate to go around this bit of legislation... Its not rocket science!

[RatherBeFlying]

Insurance policy terms may offer better coverage for rental aircraft than one owned by the pilot.

Quite possibly Wingly has obtained suitable insurance coverage, but both pilots and passengers should have a careful look at the policy.

[Prophead]

The whole thing sounds like a legal case waiting to happen to me. It may be legal but that doesn't mean a passenger won't try and sue both the pilot and the site should there be an accident.

On the face of it an experienced pilot taking someone along who wants to go to the same destination that the pilot is going anyway sounds like a good idea. My concern is that it is the low hour inexperienced pilots who will see this as an opportunity to save costs and they will be the ones doing most of the trips. This is likely to become a favoured method during the hour building phase.

I would ask people doing this what they think the point of the hour building phase is? This is where you go from new PPL to aircraft commander. You will make mistakes and learn from them, you will need to make go/not go decisions and gain the confidence in doing so. Having a paying passenger with time pressures to get to the destination is not a good idea.

Then there is what happens after that initial flight. If somebody wants to start it as a regular thing and offers an hour builder cash to fly him around will they say no?

Yes, it is the same as taking friends for a spin but the chances are they know your experience level and are more unlikely to sue.

[Ebbie 2003]

Alex

You missed off the fourth paragraph from the CAA advice i.e.

"This aims to allow cost sharing between friends and colleagues and not to provide an air taxi service to members of the public."

Friends and colleagues does not include punters who are introduced by a search on Wingly or anything like it.

Rules is rules and lawyers is lawyers - lawyers are not in the justice business, they are in the arguement business - I find it instructive that Wingly have thought it necessary to add an insurance in case the airplanes cover refuses to pay out or otherwise denies coverage.

As with professional indemnity coverage, the insurance isn't there to pay compensation to your 'clients' it's really there to pay the lawyers to make ones arguments.

Now here's a thing - do you have to declare the "cost sharing" to the entity from which you hire an airplane? I would have said no with friends but renting to satisfy an arrangement like under Wingly - I think one should have to declare as it is the owner's insurance that will be the first port of call in the event of a claim - I would think that a claim and its scale would be work likely with a Wingly type punter.

Overall I still think it looks more than a little dodgy.

[9 lives]

I imagine that an objective review of the fine print of either the owner's or rental organization's insurance would reveal wording which excludes anything approaching "public" cost sharing. The insurers very fairly perceive a much greater exposure from such dubious activities, and will charge an accordingly greater premium for the proper policy, when the requirements are met.

I have read that Uber has been in difficulty recently, apparently resulting from the less than ideal skill or conduct of some drivers - and that's only cars! There is a vastly greater risk associated with a similar type operation with airplanes. The first time there is a crash, this Wingly outfit will be in for a long nasty experience, and the regulator will feel public pressure to regulate more.

There is a long and sorry history of people "building time" while offsetting or attempting to generate revenue. The options for "sharing" the cost of flying are well understood, new pilots are well advised to stay within the box on this. After all, the genuine, authorized commercial operator, who looses business to chisel charters, may be the employer that new pilot wants to employ them when they have built that piloting time - that could be an awkward job interview! "... I got lots of that piloting time flying unsuspecting Wingly victims, in a rental 172, outside the terms under which I rented it..." in answer to the question at the job interview?!

[Good Business Sense]

It is a commercial arrangement - Wingly is acting as an AGENT for the PPL - Wingly are getting paid from the deal somewhere so this is not cost sharing between a PPL and a friend etc

In addition, which, for me, is the coup de gras ....... Wingly are actually selling the public gift vouchers for a flight with a PPL - a flight yet to be organised !!

If you have an AOC you face the prospect of being taken out by PPLs flying transport flights.

[davidjohnson6]

As a potential passenger (sorry I mean cost-sharer) I've had a look at some of the flights being offered on Wingly's website in the UK - it seems to be a really mixed bag.

On the one hand there are people aged 40+ with 500+ hours experience who are going somewhere on a fixed date and are open to having a companion for the journey and share the fuel cost. Some of these look quite appealing, including one from an aerodrome 2 miles from where I live to a town I've never visited before

On the other hand there are people aged about 20 with just 100 total hours flying experience, less than 10 hours on type and who claim to be very 'flexible' about when or where a cost-sharer fancies going, be it a oneway, return or scenic overflight.

The first category is possibly a good reason for Wingly to exist. The people on Wingly's site in the second category terrify me.
I sent Wingly an email asking what happens if I pay in advance and then when I meet the pilot at the aerodrome realise he seems less than 'sensible' - the response promised a refund but it seemed strange that the UK country manager should be based in Paris

Wingly claim on their website to try to prevent pseudo air taxi flights - I am not convinced they are trying hard enough to achieve this verification process. I suspect if they were strict on this, they would see much of their web traffic disappear quickly - always a challenge for start up companies to decide about 'quality business' versus getting their business going

[B2N2]

Not to mention crawling into an airplane flown by somebody you don't know and you have no guarantee of their skills.
Or the quality and quantity of the maintenance.
Yes I use Uber and will get into a car with a stranger but I won't get into a light airplane with a stranger and unknown maintenance.
General public seems to think that since you hold a license you must be an experienced pilot.
Or confuse age or swagger with experience.
Just the thought of getting into an airplane with somebody I haven't vetted makes my skin crawl.
Yes I'm a career pilot.
But I've also been an instructor for 13 years and I've seen harrowing things done by people that have been 'flying for years'

[9 lives]

They are pretty dedicated to the pilots that fly on their platform.

Okay... But are they dedicated to their passenger clients? Dedication common to the air transport industry norms would be that Wingly would apply for and meet the requirements for an operating certificate. Anything less is a step backward for the passengers expectations in air travel safety assurance.

[Jonzarno]

I haven't posted about this for some time, but I do have a bit of experience with this type of cost sharing operation having done a few flights using Skyuber some time ago. This is what I posted in an earlier thread about this:

My experience was entirely positive and the only reason that I stopped offering flights was that the FAA (I have an FAA licence and fly an N Reg) issued a statement saying they considered schemes like this located in the US not to be permitted. I thought the chances of my having a problem in Europe as a result of that to be quite low, but still didn't want to take the risk.

Turning to the operation itself.

1. Is it legal?

Both Wingly and Skyuber say that they have formal confirmation that, if operated on the cost sharing basis as set out by both Skyuber and Wingly i.e. sharing only of DIRECT costs (DOC) including fuel, oil, landing fees and aircraft rental and NOTHING else: it is legal in CAA and EASA land.

I am told that there are moves underway to confirm that it actually is legal in FAA land as well and, if that happens, I will gladly start offering rides again.

2. Is it safe from a pilot's perspective?

Much has been made of the question about flying with someone you have never met and the problem of their expectation that "I've paid and expect to fly" whatever the circumstances.

I never had any such problem, even though I did cancel two flights (one for weather and one when my plans changed).

The way I managed the process on all my flights was to contact all of my riders a couple of days ahead of the flight and let them know the meeting arrangements and pointing out to them that there is a possibility that the flight could end up being cancelled or the time could change And that, if that happened, I would let them know as early as possible.

I also ensured that they had my contact details in case any issues or questions arose at their end. I felt that establishing a personal contact in this way ahead of the flight would engender a greater level of understanding of what is involved.

I would check weather the day before the flight (I have an IR and thus have more leeway on the conditions I can fly) and, if it looked questionable, would contact my rider, tell them the situation and offer them the chance to cancel. None did at that stage.

On the day: if the weather looked bad or, even if flyable for me, potentially unpleasant for the rider, I would contact them and tell them what it was like and again offer the chance to cancel. One person did so and I had no problem whatever with that.

In summary: I had a number of flights, none of which was remotely problematic; and I met some nice people with genuine interest in flying.

3. Is it safe from a passenger point of view?

I have seen flights advertised by multi-thousand hour ATPLs as well as by the "61 hour PPL"; and aircraft ranging from a business jet to a microlight; as well as journeys ranging from a half hour local bimble to a trans-european flight.

Obviously, these are ends of a wide spectrum and riders do have to exercise an element of judgment.

Both Skyuber and, I believe, Wingly do vet pilots by verifying the licences and ratings held, as well as insurance and current medical. They also get the pilots to publish details of their experience and a personal profile as well as details of the aircraft to be flown.

Riders are encouraged to post ratings and reviews of pilots that flew them and pilots are also encouraged to rate riders.

That at least provides potential riders with some assurance that the pilots are what they claim to be and gives an indication of the relative level of experience and the nature of the aircraft in relation to the planned flight.

4. Is it "a nice littler earner"?

In a word: no.

I probably got a rider on about one flight in every six I offered. I was offering seats in a four seater aircraft at 1/4 of the DOC as defined above, with no rental component as I own the aircraft. I never got more than one rider on a flight.

The problem is obvious: unless the flight is a bimble with the same start and end point, not only does the rider have to want to go where the pilot wants to go and at the time chosen by the pilot; they also have to find their own way home unless they want to come back at the same time as the pilot. As a result, you are very unlikely to get a rider that wants to do the flight for a specific purpose other than just to fly; certainly I never did. That obviously limits the number of riders you can expect to get.

That is also a good reason why this isn't a "taxi service": because it is the pilot, and not the passenger, who decides where the flight is going and at what time it leaves before it is advertised.

Regarding the point about a rider handing over cash: that's not how it works. What happens is that the rider registers a credit or debit card with the site and it is debited with the agreed amount only after the pilot confirms that the flight has been completed. The share of the cost is then remitted to your bank account less the site's fee. In my case, at least, it worked seamlessly.

5. So why do it?

I did it because I quite like the idea of sharing the experience of flying and meeting other people with an interest in aviation. That's pretty much the same reason why the people who flew with me chose to do so. In achieving that it was very successful and, as I said earlier, I hope to be able to start doing it again soon.

6. So, is it a good idea?

I understand and respect the concerns expressed by several posters in this and other threads. I don't want to say that there is absolutely nothing to worry about; but given a reasonable level of engagement with the people who want to fly with you, combined with normal levels of competent airmanship and judgement: there really should be no unreasonable risk. That said: each to their own!

Personally? I have enjoyed doing it."

My £.02

[Mike Flynn]

In all honesty is it worth the hassle Jonzarno?

Surely it is a bit like AirBnb.

I would not like to share my empty property when I am away for months on end.

However I would like a trip to anywhere with you when back in the UK :-)

[Jonzarno]

@ Jay Sata

Each to his own, I suppose.

Oh, and by the way, feel free to get in touch when you are back and we'll set something up! :ok:

(It'll make a change not being the "sole pilot" :8 :p)

[tmmorris]

My take on all the 'disruptive'/'sharing economy' services I've come across is that they aim (or claim to aim) to be offering the opportunity for ordinary punters to share their resources (empty room/flat, spare seats in the car or plane) but owe their success to people who are using their services to avoid the regulation placed on 'proper' services (hotels, taxis, airlines/AOC/air taxi).

Those regulations were put there for good reasons, whether that is physical safety (hotels have fire safety requirements, obligations to look after your stuff; AOCs require proper company ops etc.) or safety from dangerous people (taxi drivers are usually checked out, and there are some horrendous AirBnB stories about barmy owners).

[brentford77]

I fly most weeks commercially as a passenger but from time toting take business trips flying myself. Some months ago I decided to do a Helsinki trip with a fuel stop in Roskilde and advertised all four legs on SkyUber. I ended up with 1 passenger on the legs to and from the uk. I thoroughly enjoyed having the company in the cruise and found it a very worthwhile experience as well as appreciating the cost share element. I will certainly continue to advertise any similar trips as long as it remains legal

My take on all the 'disruptive'/'sharing economy' services I've come across is that they aim (or claim to aim) to be offering the opportunity for ordinary punters to share their resources (empty room/flat, spare seats in the car or plane) but owe their success to people who are using their services to avoid the regulation placed on 'proper' services (hotels, taxis, airlines/AOC/air taxi).

Those regulations were put there for good reasons, whether that is physical safety (hotels have fire safety requirements, obligations to look after your stuff; AOCs require proper company ops etc.) or safety from dangerous people (taxi drivers are usually checked out, and there are some horrendous AirBnB stories about barmy owners).

I beg to differ.

Yes, regulations were put there for good reasons. But on the basis of a backward looking view of the world. The technological shift has changed the paradigm unalterably.

You cite airbnb as an example of bad practice. The complaints re airbnb account for a minuscule proportion of the travel enabled. How else could I have found an opportunity to stay with my kids with a delightful family in Hoi An a while back.

The regulated operators, hotels, airlines or whatever also have a minuscule proportion of cases where regulation fails to protect. Just ask the Chapiones teams' families. Or German Wings.

In the first case, Rogue operator: yes. Regulated: yes, whatever you may think about the country in question etc. In the second, Rogue Operator: unquestionably not. Regulated: yes. But there, some would argue, regulation was the issue. Not the aviation regulations but existing German privacy law which in this case treated the right of an individual to medical privacy as sacrosanct irrespective of the responsibilities the person held for the lives and safety of others.

As I see it the issues here are that change in society was traditionally slow and regulation proceeded at the same pace. Change is now incredibly quick and we have not yet figured out how to adapt our political and regulatory processes to respond to the new realities of the world.

It all sounds a bit like horse breeders bemoaning the creation of the internal combustion engine to me.

[Ebbie 2003]

All well and good - but the whole thing does seem to run contrary to the CAA's intentions that,

"This aims to allow cost sharing between friends and colleagues and not to provide an air taxi service to members of the public."

I am not convinced that it's not a taxi service because the passenger does not decide where it is going - the lawyers could have a $250,000 pay day on that point.

So it is intended to provide a "bus service to members of the public" (rather like BA to New York;)

I still think we are all waiting for the first serious injury accident or fatality - that should shake the dust out of it.

[radicalrabit]

So is this going to be a renaissance of private flying in the uk, where taxes on fuel mean me pay per litre what America pays per gallon.

If my hourly costs were to drop from £80 to £20 because a few other none pilots fancy a trip tp Dublin or John O groat or maybe to Holland....
It suddenly makes sense to get a plane to share..

I am interested to see how private flyers see this as opposed to AOC operators Air Taxis etc.
Johan in Holland says he flies most weekends into Blackpool and up to four people can grab a seat in his Cherokee six...

[Good Business Sense]

I can see AOC holders employing mystery/secret shoppers

[Jonzarno]

Other than the cost sharing element, which apparently both EASA and the CAA have approved, what is the legal difference between these flights and those that might arise from the Spare seats Available / Desired (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/142667-spare-seats-available-desired.html) sticky thread at the top of this forum?

Also, what is to stop people sharing a flight arising in that way from agreeing to split the costs?

In both cases, unless already known to each other, neither the pilot nor the passenger knows anything about the other (except that in the case of Skyuber / Wingly there is a pilot profile).

[tobster911]

Completely agree. The way Wingly works is you post a flight, say, on the 1st March, stating that on the 28th March, you will be doing a flight from North Weald to Cambridge (for example) in your rented 172. You get a request from someone asking to join you.
For the passenger to make the request, they must have been approved by Wingly, which requires proof of identity and nationality, as well as them having read all the T's and C's, which explicitly state that the decision to go rests solely with the pilot, and if the flight is cancelled, the passenger will receive a full refund. When the request comes through, the pilot can have a look at the potential passenger's profile, and decide whether to accept or decline the request. If they accept, they then message the passenger to introduce themselves.

I am a very low hour PPL, looking to build my hours, so have joined both Wingly and Coavmi (very similar outfits). I have advertised one flight so far as a local sightseeing tour outside of CAS. This allows me to cost share to help hour building and introduces someone to the fantastic world of GA. My reason for only sightseeing outside of CAS, I know my limitations, and am not yet 100% confident flying through, so need to brush my skills, with a much more experienced pilot.
My passenger already knows that I'm a very low hour pilot, but they're comfortable with the flight. It works wonderfully.

[Prophead]

As long as you realise that by offering this service yourself rather than through a company entity it is you who are liable should there be an incident.

Friends and family are unlikely to take legal action should something happen. Strangers you have met on the internet are different.

I still think this enterprise will only be around until the first legal case.

I would certainly expect the CAA to be keeping a close eye on it and possibly sending out some 'mystery shoppers' with tempting offers so if you value your licence then be careful.

[bookworm]

I am a very low hour PPL, looking to build my hours, so have joined both Wingly and Coavmi (very similar outfits, but Wingly is preferred as it's been officially EASA approved).

On a point of detail, Wingly is not "officially EASA approved". EASA has gone out of its way to make sure it does not have to approve any such platforms. Wingly has made a declaration in the form of an industry standard charter, to which EASA has had some informal input. I would expect other platforms to do the same.

[tobster911]

Ah, OK. Thank you... :)

[Jonzarno]

I would certainly expect the CAA to be keeping a close eye on it and possibly sending out some 'mystery shoppers' with tempting offers so if you value your licence then be careful.

I'm not sure the CAA would bother to do this but, if they did and caught someone breaking the rules, they should take action against them in exactly the same way as they would in the case of any other offence.

The essence of this is that cost sharing is allowed. The added dimension provided by Wingly, Skyuber, and indeed the Spare Seats thread on here, is just the mechanism by which those rides and their costs are shared.

Given that those mechanisms seem to be acceptable to the CAA and EASA (but not AFAIK to the FAA!) and that pilots have insurance covering injuries to passengers, whether cost sharing or not, I don't see anything unreasonable in people doing this so long as they follow the rules.

[davidjohnson6]

To get a licence to drive a minicab in the UK, one must have held a UK/EU driving licence for at least 12 months. The 12 month threshold is there so that while someone my have passed their driving test and legally qualified to drive a car, they will almost certainly have spent a year driving around and building up experience (e.g. handling heavy traffic, busy roundabouts, motorways, driving at night, etc) before they are let loose on people who have no knowledge on their competence.

If I'm in a car with someone who I think is driving dangerously I can at the very worst case ask them to pull over within 30 seconds and get out the car. As a passenger in the front seat, if they refuse to stop the car, I can even pull the hand brake and force the car to a stop if I absolutely have to

When you're in a plane up in the air, there is no "please pull over within 30 seconds and let me get out" option, particularly when flying cross-country rather than circuit bashing around a home base. Someone with low hours necessarily has a low level of experience and may be more than a little challenged by what to do when something surprising happens. As soon as money is involved, it becomes much more embarassing to ask another pilot whether going up today is a good idea or not - and a desire to avoid looking silly becomes a decision to fly anyway.

Yes, Wingly has the option for passengers to give ratings on pilots. I can rate hotels as well - but even if the hotel room I stay in has cockroaches it's unlikely to present genuine safety issues. There is also usually back up from a local Govt inspector to ensure that things like fire escapes are properly maintained.

However most passengers on Wingly will rate mainly on "seemed like a nice friendly person" - passengers generally are unable to determine a level of technical competence and safety. Wingly seem to be encouraging passengers to decide on whether to fly based on other passenger ratings - i.e. decide solely on whether pilot "seems like a nice friendly person" rather than safe and technically competent

Yes, once you have your PPL you are legally qualified to take someone for a trip and for said person to pay their share of fuel costs. I think people are focussing rather too much on what they are maybe legally entitled to do - one must also be responsible and ask "Is this really a good idea ?"

[Jonzarno]

Yes, once you have your PPL you are legally qualified to take someone for a trip and for said person to pay their share of fuel costs. I think people are focussing rather too much on what they are maybe legally entitled to do - one must also be responsible and ask "Is this really a good idea ?"

I agree entirely. But that applies whether you fly a friend you have known for 20 years, or someone who replied to the Spare seats thread or to Wingly / Skyuber. The point is that shared GA flights carry a level of risk that is independent of the mechanism by which they are arranged.

[JumpJumpJump]

Is this really legal?

I have had a flick through and although the pilots are only sharing the costs of the flights, I would say that a lot of the adverts on pilots profiles are questionable, many 20 year old PPLs saying that they are able to perform pleasure flights and air taxi services..... This must in in a very grey area, I would also ask to what extent these flights are not considered commercial as somebody is making money for it somewhere along the ine.

Any thoughts (sorry if this isn't posted in the correct place)

[tobster911]

This has been covered before. Basically, it's completely legal as long as the pilot also pays some money towards the cost of the flight, and therefore doesn't make a profit. The pilot can also not fly as a taxi. He/She 'sells' seats on a flight they ALREADY have planned. It's no different to me posting on Facebook to my friends and family: 'Hi all, I'm flying from North Weald to Norwich on Friday 28th at 10AM. I have 2 spare seats available and if you want to come with me, just chip me £30 each'.

If, however, someone approached you and said 'I'd like to go to Norwich on the 28th and I'll pay you the £130 it'll cost', then it's more like an air taxi, but good luck proving that is the case, and not that you decided that's where you wanted to go.

I think it's a great idea. People who love aviation helping out a new pilot build their hours by cost sharing.

[JumpJumpJump]

How can this advert be legal in any way?

https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=profile&user=12751

[alex90]

How can this advert be legal in any way?


That particular one isn't....

CAA Guidance is: "but it should be made clear that it is a cost sharing flight, and not commercial air transport under an Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC)"

This person states that they are offering an Air Taxi service (implied AOC), without a valid CPL and without an AOC, therefore technically liable for prosecution under current laws.

CAA Guidance on Cost Sharing (https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/Aircraft-ownership-and-maintenance/Guidance-on-cost-sharing-and-introductory-flights/)

This is the official guidelines. No 20 pages to flick through, no messy, lawyer talk, just plain English. Something tells me the NZ CAA has been over and taught the UK CAA to be more accessible to people...

The questions are: Would you let a complete stranger, non-pilot, sit right next to you with a complete set of controls? (Do you know their mental state? Could they ruin the fun for everyone? etc...) Would you cope with the pressure of having someone used to flying from A to B with Easyjet, pushing to go in marginal (or worse!) weather? Would you cope with them feeling unwell during the flight? (some of my friends haven't felt all that well in a light aircraft going through light turbulence - it seems surprisingly common...) Is it worth the risk?

For some people it might well be, for others it is quite scary. I am not sure I would want to offer my flights to complete strangers, without at least a faint knowledge of who they are!

[planesandthings]

How can this advert be legal in any way?

https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=profile&user=12751

Clearly a fool. Leaves himself wide open to knowing what school he's renting from. Hopefully his CFI pulls him up before he does anything stupid right at the start of his career.

Wingly is great for experienced pilots, but they really need to put experience requirements to prevent people like this, 100hrs PIC min sounds fair surely? What happened to flying with some family, friends and fellow pilots first and doing some proper hour building?

Inexperienced pilots with no idea of their limits pushed to deliver, is something that could really unfairly harm Wingly's reputation if anything goes wrong. I can only hope it gets solved before it goes terribly wrong.

[9 lives]

I think it's a great idea. People who love aviation helping out a new pilot build their hours by cost sharing

Another perspective is that this is 90% a horrible idea. When things go wrong, and they will, the news will be full of "inexperienced pilot", "chisel charter", insurance would not cover", Owner denies that their aircraft was permitted this use", and more.

Our industry suffers a very public image problem, and is characterized as barnstorming. As seems to be the knee jerk reaction from a well known accident a year and a half ago, the regulator will be pressured into broad new regulation, and that will hurt legitimate cost sharing. We don't benefit when a pilot takes short cuts toward their learning goals.

[tecman]

It's a 100% horrible idea. To undertake it shows unworldliness and poor judgement. It's all alright until it's not - and there are plenty of examples of shoddy aviation pseudo charter operations bringing grief and misery the world over.

I've been a private pilot and aircraft owner for 35 years, doing all I can to stay sharp and current. But I refuse to do cost-shares even with business colleagues on work trips. The way I see it, partly based on judgements flowing from some of the many tragic events written up in many jurisdictions, it'd be almost impossible to (i) defend myself from the charge that I was offering a commercial service, minus many of the safeguards that entails and, more importantly, (ii) convince myself that I was not so doing.

Incidentally, I do use both Uber and AirBnB and feel both are useful, but over-hyped. I've occasionally refused offered services on both of them, citing safety or suitability concerns. To put it in perspective a little, I've also insisted on a change of aircraft during work commercial charters. Judgement is a sizeable component of all aviation.

[n5296s]

I agree 100% with tecman. I think I'm a decent pilot with nearly 2000 hours, CPL-IR and all the rest. But no way am I taking a complete stranger up in my plane, whether for money or not. The risks if something goes wrong are just too awful to contemplate.

And similarly, I would be VERY wary of climbing into a plane flown by someone else unless I knew quite a bit about their piloting skills. If they have a CPL and 1000 hours, sure. 50 hour PPL - I don't think so.

The trouble is that this is all obvious if you're a pilot with a bit of experience. But the people who are jumping on this just have no idea - a pilot is a pilot is a pilot, just like those nice chaps up front on Ryanair. I think we've all been there in "oh sh*t" moments, when it's all going pear-shaped and it's a struggle to just keep aviating. But 50 hours PPLs haven;t yet had their share of this stuff. (And I don't consider myself seriously experienced, but at least I have seen how things can go wrong).

Luckily in the US it is very clearly forbidden - it is considered to be "holding out" and requires not only a CPL but suitable air carrier qualifications, the whole Part 135 ninety-nine yards.

[Jonzarno]

Clearly a fool. Leaves himself wide open to knowing what school he's renting from. Hopefully his CFI pulls him up before he does anything stupid right at the start of his career.

Wingly is great for experienced pilots, but they really need to put experience requirements to prevent people like this, 100hrs PIC min sounds fair surely? What happened to flying with some family, friends and fellow pilots first and doing some proper hour building?

Inexperienced pilots with no idea of their limits pushed to deliver, is something that could really unfairly harm Wingly's reputation if anything goes wrong. I can only hope it gets solved before it goes terribly wrong.


Yes, IMO even posting the ad is illegal and Wingly should take it down without delay.

However that doesn't change the fact that genuine cost sharing is legal and is independent of the way in which people sharing those costs agree to do so. The decision as to whether an individual pilot or rider wants to do so or not is, of course, entirely for them to make.

[ShyTorque]

So he's offering an air taxi service and he's got a PPL with 63hrs TT?

Very good...

[Pittsextra]

Specifically re: cost sharing. There are a set of regulations - we can all read them - and someone is using them in a way that doesn't fit the historic understanding of how things were done in the past.

Is it safe? Well I don't see aircraft littering the streets from all these dangerous services being punted out and if we are going to "just think of the children" how about all these people smoking around the sky with self-declared medicals (latest AAIB monthly bulletin?) or how about the fact we are perfectly happy with low time student pilots going solo.

If the complaint is around regulation then perhaps the CAA could clarify the intent if they wanted and write regulation appropriately - it isn't hard to do. If the complaint is around all the work needed for CPL perhaps you are looking down the wrong end of the the telescope?

[alex90]

I think the UK's legislation (and guidance) on cost sharing is pretty clear-cut... Not sure where people are seeing this "grey-area" that they think they are exploiting...

Cost-Sharing is only there, so that pilots can legally share the cost of flights with friends and family. It isn't to allow low time PPLs to offer air-taxi or airline like services [period]. The main reason behind the motivation for the UK CAA to allow the advertising of flights, I believe, is purely due to the modern age where friends on websites such as Facebook, and places like this forum offering "spare" seats, along with club-house noticeboards offering spare seats. Which in law could be construed as "advertising a flight", leaving the pilot liable to prosecution. I believe officials quite rightly realised that this was probably not the wisest idea, hence the recent change. With regards to the splitting of costs, this is most certainly because there is no way of checking the splitting was of equal measures, it also on occasions make sense, for instance if one of your family members paid for your flight training (I have seen a few lucky 18yo with parents paying their entire tuition) - taking them for a flight after passing their PPL and said family member paying for most of the flight must be quite common.

With regards to safety, inexperience and pilot error is probably the single most common killer in aviation. This does not mean that a pilot with say 100hrs TT is necessarily any less safe than one with 500hrs TT, this would highly depend on their training, and personal capabilities. I have flown with pilots who had no more than 100hrs TT who flew surprisingly well, and with 5000+hrs TT who flew particularly, and noticeably badly.

Anyway - I hope this person closes his account / alters his page. Otherwise it will be a career ender, before it has even started!

[150 Driver]

'Clearly a fool'. Whatever the grey areas might be (FWIW I'll be steering well clear) offering what he himself calls 'Air Taxi' as a PPL (let alone a 65 hour one) certainly isn't grey.

Bizarre really. He must have studied enough Air Law to get through his PPL and this gets drummed into you as a 'Thou Shalt Not'.

So either...

1. He wasn't taught it, in which case what else wasn't he taught that he might need to know

2. He was taught it and forgot it (at 65 hours one would hope it would be fresher in the mind), in which case what else has he forgotten

3. He was taught it and remembers it, but believes it doesn't apply to him, in which case what other laws in aviation don't apply to him ? (Gravity ? Darwin ?)

[davidjohnson6]

The concept seems to now be reaching the mass media rather than just an aviation-centric audience. Yes, I know some people have strongly held opinions about Simon Calder, but he does seem to be able to communicate to a wide audience in the UK

Wingly: Testing the Airbnb of aviation | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/wingly-private-plane-general-aviation-elstree-aerodrome-bristol-ifr-a7702636.html)

[Fly-by-Wife]

I reported the wingly page in question, via their "Contact Us" form, stating that advertising an Air Taxi Service without either CPL or AOC was clearly not legal.

Interestingly, the Air Taxi Service bit has now gone. Coincidence? ;)

FBW

[alex90]

Coincidence? Or maybe he reads this forum and thought "**** - that's my dream career gone down the drain!" and removed it as quickly as he could?

[JumpJumpJump]

Now he just needs to get rid of the bit adverstising sightseeing tours...... WHich also requires an AOC.....

I hope the kid learns a lesson from this, I don't want to see somebody so young ruining a career over something so naive so early.

[Pittsextra]

Standby one. Whilst I agree the semantics around this do shift the activity from darkness to light let's look at the practicalities of this.

The physical act of taking someone flying requires the pilot to have a pilots licence. That licence and associated ratings will require differing levels of experience and qualification tested by a course and exam. So why does the marketing suddenly make a flight more or less dangerous?

He was very clear about his experience, about his rational/intent for the future and I can not imagine anyone seeking a flight climbing on board under a false impression it was a British Airways entity (for example).

So what but are we really complaining about? The noise around this aspect of regulation change is insanity and does it take food from the mouths of AOC holders any less than the hundreds of FI's at flying schools up and down the land offering "experience flights".

Whatever happened to the old "gold plate" phrase?

[wiggy]

So what but are we really complaining about? The noise around this aspect of regulation change is insanity and does it take food from the mouths of AOC holders any less than the hundreds of FI's at flying schools up and down the land offering "experience flights".

As far as I read it the noise isn't about experience flights around the local area or FIs. Problem is once you introduce an element of getting from A to B into aviation, for whatever reason, no matter casual the "contract" the pressure to get the job done gets ramped up as anyone who holds an AOC or works for an AOC holder knows. The grumbles about wingly are about the fact that it seems with the use of a bit of creative use of language and this website very newly minted non IR PPLs can offer up their services effectively as providing an air taxi service, the potentially lethal consequences of which have been covered by previous posters.

Sadly apart from the odd hint that getting to planned destination might not be possible there's hardly a hint of scepticism or a health warning in Simon Calder's article.

[Jonzarno]

As far as I read it the noise isn't about experience flights around the local area or FIs. Problem is once you introduce an element of getting from A to B into aviation, for whatever reason, no matter casual the "contract" the pressure to get the job done gets ramped up as anyone who holds an AOC or works for an AOC holder knows. The grumbles about wingly are about the fact that it seems with the use of a bit of creative use of language and this website very newly minted non IR PPLs can offer up their services effectively as providing an air taxi service, the potentially lethal consequences of which have been covered by previous posters.

Sadly apart from the odd hint that getting to planned destination might not be possible there's hardly a hint of scepticism or a health warning in Simon Calder's article.

As I asked in an earlier post: what's the difference between offering a flight on Wingly and advertising a spare seat in the thread on this forum?

[Good Business Sense]

This is certainly going to affect a few AOC holders - there will be CPL payoffs.

There is now no point in having an AOC - OPCs/LPCs, insurance, audits, aircraft on commercial maintenance programs, CAA AOC fees, Class 1 medicals, paying CPLs etc etc.

From long experience I can tell you that the public don't read 1% of what's on a website including Ts&Cs etc - they will see "£57 to location X" and almost nothing more certainly no caveats and restrictions - many PPLs are in for a serious shock when dealing with many of their passengers. Even seasoned, highly experienced, long in the tooth charter pilots will tell you that dealing with pax pressure is the hardest part of the job and the biggest issue Chief Pilots worry about with young, new CPLs

Permit to fly, PPL and 63 hours and your good to go - aviation hits a new high !

PS, good luck with your own personal "tripadvisor" page

[tobster911]

Sadly apart from the odd hint that getting to planned destination might not be possible there's hardly a hint of scepticism or a health warning in Simon Calder's article.

Whilst there may not be a warning in the article, to get onboard and book a Wingly flight, you have to read all of their terms and conditions, which does include that there is an aspect of risk, and that if the pilot says we're not going, whether due to weather, or ANY other reason, then that decision is FINAL and the 'customer' gets their money back.

Whilst advertising an Air Taxi sort of system is completely illegal, I cannot see anything wrong with taking someone up for a sightseeing flight who wants to go. Or, even, if I have planned that I'm going to fly up to Leicester to visit family on this day at this time, I can advertise that and offer, for a contribution to the cost, the spare seat I will have. This isn't a taxi service, it's just sharing a flight, like you may share your car.

As Jonzarno says, it's no different to offering a flight on here. There is a certain contributor on this thread who has very kindly offered me a flight with them so I can continue to learn. I've told them I am a low hour PPL holder (which I am), but they have no physical proof of this, I could be a lunatic (if you're reading this, I'm not :) ).
I took an ex-colleague up a while ago, never really knew him outside of work, and hadn't seen him for about a year, but after I posted on Facebook that I'm going for a quick trip around the local area, and if anyone wants to join me, they can pay 50% and I'll take them up, he wanted to. I explained all that was going to happen, and that there is a chance we'd get to the airfield and I'd call it off due to bad WX. He knew this, and he still came with me. It just so happened that after about 40 minutes, some unpredictable worsening visibility caused me to make the decision to cut the flight short. He understood as he didn't want his safety put at risk.

I think most potential passengers have enough of a strong self preservation instinct to know that if their pilot says 'we're not going, it's unsafe', they will accept this without any arguing.

And, GBS, you are reminded of the main points of the T's and C's during every phase of 'booking' your flight. Charter pilots have to deal with PAX pressure because they are operating a business, and the customer has paid for a flight (often many hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds) to get to a location, like a meeting or something. A Wingly pilot does not have to do this, they say they're going somewhere, on condition of the weather being good, the A/C being serviceable etc etc, and IF someone wants to join them, then for a CONTRIBUTION (pilot not making money), then they can.

[wiggy]

what's the difference between offering a flight on Wingly and advertising a spare seat in the thread on this forum?

Big difference, IMHO..

If you offer a seat on this forum I'd think anyone replying would be to some extent an "aviation person", total or other wise, and be aware of weather limitations, what is practical, what is not, and because of that are probably not going to "kick off" if the agreed flight doesn't happen.

OTOH if you stick the same offer out on an App that goes out to the whole world you are now "advertising" to all an sundry, many of whom who certainly won't know and won't be interested in VFR, icing etc, but they will know that you're "agreed" to take them flying ( and perhaps in their minds you have "agreed" to get them somewhere).

Good Business sense make a very valid point about "pax pressure" (and also about people not reading T&Cs), and having interacted with paying pax during delays to scheduled ops I wouldn't always rely on their sense of self preservation kicking in and somehow turning them into reasonable individuals if they've got a meeting/wedding to get to. I'm sure the old and not bold pilots here will probably be able to deal with it but the less mature, less experienced PPL????

[tobster911]

I'm sure the old and not bold pilots here will probably be able to deal with but the less mature, less experienced PPL????

To some extent, I do kind of agree, but I think this is underestimating many young pilots out there. I know that I wouldn't offer certain flights (even if the weather was impeccable), purely because I know my limitations and what I'm comfortable with. i.e, I wouldn't offer flights out if I was flying somewhere new for the first time etc.

I also believe that many of us are capable of making command decisions, and sticking to them. At the end of the day, someone I'd never met before is very, very, very unlikely to be able to influence a decision I made (when I say unlikely, if they threatened me or something, then perhaps I'd be persuaded - as most would, but any other reason, my decision is final). If I say no, what is the worst that will happen, they'll have a rant at me, perhaps? I'll simply get in my car and Foxtrot Oscar, never see them again and put it in the past.

I appreciate there will be some young pilots out there who don't have my strong will, but I firmly believe the majority do.

[wiggy]

TBF I can see the value of wingly if it is used for "advertising" seats on flights around the local area, or on cross country flights where it is made utterly clear by the PIC prior at the time of booking and again pre-departure that there's a "maybe" factor.

I do however have problems with the concept as described by Simon Calder, i.e. an app that: "...aims to connect aviators with amateurs like me who need to get from A to B but have some flexibility about where A and B happen to be, and can work around the pilot’s timing. For the passenger it promises an exhilarating experience along with transportation."

My emphasis on both "need" and "transportation".......

( phraseology is not Wingly's doing, I accept that, but I think SC's wording is a bit unfortunate).

[tobster911]

Ah yes, I see what you mean. Should be
"aims to connect aviators with amateurs like me who would quite like to get from A to B, or even just up for a sightseeing trip, but have some flexibility about where A and B happen to be, and can work around the pilot’s timing. For the passenger it promises an exhilarating experience along with a great experience, as long as the weather permits and the pilot is happy to undertake the trip on the day."

[wiggy]

Agreed, (and sorry if it sound like I'm picking nits....).

[tobster911]

Agreed, (and sorry if it sound like I'm picking nits....).

Not at all :) Nothing wrong with a healthy discussion on a thread like this, I just think some certain people are looking into this with either too much of an 'old fashioned, and I know best' attitude, or the 'This will happen, then this, then people will crash, everything will go wrong and North Korea will launch their nukes.....' type negative attitude. :)

[Good Business Sense]

Whilst there may not be a warning in the article, to get onboard and book a Wingly flight, you have to read all of their terms and conditions, which does include that there is an aspect of risk, and that if the pilot says we're not going, whether due to weather, or ANY other reason, then that decision is FINAL and the 'customer' gets their money back.

Whilst advertising an Air Taxi sort of system is completely illegal, I cannot see anything wrong with taking someone up for a sightseeing flight who wants to go. Or, even, if I have planned that I'm going to fly up to Leicester to visit family on this day at this time, I can advertise that and offer, for a contribution to the cost, the spare seat I will have. This isn't a taxi service, it's just sharing a flight, like you may share your car.

As Jonzarno says, it's no different to offering a flight on here. There is a certain contributor on this thread who has very kindly offered me a flight with them so I can continue to learn. I've told them I am a low hour PPL holder (which I am), but they have no physical proof of this, I could be a lunatic (if you're reading this, I'm not :) ).
I took an ex-colleague up a while ago, never really knew him outside of work, and hadn't seen him for about a year, but after I posted on Facebook that I'm going for a quick trip around the local area, and if anyone wants to join me, they can pay 50% and I'll take them up, he wanted to. I explained all that was going to happen, and that there is a chance we'd get to the airfield and I'd call it off due to bad WX. He knew this, and he still came with me. It just so happened that after about 40 minutes, some unpredictable worsening visibility caused me to make the decision to cut the flight short. He understood as he didn't want his safety put at risk.

I think most potential passengers have enough of a strong self preservation instinct to know that if their pilot says 'we're not going, it's unsafe', they will accept this without any arguing.

i'm afraid you are wrong about passengers and self preservation and you completely underestimate what the public's approach to this will be - for most, as far as they are concerned, they paid £57 to get x and that's what they want come hell or high water. Again from experience, which of course is an ugly word these days, passengers will not read the Ts&Cs and will click any box you like to acknowledge caveats.

Yes I'm one of the old guys you elude to later - 39 years off and on in charter flying and last week I had passngers arguing with me when I said no.

You only have to see how many corporate accidents there are eachyear and that's with CEOs of world wide companies pushing hard to"go"

Good luck

[Prophead]

I think this will sort itslef out.

I would expect schools to start restricting any Wingly activity when hiring aircraft. Groups to start restricting it in their T&C's and when the only people that can do this are those who own aircraft outright. The take up will be so small it won't be worth doing.

[JumpJumpJump]

Tobster911
I also believe that many of us are capable of making command decisions, and sticking to them. At the end of the day, someone I'd never met before is very, very, very unlikely to be able to influence a decision I made (when I say unlikely, if they threatened me or something, then perhaps I'd be persuaded - as most would, but any other reason, my decision is final).

You've kind of shot yourself in the foot there haven't you..... Alas

(read this to the end, it is going somewhere)

This is a very interesting thing for me, because, I am a very pro Uber person, having been in Brazil for the past 7 years, Uber was an absolute revolution in transforming a hideously unreliable and expensive taxi and private hire industry up to scratch, Uber now offers a ride that turns up in 5 minutes, in a clean and comfortable vehicle, with a polite and knowledgeable driver, all of whom, in the 2 years that I have used the service regularly, have driven safely and legally, there was a lot of resistance at first from the professional taxi driver up to and including lynchings and kidnappings. Fortunately, the Profissional and old guard of the taxi industry in Brazil have realised that they either need to up their taxi game, or join Uber.... This has worked well. Uber drivers are also watched like hawks by Uber, the last time I spoke to a driver, they were struck uf the app if their rating was below 4.7.... which means they need 19 out of twenty journies to gain a 5 star ranking.....

So, How would a ranking system work on Wingly? Passengers only ever think in Binary on flights... 0 or 5.

Why is wingly necessary? How are they going to improve on safety and courtesy in what is essentially the world most regulated market and workplace?

One of biggest problems that Uber drivers face is drunks, or people having a beer in the car........ Aviation has this problem too.... I guess passengers on a vfr Jaunt can drink, I'm sure it isn't stipulated in law.... Just that most airfields have a bar...... Off-licences sell cans too..... Would you feel confortable with 65 hours, diverting if a "guest" cracks open a bottle and is angry with you that you said no..... Would you back down and just continue and watch him get drunk with the stick in front of him? What if he wants a line of cocaine? We are talking about the general public here... not about other pilots or people that we know and trust.

Unfortunately, it only really seems to be a conduit in which many PPLs are seeing a cheaper way or a shortcut towards hour building.

Finally, I am not against cost sharing, but, surely as confident, young ppls, you must have enough friends, colleauges, family and people that you actually know that would love to have a fly out with you.

The idea of wingly, I believe was honest, but the application seems really poor..... Gash even.

[tobster911]

JJJ,
Very interesting, and I hadn't thought of that at all. I think my main line of thinking would be you'd have someone turn up to the airfield, maybe get a bottle of pepsi (or other such drink) from the snack bar, and go from there. The idea that you could deal with drugs and drunks didn't factor, but is very, very valid.

I guess a reasonable level of precaution could counter that (or at least greatly reduce the risk), in that as anyone who has flown commercially knows about security checks etc, the passenger shouldn't be averse to being asked a few questions and, if bringing on luggage, having it checked (though I'm not sure of the legalities of this).

With regards to friends and family etc, many want to come, but none want to pay. I guess Wingly gives you people who are happy to pay, which is why I still see it as being quite good.

I fully understand though :)

[Good Business Sense]

JJJ,
Very interesting, and I hadn't thought of that at all. I think my main line of thinking would be you'd have someone turn up to the airfield, maybe get a bottle of pepsi (or other such drink) from the snack bar, and go from there. The idea that you could deal with drugs and drunks didn't factor, but is very, very valid.

I guess a reasonable level of precaution could counter that (or at least greatly reduce the risk), in that as anyone who has flown commercially knows about security checks etc, the passenger shouldn't be averse to being asked a few questions and, if bringing on luggage, having it checked (though I'm not sure of the legalities of this).

With regards to friends and family etc, many want to come, but none want to pay. I guess Wingly gives you people who are happy to pay, which is why I still see it as being quite good.

I fully understand though :)

Not just drink and drugs but mental health and terrorism - what security steps are you going to take to vet passengers?

[tecman]

Human nature being time invariant it'll be only a matter of time before a too-confident pilot pushes on into a situation beyond their competence (for ego or passenger pressure reasons), or an unbalanced passenger causes mayhem in the air or on the ground, or any one of a multitude of previously-known events occurs, many of which are documented in air transport safety agency files related to chisel charters and similar. While the skin may have changed, the product being offered is seeking to solve a challenge nearly as old as aviation: finding a way to charge a punter to take an air taxi, without the expense and inconvenience of an AOC. It's crossed the mind of many of us but, as I mentioned before, a reading of the shame files - and an appreciation of some of the real misery caused - is enough to dissuade a thinking pilot.

I tend to agree with GBS that worldly experience is easily discarded but, in all humility, I suggest that a reading of some of those safety agency reports is worthwhile. I can think of several high-profile cases where there has been goodwill in the beginning, but where lives have been lost, careers ruined and parties financially destroyed. In a few cases it's all turned pear-shaped even in similar flights commenced with the best of intentions: for example, voluntary patient transport accidents come to mind.

An AOC and operations by commercial pilots do not guarantee complete safety and, indeed, we all know there's always a suspect fringe in charter operation; it's a hard enough challenge keeping the risks from that fringe acceptable. But with 100 years of data on how humans behave when flying it's folly to lower the bar further.

[Good Business Sense]

Does anybody know how it works wrt the money - do you say I want, say, £100 and that's what the passenger pays and what you get - does Wingly get a cut or are they doing this as a charity?

[tobster911]

GBS, as far as I can make out, the pilot says how much the flight will cost per seat. i.e plane rental is £100ph, it's a 2 seater, so they charge £50 per seat (with PIC already occupying one of the two seats). Wingly will then advertise that flight for, say £56, and take the 12% profit for themselves (not certain if it's 12%, but it does ring a bell).

[JumpJumpJump]

Thinking about this, how can you advertise a fixed cost for the flight before you have landed, given that the airborne time will not be know until the aircraft has landed?

[tobster911]

Thinking about this, how can you advertise a fixed cost for the flight before you have landed, given that the airborne time will not be know until the aircraft has landed?

Good question, but I guess you can get a very good idea. For an A to A sightseeing flight, it's a bit easier as if you're slow one way, you'll be faster the other way, so a 1 hour flight will nearly always be that 1 hour.

For an A-B, I guess you just have to guess, and err on the side of caution. i.e, from where I am to Southend is approximately 25 minutes, so if I charge for 30 or 35 minutes, I'm pretty much covered

[Good Business Sense]

GBS, as far as I can make out, the pilot says how much the flight will cost per seat. i.e plane rental is £100ph, it's a 2 seater, so they charge £50 per seat (with PIC already occupying one of the two seats). Wingly will then advertise that flight for, say £56, and take the 12% profit for themselves (not certain if it's 12%, but it does ring a bell).

Tks, So it looks like PPLs are paying a third party agent to provide customers from the general public

[tobster911]

Pretty much. Although technically, the pilot doesn't pay that, the customer does (just semantics though)

[JumpJumpJump]

Pretty much. Although technically, the pilot doesn't pay that, the customer does (just semantics though)

which is just as bad... or worse

you'll be faster the other way, so a 1 hour flight will nearly always be that 1 hour.

*jokingly* If you fly out in a 152 with a 90 knot tailwind.... you are never coming home

[Good Business Sense]

Pretty much. Although technically, the pilot doesn't pay that, the customer does (just semantics though)

Unfortunately, this is where the "customers" expectation is formed - if it looks like an airline ticket, sounds like an airline ticket and is bought like an airline ticket then ................

[Prophead]

Because if there is any dispute stemming from equipment failure then they are likely to go for the owning company (school or Ltd co group) rather than the individual. Especially if the individual is young and skint.

with more people flying schools will be able to rent out their planes more. More people will want to sign up to flight schools and they were brought in to their schools indirectly by Wingly. Groups who own the plane will see this as a good way to get a usage rate of a plane and more people will be able to own a plane if the cost of flying can be brought down

There isn't any extra flying being done here though is there? All these sightseeing flights were going to happen anyway with no passenger. right?

Sorry, I don't buy it. trial flights etc. are all very good but should be done by CPL's.

[Saab Dastard]

There have been a few threads on this topic over the last couple of years:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/560702-cost-sharing-caa-update.html
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/570165-skyuber-how-even-legal-easa-land.html
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/560234-thoughts.html?highlight=commercial

I made the following post which is relevant here:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/560702-cost-sharing-caa-update.html#post8961202

SD

[Good Business Sense]

Pilots just post the flights and get to share the costs. I haven't payed anyone on Wingly. For what I see they charge the people who book to fly with me and this is not a problem as I get to fly for cheaper and share my thrill of flying with new people.

Same thing

[JumpJumpJump]

Cessna Steven


Unfortunately you are looking at the most improbable worst case even taking the time to type it here. Meanwhile Pilots who are posting on Wingly are actually flying for cheaper. Well Done

You'll be surprised how quickly the improbable comes back to bite you in the arse. Would much prefer that a similar service was made utilising out of work CPLs.

3 years from now, would you proudly sit in your first airline interview and honestly answer the question "During you hour building, did you ever fly for wingly or a similar operator?"

[Good Business Sense]

Unfortunately you are looking at the most improbable worst case even taking the time to type it here. Meanwhile Pilots who are posting on Wingly are actually flying for cheaper. Well Done



All my Wingly passenger so far have been verified by Wingly. I don't fly with them unless it shows they have a verified passport and a photo. Passengers are happy to oblige when I have asked them to do so. Once they make a booking I can even contact the people by phone to get to know more about them. I am the captain of my plane and I have the right to choose who i want to fly with. Wingly has no problem as I have to be the one to accept the booking with someone I want to fly with.

How can they verify anyone particularly as they sell gift vouchers to person A who gives it to person B :ugh:

[JumpJumpJump]

Why though? Wingly seems like a great idea with more people flying schools will be able to rent out their planes more. More people will want to sign up to flight schools and they were brought in to their schools indirectly by Wingly. Groups who own the plane will see this as a good way to get a usage rate of a plane and more people will be able to own a plane if the cost of flying can be brought down

Because flight schools already make money from selling trial lessons and experience flights, which help them to run at absolutely pisspoor margins so that they can offer competitive hour building rates and packages to their students and members. The conversion rate from an experience flight generated by a voucher is absolutely awful, you are seriously looking at about 1 in 1000 or worse.

Group owners don;t neccesarily want to get maximum usage out of the aircraft, they just want the aircraft up in the air now and again and that all members pay their fair share, infact there are sometimes when groups want the aircraft to fly less, especially when an engine overhaul is coming up and it is getting close to december and the kitty is looking a little bleak.

May I ask your age and experience? I don't hold that against you, but it may help me pitch this conversation a little better.

[tobster911]

JJJ, Because I back Cessna Steven as well, I'm interested, so my age is 21, and experience wise, not very, 55 hours TT, 10 PIC. I'll say it again just to reiterate, I am not currently advertising flights on Wingly (though I am a member), as I want to build my experience and comfort levels a bit more before I take other passengers.

[Good Business Sense]

Flying Clubs are also going to be hit very badly - their "experience flight" doesn't sound at all appealing compared to the exotica on offer in Wingly.

[JumpJumpJump]

How do wingly prevent pilots and guests (read passengers) from negotiating a regular a to b service? for example PPL flies person from Wycombe to Bristol due to Business trip, this becomes a weekly routine. How is that policed against by Wingly, obviously, they will say it is not their problem, but this really is opening up many doors to go spectacularly wrong from a legal standpoint

[Prophead]

Yes I built my experience with passengers who shared the cost on my plane. i think I have more experience. My flight school is more than happy with me renting planes out with Wingly, as I can fly much more as well.

So what you are saying is the payments you receive from Wingly allows you to fly more and make flights you wouldn't otherwise be doing?

[JumpJumpJump]

Well you are not the CAA or the EASA who have agreed to let me hare cost no matter what flight I choose to do. I know there are quite a few CPLs registered on wingly who are also flying at cost price just to share the joy of flying and save on costs when building hours on Multi Propeller planes.

CPL ME IFR choosing to fly at cost is very very different though isn't it. I mean, CPL ME IFRs are paying airlines to fly Narrow and medium bodied jets around europe, so we already know that that is fine.

[Jonzarno]

Can I ask those who are so critical of these cost sharing matching services how many Wingly / Skyuber flights have you personally done? What problems did you actually have?

Whilst all the dire consequences you describe are theoretically possible: can you quote a single instance where such a problem has actually happened in all the hundreds, or maybe even thousands, of cost share flights that have been done?

As I indicated in my earlier post: I have done several of these flights, stopping only when the FAA proscribed them, and never had the slightest problem.

Yet again: cost sharing flights are entirely legal and, in CAA and EASA land at least, the mechanism by which they are arranged is irrelevant.

Does that guarantee that nothing will ever go wrong on a cost share flight? No. But given that they are legal, ordinary pilot insurance will apply and, as I said above, how many such accidents have there been so far?

Does it guarantee that a pilot won't do something stupid? No. But the same pilot might make the same stupid mistake with a passenger who is not paying a share of the costs.

Does it guarantee that a rider won't have an unrealistic expectation of being able to fly regardless of conditions? No. But I described how I used to deal with this in my earlier post. I never had a problem with the flights I cancelled including when my plans changed even though the weather was fine to fly in.

Does it guarantee that someone won't try to abuse the rules and offer a taxi service? No. But if they do they should be dealt with by the authorities exactly as if they had put an ad offering an air taxi service in the Sunday Times or broken any other aviation rule.

In summary: these cost sharing services are legal, there is no great history of the kinds of problems suggested in earlier posts but those feeling uncomfortable with them are free not to use them.

[Prophead]

Being a CPL with my own aircraft why would I? If any of my friends or family told me they were flying via this site though, I would try my best to put them off. Especially if it was with a low houred PPL.

Hours alone however are not a good enough way to measure, it's recency that counts. I would not like the idea of anyone I know flying with someone that has done the minimum hours and what is to stop that happening?

How much checking of recency and hours does Wingly do? When you pay for an air taxi or experience flight via a school you know that the pilot is in currency and proficient to carry out that flight.

Yes, cost sharing is legal but that is based on a flight that is being carried out anyway with an empty seat. The adverts on Wingly are clearly offering a service to suit the passenger and, as has been alluded to above, flights are being carried out that wouldn't otherwise be. The fact that the pilot and hiring organisation are making money is not a positive in wingly's favour but all the more reason why these flights are probably illegal.

[Jonzarno]

The adverts on Wingly are clearly offering a service to suit the passenger

If that is true, they are illegal and should be subject to regulatory action. That said: are these illegal flights really a substantial part of what is being offered? I have never used Wingly, but did used to offer flights on Skyuber and still occasionally look at the flights being offered there out of curiosity. On that site, at least, I have never seen any flight offered that was not on the basis "I'm going from X to Y on Z date".

[Good Business Sense]

I thin flying clubs don't consider experience flights a major source of revenue, Even you must be fooling your self if that is the case.

You either don't know very much about aviation or you have an association with Wingly - which one is it ?

[xrayalpha]

OK, here goes:

Trial flying lessons are a major source of income for any flying school - even if they are marginal business, they can be substantial profit after the fixed costs have been paid.

Flying schools that rent out their aircraft so as pilots can undercut/take cash from their business are losing vital business. And if a flying school isn't making money on trial flying lessons, why is it doing them?

Interestingly, all three operators in Scotland are renting their aircraft from somewhere. Although it seems that the one renting from Tayside isn't anymore!

If anyone at the airfield I own decides to go down this route, I think we may be renegotiating the airfield lease and the hangarage terms and conditions.

Although........

Perhaps this will, instead, just become another way for flying schools to advertise trial flying lessons. Just like air b'n'b seems to be becoming just another way for traditional bed and breakfasts to advertise?

[Good Business Sense]

Every profile that flies on wingly can be asked to verify themselves if they don't verify themselves by sending their passport

So a "copy of the passport is the key" ....... and you think that it's not extremely easy to produce that in any format in any language for any country. So when you get a copy of the passport was is the criteria for assessment :ugh:

[Jonzarno]

Perhaps this will, instead, just become another way for flying schools to advertise trial flying lessons

I think this misses the point a bit. Flying schools can perfectly legitimately advertise trial lessons any way they like from Wingly to an national TV ad campaign.

The ONLY thing a private pilot can legally use Wingly or Skyuber for is to advertise a genuine cost sharing flight that they are already planning to do. If they cross that line, they can and should be done for it.

[Good Business Sense]

Flying schools that rent out their aircraft so as pilots can undercut/take cash from their business are losing vital business. And if a flying school isn't making money on trial flying lessons, why is it doing them?

There is going to be an interesting Vib in flying clubs all over the Uk soon with PPLs walking out with their wingly pax and instructors earning nothing nor building hours because the experience flights/trial lessons have dried up.

Having looked at the number of pilots signed up to wingly together with 73k likes on Facebook and the recent media exposure, if allowed to continue, this will fundamentally change the chances of getting a job as a pilot - PPLs hour building for professional licenses will find that getting that first job has just got a lot harder.

[JumpJumpJump]

Spot on GBS

[Jonzarno]

There is going to be an interesting Vib in flying clubs all over the Uk soon with PPLs walking out with their wingly pax and instructors earning nothing nor building hours because the experience flights/trial lessons have dried up.

I think that is overdoing it a bit. Certainly when I have looked at the Skyuber flights being offered, there aren't more than half a dozen or so, and almost all of them are from X to Y on a specific date.

It's hard to see this killing off the Flight Experience market, especially as the biggest payoff from those flight school experience flights is people signing up with the school to do a PPL.

[JumpJumpJump]

I think that is overdoing it a bit. Certainly when I have looked at the Skyuber flights being offered, there aren't more than half a dozen or so, and almost all of them are from X to Y on a specific date.

It's hard to see this killing off the Flight Experience market, especially as the biggest payoff from those flight school experience flights is people signing up with the school to do a PPL.

That really isn't the case, if the sign up rate was high enough, they would do them for free.... most experience flights are given as gift vouchers and the flier often loves the "once in a lifetime" part of it, but has little to no interest in investing in a PPL

[Jonzarno]

That really isn't the case, if the sign up rate was high enough, they would do them for free.... most experience flights are given as gift vouchers and the flier often loves the "once in a lifetime" part of it, but has little to no interest in investing in a PPL

I dunno! I did an experience flight and liked it so much that I went on to do a PPL, Night and Instrument ratings! :)

(It also begs the question: how many people would sign up if they did do them for free??)

[JumpJumpJump]

That's you..... Me too..... But I did an experience flight with a 95% conviction that I wished too become a pilot. The demographic of most voucher fliers is very different... Normally a male, aged 35 to 50, with a stable career and family background

[ShyTorque]

As a private car owner/driver I'm allowed to "car share". However, I'm not allowed to advertise my "services" and would need to be very careful about not contravening the terms and conditions of my insurance. I wonder who insures these "Wingly Warriors" and what happens in the aftermath of an accident.

[150 Driver]

The reason I've a PPL, IRR and own a plane is that my wife bought me an experience flight for my 40th. She's regretted it ever since !

[JumpJumpJump]

I'm not denying that it happens, however, the demographic here is clearly going to have many more PPLs due to a voucher than the national average.

I have had vouchers for
-track days... I am not an advanced driver
-hairstyling - I am not keen on becoming a hairdresser (i recommend this for all fathers)
-Somellier day .....

I could go on

[Good Business Sense]

biggest payoff from those flight school experience flights is people signing up with the school to do a PPL.

The conversion rate is close to zero - survival of most schools is due to the selling of "experience flights" as gifts at Christmas - and that's a fact. Indeed, until recently 40% of people never used their gifts - the percentage has lowered over the last few years .......

and, of course, that is where wingly will do very well, thank you very much !!! They'll pocket the service charge AND the money on unused gifts. Of course, pre wingly, the flying club would have benefited in this way .... generally, to GAs benefit too.

[Jonzarno]

As a private car owner/driver I'm allowed to "car share". However, I'm not allowed to advertise my "services" and would need to be very careful about not contravening the terms and conditions of my insurance. I wonder who insures these "Wingly Warriors" and what happens in the aftermath of an accident.

This has already been widely discussed. Cost sharing is permitted in CAA and EASA land. The only debate here is about the channel that puts pilots and riders in touch with each other:

Is a friend from the flying club OK? (If I meet someone from my flying club in the bar and we agree to fly to L2K together and share the costs, why is that different from the same friend seeing that I'm planning to do the flight on Wingly and deciding to join me?).

A non pilot friend?

A friend of a non pilot friend?

Someone you meet at the pub?

Someone who answers a Wingly or Skyuber post?

As things stand, all of the above are OK PROVIDED:

1. The pilot was going to a destination anyway and all those cost sharing are just "along for the ride".

2. The costs are shared according to CAA / EASA rules

Most of the criticisms of this are based on the possibility that someone MIGHT break the rules. Well, if they do, they should be hauled over the coals for doing so.

But if they have followed the rules, which are quite clear, there should not be any problem.

[JumpJumpJump]

This has already been widely discussed. Cost sharing is permitted in CAA and EASA land. The only debate here is about the channel that puts pilots and riders in touch with each other:

Is a friend from the flying club OK? (If I meet someone from my flying club in the bar and we agree to fly to L2K together and share the costs, why is that different from the same friend seeing that I'm planning to do the flight on Wingly and deciding to join me?).

A non pilot friend?

A friend of a non pilot friend?

Someone you meet at the pub?

Someone who answers a Wingly or Skyuber post?

As things stand, all of the above are OK PROVIDED:

1. The pilot was going to a destination anyway and all those cost sharing are just "along for the ride".

2. The costs are shared according to CAA / EASA rules

Most of the criticisms of this are based on the possibility that someone MIGHT break the rules. Well, if they do, they should be hauled over the coals for doing so.

But if they have followed the rules, which are quite clear, there should not be any problem.

in reference to your point 1.....
1. The pilot was going to a destination anyway and all those cost sharing are just "along for the ride"

https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=flights&sub_page=request

[Jonzarno]

The conversion rate is close to zero - survival of most schools is due to the selling of "experience flights" as gifts at Christmas - and that's a fact. Indeed, until recently 40% of people never used their gifts - the percentage has lowered over the last few years .......

and, of course, that is where wingly will do very well, thank you very much !!! They'll pocket the service charge AND the money on unused gifts. Of course, pre wingly, the flying club would have benefited in this way .... generally, to GAs benefit too.

Well I suppose I must have been the difference between "close to zero" and zero! :)

I still don't see how providing a mechanism for pilots and riders to share costs kills this part of the business. I would have thought it is more likely to grow it as people having done a GA flight using one of these mechanisms might well decide to take a closer look themselves.

As a point of detail: Wingly / Skyuber don't "Pocket the money on unused gifts": they never see that money. Also: are you suggesting that people not cashing in their experience flight vouchers is really good for GA?

[JumpJumpJump]

As a point of detail: Wingly / Skyuber don't "Pocket the money on unused gifts": they never see that money. Also: are you suggesting that people not cashing in their experience flight vouchers is really good for GA?


.... from their site....

You will receive the gift card immediately after checkout via mail and via Wingly notifications.
The card is valid for one (1) year, and can be used by any Wingly user until its credit is depleted. This means the card does not necessarily have to be spent on only one flight.
If the price of the flight exceeds the gift’s value, you’ll simply be asked to pay for the difference.
Wingly gift cards are non-refundable. Once bought, the cards could only be used on our platform.

FYI - Flight vouchers do not make their money on flights that are completed, the main bulk of the revenue comes from vouchers that are forfeited due to expiring. Expired vouchers are normally honoured, but only after a reactivation fee is paid, which comes at a price well over inflation.

[Good Business Sense]

Well I suppose I must have been the difference between "close to zero" and zero! :)

I still don't see how providing a mechanism for pilots and riders to share costs kills this part of the business. I would have thought it is more likely to grow it as people having done a GA flight using one of these mechanisms might well decide to take a closer look themselves.

As a point of detail: Wingly / Skyuber don't "Pocket the money on unused gifts": they never see that money. Also: are you suggesting that people not cashing in their experience flight vouchers is really good for GA?

Don't know if you are in this business - for my sins I am.

Why would the wingly method grow the student pilot numbers when trial flights and experience gift vouchers sold by a club don't - that's illogical !

When the public comes around to buying a gift voucher for a ride in an aeroplane they generally look for the cheapest price - wingly is substantially below the prices charged by clubs etc and therefore, wingly has the potential to destroy that income.

You stated categorically that wingly doesn't pocket the money. Are you suggesting that after a year and if the gift voucher has not been used wingly gives the purchaser their money back ? The entire experience industry works in this way.

and, yes it is good for clubs that people don't take up their flights - it's certainly not bad. Ask the flying club you learnt at how they get through the winter cash flow wise.

[Airgus]

Just sharing a thought...
I have been following this thread and is quite interesting to see all the different opinion.

I remember the first days of PPL and how longs were those hours when I was building them... taking people who were splitting the cost with me was something common... but they were someone I knew, or knew someone I already knew. It was like having a bit of O2 in my budget.

Once my Aeroclub (back then) got a C172 stolen, two nice passengers requested to be dropped at a nearby city but all of the sudden there was a mid point unplanned landing in a disused runway with a gun in the head, the pilot was invited to disembark and the nice passengers took the plane. Bye bye... Luckily the pilot walked his way unharmed to a nearby town.

My point is that aside of the legal issue there is another big issue, the safety factor.

I would never take a stranger without proper security screening of himself and the belongings... Is this person carrying a gun, a bag of cash, a bag of illegal drugs? A bag of knives?... Why would you risk your life for something unsafe or dodgy? Why would you take off from an isolated airfield-aeroclub with someone you never met before?

Second, why would you pressure yourself on a get-there-itis situation when you should be focusing only in building hours and gaining experience?.

It is a wonderful thing to help new PPLs build their experience... I like wingly for that, however I expect the CAA or EASA to be a bit more firm.

[Jonzarno]

You stated categorically that wingly doesn't pocket the money

Sorry, but I obviously don't know the detail of the Wingly operation as well as you do: my experience is with Skyuber. If Wingly really are offering "blank cheque" flights for money as I understand you to be implying, then I agree that is wrong and illegal.

The ONLY thing these sites should be offering is the availability of a cost sharing ride on an existing flight. If that is all they do, it is perfectly legitimate; if not, it isn't.

[JumpJumpJump]

Just sharing a thought...
I have been following this thread and is quite interesting to see all the different opinion.

I remember the first days of PPL and how longs were those hours when I was building them... taking people who were splitting the cost with me was something common... but they were someone I knew, or knew someone I already knew. It was like having a bit of O2 in my budget.

Once my Aeroclub (back then) got a C172 stolen, two nice passengers requested to be dropped at a nearby city but all of the sudden there was a mid point unplanned landing in a disused runway with a gun in the head, the pilot was invited to disembark and the nice passengers took the plane. Bye bye... Luckily the pilot walked his way unharmed to a nearby town.

My point is that aside of the legal issue there is another big issue, the safety factor.

I would never take a stranger without proper security screening of himself and the belongings... Is this person carrying a gun, a bag of cash, a bag of illegal drugs? A bag of knives?... Why would you risk your life for something unsafe or dodgy? Why would you take off from an isolated airfield-aeroclub with someone you never met before?

Second, why would you pressure yourself on a get-there-itis situation when you should be focusing only in building hours and gaining experience?.

It is a wonderful thing to help new PPLs build their experience... I like wingly for that, however I expect the CAA or EASA to be a bit more firm.

This is a concern that I have been holding with the flights that leave the UK to go to the continent

Sorry, but I obviously don't know the detail of the Wingly operation as well as you do: my experience is with Skyuber. If Wingly really are offering "blank cheque" flights for money as I understand you to be implying, then I agree that is wrong and illegal.

The ONLY thing these sites should be offering is the availability of a cost sharing ride on an existing flight. If that is all they do, it is perfectly legitimate; if not, it isn't.


no insinuation.... https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=shop&sub_page=gift

[Jonzarno]

no insinuation.... https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=shop&sub_page=gift

I hadn't seen that. I agree: it does look to me as if it crosses the line.

[Prophead]

I have been arguing against this in reference only to the website wingly. I have now looked at SkyUber and that seems to be much more in line with the cost sharing scenario in its rightful sense.

Wingly however offers sightseeing flights at a time and date to suit and also has the function to request flights where pilots can then take up the offer. This seems to be asking for the rules to be broken.

[tobster911]

Some things on Wingly, I admit, are a little bit tenuous (possibly not the right word)...

I've just seen this flight request:
Not sure about this as it's my first time but if possible, 4 people or 2, 4 @ max 460kg or 2 @ 230kg Midlands area to Munich area, last 2 weeks of September quote and additionally a quote for same journey but last two weeks of April 2018. Best route possible

This is asking for two quotes for a flight, and that isn't what Wingly is to be used for. However, I believe the majority of the flight requests are OK.

For example,
Flight for one requested with one carry on hold-all (less than 95kg together) from Manchester to anywhere in Kent, as close as possible to the Tonbridge area, ideally Laddingford Aerodome. Departing any time on either the Sunday 7th May or Monday 8th May. Many Thanks!

Now, as a pilot, I may not have any planned flights coming up, and I don't particularly want to post a flight on Wingly as I have nowhere to go, but I do have family in Kent, and I live in Manchester. Now that I've seen that someone else wants to go, maybe I could plan a trip to see my family, and take this person along too as they're willing to split costs. Makes perfect sense.

[alex90]

For example,
Flight for one requested with one carry on hold-all (less than 95kg together) from Manchester to anywhere in Kent, as close as possible to the Tonbridge area, ideally Laddingford Aerodome. Departing any time on either the Sunday 7th May or Monday 8th May. Many Thanks!

Now, as a pilot, I may not have any planned flights coming up, and I don't particularly want to post a flight on Wingly as I have nowhere to go, but I do have family in Kent, and I live in Manchester. Now that I've seen that someone else wants to go, maybe I could plan a trip to see my family, and take this person along too as they're willing to split costs. Makes perfect sense.

But you see? This request is problematic already... OK, you have a legitimate reason to wish to fly to Kent. Fine. BUT - a low hour PPL attempting to go into Laddingford? THAT is the first step to an accident waiting to happen. Laddingford isn't an aerodrome, it is an airstrip. Airstrips have all sorts of dangers waiting to catch out the inexperienced pilot. Be it high power lines on final, a substantial amount of sink / wind shear on short final due to local topography...etc... High trees at the end of the runway... Dogs running on the runway... Noise sensitive areas to avoid... etc.. This may make what appeared from the comfort of your chair to be a suitable airstrip such as Laddingford with 750m grass, which originally seemed perfectly within your C152/172/PA28 performance charts, become completely un-usable and actually quite dangerous!

I am pretty sure that it states clearly on the charts that Laddingford must be used by experienced pilots only, due to all these issues.

I am not against these services, I understand their purpose, but I think that their legality is occasionally on the dubious side. Be very wary!

(my 2 cents)

[tobster911]

Good point, the only place I vaguely know in Kent is Rochford (and it is very vague). I'd never be comfortable flying with a passenger to a place I don't know. I see what you mean though, there's a great deal of blurred lines when it comes to what is legal and what isn't when using this kind of service.

[wiggy]

Whilst I can see there's a place for the pilots to advertise and offer up seats on a flight they have already planned or have in mind surely once pax start asking for someone to take them from defined point A to defined point B wingly are acting as a de facto provider/facilitator of an air taxi or charter service?

[9 lives]

I guess that the information age is changing everything, including how people perceive "compensating" a private flight. The notion of a couple of people meeting in the airport coffee shop, and deciding that one may fly with the other, and compensate the flight seemed okay with everyone - it's "innocent". The regulator (who acts on behalf of society) agreed, and ruled to allow it.

Now, in the information age, the opportunity for mass communication enables immense variation on this historically simple theme, and grossly exploits the original intent. And then some new pilots think it's okay. It's not.

wingly is substantially below the prices charged by clubs etc and therefore, wingly has the potential to destroy that income.

Yeah, 'cause it is eroding the compensation to the club, mostly in the role of their properly qualified and licensed pilots (principally instructors). New renting PPL's, who are trying to "build time", are actually undermining their colleagues who have earned the right to charge for their piloting services. Established pilots who own and fly their own aircraft, and choose to participate in these schemes also erode the jobs of flying club and air taxi operators.

It is our duty as GA industry participants to help our colleagues, who earn their living providing these services to the public, to steer the public to these qualified service providers, rather than undercutting them. If you want to be an air taxi pilot, wonderful! Get hired as one!

Or, there won't be any flying clubs for your flight training, who have survived the loss of public service revenue 'cause of these schemes. These Winlgy scheme people do not care about us! They are just posing to get in the middle, the effect of which will be bad for all of us!

[Good Business Sense]

Some things on Wingly, I admit, are a little bit tenuous (possibly not the right word)...

I've just seen this flight request:
Not sure about this as it's my first time but if possible, 4 people or 2, 4 @ max 460kg or 2 @ 230kg Midlands area to Munich area, last 2 weeks of September quote and additionally a quote for same journey but last two weeks of April 2018. Best route possible

This is asking for two quotes for a flight, and that isn't what Wingly is to be used for. However, I believe the majority of the flight requests are OK.

For example,
Flight for one requested with one carry on hold-all (less than 95kg together) from Manchester to anywhere in Kent, as close as possible to the Tonbridge area, ideally Laddingford Aerodome. Departing any time on either the Sunday 7th May or Monday 8th May. Many Thanks!

Now, as a pilot, I may not have any planned flights coming up, and I don't particularly want to post a flight on Wingly as I have nowhere to go, but I do have family in Kent, and I live in Manchester. Now that I've seen that someone else wants to go, maybe I could plan a trip to see my family, and take this person along too as they're willing to split costs. Makes perfect sense.

So one day in the average charter operator with an AOC the phone rings or an email is received asking for a "QUOTE" from the midlands to Munich - the commercial man/woman gets a price together checks the aircraft availability and sends the QUOTE back to the customer ..... customer gets a better price from wingly .... world's gone mad.

[Jonzarno]

So one day in the average charter operator with an AOC the phone rings or an email is received asking for a "QUOTE" from the midlands to Munich - the commercial man/woman gets a price together checks the aircraft availability and sends the QUOTE back to the customer ..... customer gets a better price from wingly .... world's gone mad.

I'm afraid that really isn't "Good Business Sense"!

I find it difficult to imagine a potential charter customer who can afford several thousand pounds to charter an aircraft from the Midlands to Munich, presumably a turboprop or a business jet, choosing to save money by doing the trip with a low hours pilot in a Cessna 152. And that is even if they are travelling alone, although anyone chartering an aircraft will also likely have several companions on the trip.

If they really want to save money, it would be cheaper to fly commercial on a low cost airline.

[Good Business Sense]

I'm afraid that really isn't "Good Business Sense"!

I find it difficult to imagine a potential charter customer who can afford several thousand pounds to charter an aircraft from the Midlands to Munich, presumably a turboprop or a business jet, choosing to save money by doing the trip with a low hours pilot in a Cessna 152. And that is even if they are travelling alone, although anyone chartering an aircraft will also likely have several companions on the trip.

If they really want to save money, it would be cheaper to fly commercial on a low cost airline.

The locations might not be a good example (taken from a previous poster) but the point still stands - after all, to stand it on its head, there are AIRCRAFT OWNERS signing up to wingly :uhoh::uhoh:

[Jonzarno]

there are AIRCRAFT OWNERS signing up to wingly

Sure: I am an aircraft owner and used to offer flights on Skyüber. All I can say is that I never saw the slightest indication of the problem that you describe.

Just because someone can choose to break the law by abusing one of these platforms is no reason to deny those people who want to use them legitimately. If someone does break the law by trying to run a commercial operation in the way that you suggest, the authorities should, and would, come down on them like a ton of bricks. I doubt it would take them very long to find out and do so.

[tobster911]

I don't think Wingly would ever 'harm' the income from flight schools. If you want a trial flight, where you yourself can take the controls of a real plane, then you're going to book through the flight school. If you want to go on a quick jaunt around the local area, and are happy to just do some sightseeing, then you pay half the price and go up with Wingly. You may then decide you enjoyed that flight, so you book a proper trial flight and get hooked, then complete your training with that school.

The way I see it potentially happening is that Mr Passenger wants to see if he's comfortable in a light aircraft without it costing him £200 (rough price for an hour's trial flight). Instead, he spends £50 on Wingly and decides he loves it. He then goes on to purchase lessons, which he never would have done if he didn't get the Wingly flight.

I agree with Jonzarno, there could be a few people out of the hundreds or thousands that use it, that decide to break the law. In this instance, as suggested, the authorities would find out and act appropriately. If, however, the majority of people use it as they should (which they will/do), then where's the problem? It's almost like saying nobody should own a car that can go above 70mph, as it facilitates them breaking the law on a motorway... Just because a few people do, doesn't mean that nobody should be able to own a car with a 150mph top speed...

[Good Business Sense]

Sure: I am an aircraft owner and used to offer flights on Skyüber. All I can say is that I never saw the slightest indication of the problem that you describe.

How exactly would you see it :ugh::ugh:- do you run an AOC chartering aircraft .... mind you, I guess you do now !

[Jonzarno]

No. I don't offer flights any more since the FAA proscribed them although I would if they allowed them.

I posted my experience earlier in the thread here:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/593079-dodgy-legit-2.html#post9732754

All I did was post the flights I was planning to do anyway and, if someone wanted to come, take a passenger on a legitimate cost sharing basis.

As I said in my earlier post, it certainly isn't a route to great wealth, but I did get to meet some nice people with an interest in aviation. I'd like to think that amongst them perhaps there is someone who decided to take it further, but I don't know if that happened. :)

[9 lives]

I don't think Wingly would ever 'harm' the income from flight schools.

Have you asked a flying school operator their opinion on this? They are at the center of the industry, and best positioned to form an opinion. Every time a fare is paid to be airborne, and it was not in an AOC aircraft, an AOC holder lost business.

If you want to go on a quick jaunt around the local area, and are happy to just do some sightseeing, then you pay half the price and go up with Wingly. You may then decide you enjoyed that flight, so you book a proper trial flight and get hooked, then complete your training with that school.

Or, also very possible, the victim buys the flight with the Wingly chisel pilot, and due to that unqualified pilot's inexperience, has a very scary flight, and decides it's not for them, when in the company of a properly qualified AOC pilot, the flight would have been a positive experience.

I cannot deny that there could be a rare combination of well experienced pilot, suitable plane, well executed flight, and right people combination which could make this scam work, and even then, it's still stealing away needed work for AOCs, but on the whole this is a horrible idea, and I hope it is squelched before someone gets hurt.

For those new pilots who think this is a suitable way to supplement their flying, will you still think that when there are no jobs available for you as a new CPL at an AOC, because these parasite organizations have redirected potential customers away? Do you expect the AOC will hire you, when they realize that your flying was supplemented by this chisel flying?

I have a good relationship with my local AOC's, though no financial interest. I own and regularly fly three planes. When the occasional person asked if I can be hired, I direct them to the AOC. When an occasional friend asks to be flown somewhere I sometimes agree, and there is no cost to them. Thereafter, I donate the operation of my aircraft to my local volunteer fire department for searches which otherwise could not be conducted safely.

I realize that the early years of flying are expensive, we've all been there. But you don't support the industry you're trying to join by undermining it, exploiting a grey regulatory zone, and funding a third party outfit who has no interest in supporting GA.

[tobster911]

OK, I've given up on arguing my P.O.V. Those who oppose the progression of flight sharing networks and making flying more affordable will always oppose it, and those who are for the progression of flight sharing networks and making flying more affordable will always be for it. I agree that a number of things could go wrong with this, but a million things can go wrong when you step outside your front door. You do it any way.

You will get people abusing the system, but then these people will be noticed, brought to the attention of the authorities, and appropriate action taken.

Every time a fare is paid to be airborne, and it was not in an AOC aircraft, an AOC holder lost business.

I would not dispute this as it is, technically entirely accurate. Unless, however, the cost of the AOC aircraft was too high and therefore said person looking for a flight could not afford it anyway, so technically it was never business for the AOC holder anyway. Like saying buying a 2002 BMW 3 series from Fred in a Shed is taking business away from the new BMW dealership up the road... Well, no.

Or, also very possible, the victim buys the flight with the Wingly chisel pilot, and due to that unqualified pilot's inexperience, has a very scary flight, and decides it's not for them, when in the company of a properly qualified AOC pilot, the flight would have been a positive experience.

Very possible indeed, but do humour yourself and have a look at the ratings that passengers have left for Wingly pilots and see that, actually, it is a very rare occasion that they'd have a scary flight.

The combination of experienced pilot, suitable plane and well executed flight leasing someone into training may not be as rare as you think (we'll never know for sure as I doubt there's any statistical evidence).


For those new pilots who think this is a suitable way to supplement their flying, will you still think that when there are no jobs available for you as a new CPL at an AOC, because these parasite organizations have redirected potential customers away? Do you expect the AOC will hire you, when they realize that your flying was supplemented by this chisel flying?

I think this is a little extreme. I've done some re-evaluating and can see that flight requests, on the whole, aren't the best idea. However, if I told a prospective employer that I had gained hours by cost sharing with various people, I don't think they would look down on this. If someone wants a flight somewhere specific on a certain day, they'd almost certainly go to an AOC because they know (or are at least 90% certain) that the flight will take place. With a Wingly flight, the pilot can call it off for any reason they like.

I have a good relationship with my local AOC's, though no financial interest. I own and regularly fly three planes. When the occasional person asked if I can be hired, I direct them to the AOC. When an occasional friend asks to be flown somewhere I sometimes agree, and there is no cost to them. Thereafter, I donate the operation of my aircraft to my local volunteer fire department for searches which otherwise could not be conducted safely.

It's nice to know you've got a great relationship with them, and to hear you own and fly 3 planes, fantastic! Directing people to an AOC when they request to hire a pilot is what should technically be expected anyway, no? And sharing a flight with a friend at no cost, then donating the operation of your aircraft to a very fantastic cause is noble indeed.

Now, I'm not assumptive, but I'd guess you've worked bloody hard to get where you are now, but the fact of the matter is if you're in a position where you own and operate 3 aircraft, donate them out and fly with a friend for no money, I reckon you've done quite well for yourself and actually, now, money isn't a big factor for you. This is where we'd all like to be, but unfortunately, not all of us can get there without a bit of help.

The early years are indeed expensive, which is why this is such a great opportunity to allow one to keep the costs low. I work what feels like a gazillion hours a week, for relatively little money, and spend most of it on essentials like food, housing, bills etc etc. What I'm left with at the end of the month, say £200, is enough for 1.5 hours flying. Now, if I need to build 100 hours, that's 67 months costing over £13,000! Now, imagine for a moment that that £200 paid for 1 hour in a 4 seater, and I could take 3 passengers every time I go, costing £50 each. (I know it's unlikely, but...) I can now afford 4 hours per month, so 25 months at a cost of £5,000. Suddenly, my dream career is in sight within a timeframe of just 2 years, rather than 5 and a half.

I genuinely believe that firms like Wingly do not have no interest in supporting GA because actually, what they're doing, is promoting GA.

Don't get me wrong, I am following this thread with great interest because as a discussion point, it's great. No one person's opinion is any more or less valid than the other. The fact of the matter at the moment, regardless of what side you're on, is that Wingly is operating within the law (having been endorsed by EASA), and it looks like it's here to stay.

[Ebbie 2003]

This, it seems, will all be resolved by new regulations/clarifications rushed through immediately following the first death/serious injury accident on a Wingly flight.

I would expect an FAA type set of rules.

Personally I own and operate a US registered Archer II, it is maintained to public standards - you want you can rent it, fly it yourself after a check out with a CFI - just want to zip around the island or to another island and but are not a pilot - I will rent you the airplane, all you need to do is find a commercial pilot who will fly you in "your airplane" - there are several here who will fly you for free, they get the hours towards their ATPL count. Legit by FAA standards, no holding out by the commercial pilot and the person flying is dealing with someone 'properly' trained AND EXPERIENCED.

I think this whole thing is dodgy, if they had a requirement to need public cat airplanes, minimum hours, IR or IMC etc. I could see, maybe, something that makes it legit but it just seems all rather "off" that a sixty hour PPL can be offering something like this. Also, I am not convinced that any of the mix of insurances mixed up in this would ever pay claims - time will tell.

Thanks to all who have participated in the debate following my original post on this, I think, important subject.

[bookworm]

I think this whole thing is dodgy, if they had a requirement to need public cat airplanes, minimum hours, IR or IMC etc. I could see, maybe, something that makes it legit…

legit(imate) is conforming to what the law is, Ebbie, not what to you would like it to be.

[Ebbie 2003]

The law changes all the time - we don't know what is until it is tested.

The law in this instance is at its fundamentals intended to protect naive people getting into airplanes with inadequately trained people.

There is a damned good reason why one must build hours and do additional training and certification before one can fly for reward.

As I said I don't see this wheeze surviving the first death.

[Jonzarno]

I'm sorry, but this doesn't reflect the reality of how these platforms work. Let me illustrate this with an example of a flight that I actually did via Skyuber.

The flight was from Cambridge to Prestwick leaving at 0800 with the "return" being the same day at 1600 to Biggin Hill. I got one rider on the morning trip at the princely sum of €86.65 which represented 25% of the direct operating cost. He found his own way home as my return flight wasn't convenient for him.

It didn't make me rich, and certainly didn't deprive any AOC holder of a charter as the rider was simply an aviation enthusiast who had no pressing need to fly to Glasgow but wanted to experience an airways IFR flight from the right seat, and would never have been able to afford the cost of a charter. If he really needed to get to Glasgow, all he had to do was buy an EasyJet flight from Stansted for £35.

That is typical of the flights I shared.

Whilst I accept that it is possible for people to abuse any system: I really don't see that as a reason to ban cost sharing altogether which is what those criticising these platforms are effectively arguing for. I say that because all of the disaster scenarios that they describe could apply equally to ANY cost sharing flight regardless of the medium through which it was arranged.

[JumpJumpJump]

OK, I've given up on arguing my P.O.V. Those who oppose the progression of flight sharing networks and making flying more affordable will always oppose it, and those who are for the progression of flight sharing networks and making flying more affordable will always be for it. I agree that a number of things could go wrong with this, but a million things can go wrong when you step outside your front door. You do it any way.

You will get people abusing the system, but then these people will be noticed, brought to the attention of the authorities, and appropriate action taken.



I would not dispute this as it is, technically entirely accurate. Unless, however, the cost of the AOC aircraft was too high and therefore said person looking for a flight could not afford it anyway, so technically it was never business for the AOC holder anyway. Like saying buying a 2002 BMW 3 series from Fred in a Shed is taking business away from the new BMW dealership up the road... Well, no.



Very possible indeed, but do humour yourself and have a look at the ratings that passengers have left for Wingly pilots and see that, actually, it is a very rare occasion that they'd have a scary flight.

The combination of experienced pilot, suitable plane and well executed flight leasing someone into training may not be as rare as you think (we'll never know for sure as I doubt there's any statistical evidence).



I think this is a little extreme. I've done some re-evaluating and can see that flight requests, on the whole, aren't the best idea. However, if I told a prospective employer that I had gained hours by cost sharing with various people, I don't think they would look down on this. If someone wants a flight somewhere specific on a certain day, they'd almost certainly go to an AOC because they know (or are at least 90% certain) that the flight will take place. With a Wingly flight, the pilot can call it off for any reason they like.



It's nice to know you've got a great relationship with them, and to hear you own and fly 3 planes, fantastic! Directing people to an AOC when they request to hire a pilot is what should technically be expected anyway, no? And sharing a flight with a friend at no cost, then donating the operation of your aircraft to a very fantastic cause is noble indeed.

Now, I'm not assumptive, but I'd guess you've worked bloody hard to get where you are now, but the fact of the matter is if you're in a position where you own and operate 3 aircraft, donate them out and fly with a friend for no money, I reckon you've done quite well for yourself and actually, now, money isn't a big factor for you. This is where we'd all like to be, but unfortunately, not all of us can get there without a bit of help.

The early years are indeed expensive, which is why this is such a great opportunity to allow one to keep the costs low. I work what feels like a gazillion hours a week, for relatively little money, and spend most of it on essentials like food, housing, bills etc etc. What I'm left with at the end of the month, say £200, is enough for 1.5 hours flying. Now, if I need to build 100 hours, that's 67 months costing over £13,000! Now, imagine for a moment that that £200 paid for 1 hour in a 4 seater, and I could take 3 passengers every time I go, costing £50 each. (I know it's unlikely, but...) I can now afford 4 hours per month, so 25 months at a cost of £5,000. Suddenly, my dream career is in sight within a timeframe of just 2 years, rather than 5 and a half.

I genuinely believe that firms like Wingly do not have because actually, what they're doing, is promoting GA.

Don't get me wrong, I am following this thread with great interest because as a discussion point, it's great. No one person's opinion is any more or less valid than the other. The fact of the matter at the moment, regardless of what side you're on, is that Wingly is operating within the law (having been endorsed by EASA), and it looks like it's here to stay.

you just became unemployable in my airline

[tecman]

I found that self-serving piece from tobster911 pretty hard to take, too. Many of us come from very humble backgrounds and managed to get a foot-hold in aviation with resorting to chisel charters, as well as managing to later make our aircraft available as easily as possible to newcomers. I've paid for nearly every hour of my flying and, now that I think about it, the few exceptions have often been by the grace of AOC holders who could probably ill afford it.

Ebbie has it pretty right. Regulators tend to manage by crisis and at some point a death or mishap will be tested in court and the whole "holding out" argument tested. By that point, the various insurers will have run a mile, with endless subrogation clauses invoked, leaving a set of unfortunates to slug it out. Understandably, a lot of the discussion here has been from the pilot's point of view but many of the saddest illegal charter/joyflight cases involve passenger deaths or injury where the survivors have been affected greatly by the lack of safeguards (including robust insurance) offered by an AOC. If you're not convinced by the arguments about the effects on AOC holders, at least take a look at some of the illegal charter outcomes in your jurisdiction.

[NYBM]

It's sounding a bit like people are using "safety" to bolster a flimsy protectionist argument, ie you feel the regulations should be there to inflate your income.

Undue pressure? I'm pretty sure (for example) I'd feel a lot more pressure from my wife wanting to know why we weren't going to get home on time than some stranger.

Insurance? If you believe wingly's insurers aren't going to pay up even though they explicitly say they will, why would you believe any other insurance?

Inadequately trained people? How is it more safe for an "inadequately trained person" to carry a passenger they happen to know?

[Jonzarno]

I really don't see what we are arguing about here. There are two aspects to this debate which are actually quite compatible with each other:

1. Genuine cost sharing, regardless of the medium by which it it arranged, is perfectly acceptable and legal (in CAA and EASA land)

2. Running a phoney unauthorised charter operation is illegal (and, IMHO, stupid!), also regardless of the medium by which it it arranged

In addition, anyone facilitating an illegal charter operation is also committing an offence and is liable to prosecution. Thus, it is actually also in the interests of the ride sharing sites not to allow ads which contravene the law whilst allowing ads that do not.

If anyone knows of a specific case in which the law is being broken, I'd encourage them to report it to the authorities.

Simples!

[n5296s]

Insurance? If you believe wingly's insurers aren't going to pay up even though they explicitly say they will, why would you believe any other insurance?

Really? I take it you've never had to make an insurance claim. Insurance companies are VERY good at finding reasons they shouldn't pay out, not to mention subrogation where they do pay out but then they try very hard to get the money off someone else.

If there's the slightest suspicion that you've been doing something outside the conditions of your policy, they won't pay up. I would read my policy, every word of it, VERY carefully before doing something like this.

Well, actually I wouldn't, because I flat out wouldn't do it in the first place, neither in FAA land, where for sure it is illegal, nor in CAA/EASA land, where it may or may not be legal, and we won't know until something bad happens and it really gets put to the test.

[Pittsextra]

The over reaction to some of this is incredible.

There is no doubt that the wording from some marketing flights is naive and consequently reflects badly but ultimately the concept that someone could get airborne, (either for pure enjoyment or for practical purposes) whilst a pilot making a flight gets some company and an appropriate contribution to the cost HAS to be a good thing.

We all know the age of the average GA pilot is 490 and so getting people aloft is great because perhaps 1 or 2 of them just might decide they might like to do it for themselves.

As said the wording from some is poor BUT nobody is arriving at a local grass strip to find a private pilot and his 1972 PA28 with the thinking it is anything other than a private pilot at a grass strip and a 1972 PA28.

Commercial pressure and customers thinking its some alternative to NetJets.... really?

[Good Business Sense]

As said the wording from some is poor BUT nobody is arriving at a local grass strip to find a private pilot and his 1972 PA28 with the thinking it is anything other than a private pilot at a grass strip and a 1972 PA28.

Commercial pressure and customers thinking its some alternative to NetJets.... really?

How long have you flown commercially - are you a professional pilot ? Doesn't look like it.

Re. First para - have you actually dealt with the general public in commercial aviation terms - sales, operations etc ?

Ref. second para - yeh, "really", are you not aware of the many accidents related to commercial pressure - for example, with highly trained professional pilots e.g. helicopter at Vauxhall, Augusta 109 at Gillingham in 2014, numerous biz jet crews pushed by CEOs etc etc .... commercial pressure comes in all shapes and sizes and that includes from a Wingly pax arriving at a grass airfield and pressuring the PPL to go ("it's taken me two hours to get here and I need to be there for my girlfriends birthday" - "it looks ok to me", "thought you were qualified", "I want my £109 quid back right now" etc etc) ! It's one of a Chief Pilots biggest nightmares. Have you walked the mile ?

If you're a commercial pilot you'll know what I mean !

[Pittsextra]

GBS - In the race to tell me what a nob I am you've missed the point I was making.

Where is the commercial pressure when the only outcome of any flight is the mere part reimbursement of your costs. I'm stood at the airfield with my 1972 PA28 checklist in hand and all keen and eager to fly.... Weather looks a bit grim and I'd rather not fly but you are suggesting Gordon Gekko is going to rock up and rip me a new one unless I go? And all for for what..? £100? OK.

Have a word with yourself will you. Heli in town was a result of a pilot wanting to do a nice job for a guy with the possibility to trade to a biz jet job.. yes commercial pressure. the 139 in Norfolk the pax was the employer.. yes commercial pressure. Snotter spam can, hundred quid for fuel and a bacon sandwich is hardly the same. Well not in most people's world.

[maxred]

Change, the marvellous world of change. Taken some time, but it is now upon the world of General Aviation. Most people don't like change. Takes a lot to alter the Strategic direction, with all stakeholders in agreement. The major problem for General Aviation, is that a lot of its participants need to wake up and smell the coffee. Change is coming, through a variety of mediums, and it would be better that the new wave is accepted, adopted, and molded into the brave new world. The silver, wiry, and shaped moustaches are disappearing.

[Jonzarno]

GBS
With great respect, what you describe in your last post is very far from how these cost sharing flights work.

Certainly when I used to offer them, I always made it clear to riders as soon as they asked to join me on a flight that it was subject to change or cancellation, either due to weather or even just because my plans might change.

I wrote an account of the way I used to handle this in my earlier post in this thread and would encourage you to read it, as it addresses all of the points you make here. I will say that the grand total of commercial pressure I faced when I did decide to cancel or reschedule a flight was precisely zero.

The simple fact is that cost sharing flights are legal and have been going on legally since well before ride sharing sites had ever been heard of; and under CAA and EASA (both organisations not exactly famous for their flexibility in enforcing licensing regs!), arranging them using Skyuber or Wingly is legal as well.

If you think cost sharing flights should be banned because they are in some way less safe than a flight with no cost sharing: that's an opinion to which you are entitled, and I suggest you lobby the CAA / EASA for a change in the rules.

The suggestion that somehow these ride sharing sites are spawning a mass of phoney charter operations is simply not supported by the facts. AFAIK, someone has identified a single naive pilot who posted an ad that he shouldn't have done. That's very far from the nightmare you seem to be having about this.

That said: if anyone really does seriously try to sell phoney charters, whatever the medium they use to do so: they should have the book thrown at them, and I doubt it would take very long for that to happen. That is because it is also against the interests of the sites to allow such ads as they would probably also be liable to prosecution for promoting an illegal charter.

[Good Business Sense]

GBS - In the race to tell me what a nob I am you've missed the point I was making.

Where is the commercial pressure when the only outcome of any flight is the mere part reimbursement of your costs. I'm stood at the airfield with my 1972 PA28 checklist in hand and all keen and eager to fly.... Weather looks a bit grim and I'd rather not fly but you are suggesting Gordon Gekko is going to rock up and rip me a new one unless I go? And all for for what..? £100? OK.

Have a word with yourself will you. Heli in town was a result of a pilot wanting to do a nice job for a guy with the possibility to trade to a biz jet job.. yes commercial pressure. the 139 in Norfolk the pax was the employer.. yes commercial pressure. Snotter spam can, hundred quid for fuel and a bacon sandwich is hardly the same. Well not in most people's world.

So you're not a commercial pilot, just some one with an opinion who has never been involved with paying "customers" but still state Where is the commercial pressure when the only outcome of any flight is the mere part reimbursement of your costs.

So commercial pressure affects experienced, professional pilots but you know, despite any experience, that it would not be a problem for you - therein lies one of the the problems with PPLs flying paying customers.

Jonzarno, it's pretty obvious you have not really read the Wingly website nor taken in much of the thread and continue to justify your decisions by stating the same irrelevant stuff - having read that the French are now stamping down on the practices (and changing the law and restricting the use of wingly etc) your justifications on how it works look hollow.

[davidjohnson6]

Let us suppose in theory that Wingly raise their minimum requirements for a pilot from brand new PPL to
a) 250 hours overall experence and
b) 50 hours on type and
c) aged over 25 and
d) gained PPL at least 1 year ago

And no more 'yeah I'm flexible, let me know if you fancy going somewhere else or on a different date' adverts
Yes, this would make the wingly site look a lot quieter but would likely act as a (admittedly arbitrary) quality filter to remove some people who maybe aren't ready to take passengers quite yet

Would that suffice to make people more comfortable ? My personal opinion is that if a pilot met those 4 criteria in a verifiable way, I'd be open to going up with them

[NYBM]

So you're not a commercial pilot, just some one with an opinion who has never been involved with paying "customers" but still state

Are commercial pilots the only people in the world who have to deal with "paying customers" or have to say no to disappointed people?

[Pittsextra]

GBS - how predictable the old logbook challenge to deflect from entering into proper debate it's a well trodden path here. But let's try and bring it back to the general point and not make things personal shall we?

If as a result of your flying activities the money paid is a refund of the costs you incur then I'm questioning your commercial pressure argument.

Mr Pimp and his ladies prepaid £149 to come and fly a 1 hour trip with me to Vegas. That £149 being his share of the costs - I rent the PA28 and pay £150 per hour and so will pay £1.

If I am "pressured" to fly on an unsuitable day then the only pressure is surely a desire to get an hours flight for £1? But that isn't commercial pressure. If I repeat that process a million times I'll owe £1 million quid to the aircraft owner...

[dboy]

For me this is dodgy.

There is already a big difference between posting on your FB "hey i am going to fly to destionation X, someone fancies to join me" or posting your flight on Wingly.

Wingly is for me considered as a advertisement place where flights are announced with a repetitive character ( does not have to be the same destination though). Flights offered with a repetitive character by the pilot equals to a commercial activity. Simple as that! A commercial activity does require professional skills.

Secondly, the fact that prices are stated and fixed on the website by the pilot is an indirectly indication that it is a commercial activity, even if it is break even operation and is then announced under the term "cost sharing". And suppose if the law is saying that only making profits is considered as a commercial activity, who is going to check if pilot is not making any profits? And if these flights are proposed as cost sharing flights, would it not be more fair that the pax detemines how much he wants to contribute and not the pilot?

What's in for Wingly? It won't be a non profit organsiation?? They are the guilty number 1. Wingly and likes dont care about the aviation legislation and the consequences. Just cash in and abdicating the responsibilty to the pilot. A common practice in aviation these days.

EASA is letting me down and they should act more firmly against these kind of initiatives.

[Good Business Sense]

GBS - how predictable the old logbook challenge to deflect from entering into proper debate it's a well trodden path here. But let's try and bring it back to the general point and not make things personal shall we?

If as a result of your flying activities the money paid is a refund of the costs you incur then I'm questioning your commercial pressure argument.

Mr Pimp and his ladies prepaid £149 to come and fly a 1 hour trip with me to Vegas. That £149 being his share of the costs - I rent the PA28 and pay £150 per hour and so will pay £1.

If I am "pressured" to fly on an unsuitable day then the only pressure is surely a desire to get an hours flight for £1? But that isn't commercial pressure. If I repeat that process a million times I'll owe £1 million quid to the aircraft owner...

You keep making my point - i.e. you have absolutely no understanding of commercial pressure but you think you do .... that's the dangerous bit !

[Good Business Sense]

Let us suppose in theory that Wingly raise their minimum requirements for a pilot from brand new PPL to
a) 250 hours overall experence and
b) 50 hours on type and
c) aged over 25 and
d) gained PPL at least 1 year ago

And no more 'yeah I'm flexible, let me know if you fancy going somewhere else or on a different date' adverts
Yes, this would make the wingly site look a lot quieter but would likely act as a (admittedly arbitrary) quality filter to remove some people who maybe aren't ready to take passengers quite yet

Would that suffice to make people more comfortable ? My personal opinion is that if a pilot met those 4 criteria in a verifiable way, I'd be open to going up with them

DJ6 - personally no - it's still commercial in my view but the French reaction, strange as it may be, shows that the abuse of cost sharing is rampant.

[Jonzarno]

GBS

Thanks for your comments. Although I don't agree with your opinion on cost sharing, I respect your right to hold it. As I said in my last post: if you don't agree with the CAA and EASA position on cost sharing, I suggest you get them to change it. Good luck!

Where I do agree with you is that there is no place for illegal phoney charters, however they are arranged.

[tobster911]

JJJ - you just became unemployable in my airline
Could you please explain why? I'm purely interested is all.

I found that self-serving piece from tobster911 pretty hard to take, too. Many of us come from very humble backgrounds and managed to get a foot-hold in aviation with resorting to chisel charters, as well as managing to later make our aircraft available as easily as possible to newcomers. I've paid for nearly every hour of my flying and, now that I think about it, the few exceptions have often been by the grace of AOC holders who could probably ill afford it.

Tecman - I was far from saying that everyone who's managed to get that far hasn't had a difficult beginning. Sincere apologies if that's how it came across. I was merely trying to make the point that, if you were back at the beginning again, and this system was in place etc etc, surely you'd find the temptation of reduced costs and increased flying quite great? Or is that really only me?


Just to go right back to basics again, if cost sharing is legal, which it is, and if Wingly took out it's flight requests feature, would you still not approve? As was mentioned in a previous post, Wingly is just a digital version of meeting someone at the airport bar who tells you he'd love to come up for a flight, you have a bit of a chat and take him up. You don't know that person any better than you know the people on Wingly, as you can contact the passenger, have a chat with them, lay out the expectations etc etc.

And, forgive my ignorance, but I'm still not seeing how there can be ANY commercial pressure. Before the flight (as in, when they book), you contact the passenger and explain to them the situation, which is, "If, for whatever reason, I decide to cancel the flight (which can be up to the last minute), Wingly will re-imburse you and, if you'd like to try some other time, I'll list another flight. Is that OK?" - If they say no, you don't accept them as a passenger. If they say yes, where is this pressure coming from? The passenger will get their money back...


Just for those who seem to be 'offended' (probably not the right word, sorry) by my opinions, please just remember that that's all they are, opinions. My wording may not always be the best, and I apologise for that, but I'm just trying to get my young, and obviously stupid, head around what the problem is here.

[wiggy]

I'm still not seeing how there can be ANY commercial pressure.

Oh boy......welcome to the world of carrying non-aviation people around (schedule or charter).

Imagine you arrange a share sight seeing flight that just so happens to go from A to B. Despite your warnings about the possibility of the flight not going Lady or Gent you arrange to share the flight with then goes off and arranges a meeting/family reunion at B based on the expected flight.

He/she turns up at the airport A on the day and finds you saying "in my opinion it's too windy/cloud base to low/forecast poor at destination".... or worse still you are in flight, wx turns to pants, you tell him/her you are turning back...........

In the commercial world regardless of the warnings on airline tickets/websites there are commercial pax who book flights that they regard as simply having to operate, and operate exactly on time, in order for them to get to meeting/wedding/make a connection on time, and believe me they will apply pressure/make noise if there is a hiccup, even it is just a few minutes late due a slot delay........and many are not interested in any airmanship reasons you can offer as to why you are not operating as planned - they had arrangement, they want to travel..now.

I think you are being naive if you think that because you use wingly and pre-warn fellow travellers you are going to be exempt from "commercial" pressure.

I can only repeat my previous opinion I see wingly being fine for local area flights - I think it's a completely different and "iffy" game using it to offer to take non-aviators flights from A to B.

[tobster911]

I can only repeat my previous opinion I see wingly being fine for local area flights - I think it's a completely different and "iffy" game using it to offer to take non-aviators flights from A to B.

Ah, fair enough. So, if Wingly was just for local flights, we'd all be happy with it? That makes a lot of sense. I do understand that you may have some idiots who do this kind of thing, but I do wonder how often that occurs. Just reading some posts from Wingly pilots:
"After a couple of cancellations due to weather, managed to take my first wingly passengers up today, they loved it!"
"My first wingly flight today but unfortunately had to cancel at the last moment due to strong winds. Didn't fancy cleaning up the dinner of two boys. Booked again same time next week"

I know this is only two people, but I think it's probably a lot easier to manage than most people think (especially if said people have had to deal with commercial passengers in a commercial environment. I don't disagree though, it could be problematic, and in-flight, even harder.

[Jonzarno]

Oh boy......welcome to the world of carrying non-aviation people around (schedule or charter).

Imagine you arrange a share sight seeing flight that just so happens to go from A to B. Despite your warnings about the possibility of the flight not going Lady or Gent you arrange to share the flight with then goes off and arranges a meeting/family reunion at B based on the expected flight.

He/she turns up at the airport A on the day and finds you saying "in my opinion it's too windy/cloud base to low/forecast poor at destination".... or worse still you are in flight, wx turns to pants, you tell him/her you are turning back...........

In the commercial world regardless of the warnings on airline tickets/websites there are commercial pax who book flights that they regard as simply having to operate, and operate exactly on time, in order for them to get to meeting/wedding/make a connection on time, and believe me they will apply pressure/make noise if there is a hiccup, even it is just a few minutes late due a slot delay........and many are not interested in any airmanship reasons you can offer as to why you are not operating as planned - they had arrangement, they want to travel..now.

I think you are being naive if you think that because you use wingly and pre-warn fellow travellers you are going to be exempt from "commercial" pressure.

I can only repeat my previous opinion I see wingly being fine for local area flights - I think it's a completely different and "iffy" game using it to offer to take non-aviators flights from A to B.

I think that this is where much of the misunderstanding about cost sharing flights arises.

As soon as the rider makes their request, they need to be made clearly aware that the flight is NOT commercial transportation and that the flight may not happen as planned due to weather or simply because the pilot's plans change.

When I did the few Skyuber flights I mentioned in earlier posts, I always made that clear at the time the rider made the request and, on those occasions when it happened never had a problem. I simply called or emailed the rider, explained the situation, and it was fine. As regards payment refunds: I don't know about Wingly, but Skyuber only debits the rider's card after the pilot confirms that the flight has been completed.

The concerns that some posters have about these flights crossing the line into illegal charters are entirely reasonable: that is not what cost sharing should be about. However, the solution of declaring all aspects of cost sharing to be "dodgy" is, IMHO, chucking the baby out with the bath water.

[tobster911]

The concerns that some posters have about these flights crossing the line into illegal charters are entirely reasonable: that is not what cost sharing should be about. However, the solution of declaring all aspects of cost sharing to be "dodgy" is, IMHO, chucking the baby out with the bath water.

Agreed. Just out of interest Jonzarno, did you every have a problem in the air, like diverting due to weather, or anything like that?

Thank you

[Jonzarno]

Not with a rider; but it wouldn't have made any difference, and I would have diverted or returned anyway: my mother didn't raise any heroes! ;)

As I said in an earlier post in which I described how I did these flights: I would check the weather forecast the day before and if it looked questionable, or potentially uncomfortable for the rider, would let them know. Likewise, if it turned out looking bad on the day, I would tell them as early as possible.

[tobster911]

Thought that would be the case haha, just wondered if you had, might make it easier to explain :p

[tecman]

Tecman - I was far from saying that everyone who's managed to get that far hasn't had a difficult beginning. Sincere apologies if that's how it came across. I was merely trying to make the point that, if you were back at the beginning again, and this system was in place etc etc, surely you'd find the temptation of reduced costs and increased flying quite great? Or is that really only me?

Just to go right back to basics again, if cost sharing is legal, which it is, and if Wingly took out it's flight requests feature, would you still not approve? As was mentioned in a previous post, Wingly is just a digital version of meeting someone at the airport bar who tells you he'd love to come up for a flight, you have a bit of a chat and take him up. You don't know that person any better than you know the people on Wingly, as you can contact the passenger, have a chat with them, lay out the expectations etc etc.



T911, since you ask I'm happy to answer. I did in fact learn to fly in an environment - the Australian bush - where the chisel temptation was real and where PPLs pushed the limits of the regulations applying to airwork in general. There were, and are, dispensations and endorsements by the regulator (which has changed names several times in the decades I've been flying) to cover situations in which it's better to legitimize and monitor activities which would otherwise be covert, such as PPLs doing their own aerial mustering.

Because the distances were large and the commercial operators relatively few I was approached a number of times to provide transport for compensation. I was pretty green but I did know enough to ask questions about practicalities such as insurance and to wonder about the effect on the livelihood of the local CPLs, one of whom was an instructor to whom I owe much to this day.

You're dead right: I was very tempted, having just secured my first job and having to fund my flying alongside all the other things that come with starting out in life. But I always refused the requests except for one occasion which involved a grazier having to get back to his property for urgent family reasons. In a farcical situation, all the available CPLs had knocked off for the day and had been at the local bar for too long to consider flying. I won't bore you with the details except to say I flew the grazier without charge in the AOC holder's aircraft, the keys to which had been thrown to me with the comment that he'd charge me only for the fuel. I never did get a bill, in my recollection.

My view on PPL cost sharing mirrors one held by many people on another well known contentious issue. It should be available, but rare. I pretty much agree with Step Turn's commentary that providing the electronic "skin" distorts a reasonable intent beyond reasonable bounds, given the 100 years of experience of mixing human nature and aeroplanes.

For the record, I would not cost share with a stranger from the airport coffee shop, either. But I do enjoy taking people I know flying in a private (no-charge) capacity now that I'm in a position to do so and I've never been disappointed with their reaction. What goes around comes around, in my experience. You just have to integrate over decades, not weeks, to get the net result.

That's a bit of a diversion, but you did ask!

I wish you all the best with your flying and hope that you find it in yourself to look beyond a glitzy web page or two from non-aviators and make your own assessment of the world of aviation.

[NYBM]

I think you are being naive if you think that because you use wingly and pre-warn fellow travellers you are going to be exempt from "commercial" pressure.


Disgruntled commercial passengers can threaten to complain to your boss and/or take their income elsewhere. That might legitimately worry you, and so there's pressure to take a risk.

Disgruntled wingly passengers can threaten to...?

[tobster911]

T911, since you ask I'm happy to answer. I did in fact learn to fly in an environment - the Australian bush - where the chisel temptation was real and where PPLs pushed the limits of the regulations applying to airwork in general. There were, and are, dispensations and endorsements by the regulator (which has changed names several times in the decades I've been flying) to cover situations in which it's better to legitimize and monitor activities which would otherwise be covert, such as PPLs doing their own aerial mustering.

Because the distances were large and the commercial operators relatively few I was approached a number of times to provide transport for compensation. I was pretty green but I did know enough to ask questions about practicalities such as insurance and to wonder about the effect on the livelihood of the local CPLs, one of whom was an instructor to whom I owe much to this day.

You're dead right: I was very tempted, having just secured my first job and having to fund my flying alongside all the other things that come with starting out in life. But I always refused the requests except for one occasion which involved a grazier having to get back to his property for urgent family reasons. In a farcical situation, all the available CPLs had knocked off for the day and had been at the local bar for too long to consider flying. I won't bore you with the details except to say I flew the grazier without charge in the AOC holder's aircraft, the keys to which had been with thrown to me with the comment that he'd charge only me for the fuel. I never did get a bill, in my recollection.

My view on PPL cost sharing mirrors one held by many people on another well known contentious issue. It should be available, but rare. I pretty much agree with Step Turn's commentary that providing the electronic "skin" distorts a reasonable intent beyond reasonable bounds, given the 100 years of experience of mixing human nature and aeroplanes.

For the record, I would not cost share with a stranger from the airport coffee shop, either. But I do enjoy taking people I know flying in a private (no-charge) capacity now that I'm in a position to do so and I've never been disappointed with their reaction. What goes around comes around, in my experience. You just have to integrate over decades, not weeks, to get the net result.

That's a bit of a diversion, but you did ask!

I wish you all the best with your flying and hope that you find it in yourself to look beyond a glitzy web page or two from non-aviators and make your own assessment of the world of aviation.


Thank you :) This does make a lot of sense. The insurance side I believe is well looked after here though, though I could be wrong. I'm trying to wrap my head around this as it seems there's problems from different angles on this topic, and I genuinely am reading and taking it all into account to see different viewpoints and where it could go wrong, so a big thank you for explaining things to me.

And thank you for your good wishes too, all the best :)

[Jonzarno]

Interesting post: thanks!! :D

[bookworm]

If you're a commercial pilot you'll know what I mean !

If ATPLs/CPLs were taught how to deal with commercial pressure as part of their training course, then I'd have more sympathy with your argument. But they're not: we teach them about the physics of gyroscopes and the climatology of Japan.

[wiggy]

NYBM

Disgruntled wingly passengers can threaten to...? Having seen the video of the jetbridge catfight in the States recently I really wouldn't care to hazard a guess....

bookworm

If ATPLs/CPLs were taught how to deal with commercial pressure as part of their training course.......

I agree it's not taught at the pre-employment stage but commercial Ops come with some form of "protection"/guidance for the PIC in the form of an Operations manual, at some airlines there may be discussion/teaching of pressure issues in recurrent training, and on multi pilot commercial types you learn a heck off a lot about commercial pressure whilst flying in the RHS, long before people are looking at you as one the individual to decide issues such as whether a flight operates or not.

[xrayalpha]

NYBM asked:

"Disgruntled wingly passengers can threaten to...?"

They can take you to the small claims court!

The back story is this:

Chap comes to airfield in camper van for a trial flying lesson with his son-in-law. Parks camper van, comes out with a dog, which is not on a lead.

Asked kindly to pop a lead on the dog.

"Why?"

- I have seen two dogs hit by propellors. I don't want to see a third. Trouble is, they just can't see a turning prop.

"Well, of course they can't see it."

- So if you just pop a lead on the dog?

"It is not my dog!"

- Well, it came in the camper with you, it got out of the camper with you, so if you just put it back in the camper.

"Why should I?"

- Well, apart from anything else, I own the airfield and the flying school. I am asking you to. And if you don't, you are showing you are unable to obey safety instructions and so you aren't going for a flight."

Conversation carried on like this for quite a while, eventually I said you can have your money back and cheerio. He took the refund and headed off.

I then got a small claims court action for the cost of his fuel for the camper. About £50, plus £20-odd in fees.

Ended up paying it because I couldn't be arsed rescheduling the court date to avoid conflict with holidays! But forgot to do some registration thingy so had a "bad debt" registered against me - and not the company! - for five years ! !

Commercial pressures only exist in big jet land? Ha!

You try dealing with trial flying lessoners!

[bookworm]

I agree it's not taught at the pre-employment stage but commercial Ops come with some form of "protection"/guidance for the PIC in the form of an Operations manual, at some airlines there may be discussion/teaching of pressure issues in recurrent training, and on multi pilot commercial types you learn a heck off a lot about commercial pressure whilst flying in the RHS, long before people are looking at you as one the individual to decide issues such as whether a flight operates or not.

I agree. I think there's a lot that the Flight Sharing Platforms can (and, hopefully, will) do to help pilots deal with this too.

[Binder]

It's one thing for an 'acquaintance' to come to a private arrangement with a PPL, when he is wishing to get get from A to B without too many questions asked and paying a 'contribution' to the costs.

I defy any 'self improver' not to have done this in years gone by.

But 'Wingly' by advertising in this fashion is 'hire or reward' imo and outside the privileges of a PPL. I am amazed the regulator has not come down on this like a ton of bricks. It's going to happen at some point.

I'm not a killjoy and I know many brilliant Private Pilots I would trust my life with.

But Professional Pilots are regulated and put under scrutiny for very good reasons. The travelling public deserve no less.

[Fly-by-Wife]

European court aide rules Uber is a transport company - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39882766)

Uber is a transport firm that requires a licence to operate, a senior member of European Union's top court has said.

I wonder if this ruling will have an impact on wingly and other flight sharing sites. Would wingly want to continue if they have to have an AOC to operate? At best they would have to take vigorous action to show that none of the flights advertised could be considered as transportation, and even that might not be enough.

Still, it's not definitive yet, although it's hard to see any court going against the decision.

FBW

[9 lives]

FBW,

I watched the BBC this evening, and had exactly that thought! Good sense is prevailing in Europe. Canadian authorities have been having similar discussions about Uber. The refined enforcement of what are already pretty clear aviation regulations can't be too far behind...

[Ebbie 2003]

Read it on the web, same though - hence the question "dodgy or legit".

We may never get to see the first death on a Wingly or Air Uber or whatever.

If I were their insurer s I would be backing out of the contract asap.

[NYBM]

FBW,

I watched the BBC this evening, and had exactly that thought! Good sense is prevailing in Europe. Canadian authorities have been having similar discussions about Uber. The refined enforcement of what are already pretty clear aviation regulations can't be too far behind...

You're right, the regulations are very clear.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/1188.pdf


1) The Civil Aviation Authority, in exercise of its powers under Article 266 of the Air Navigation Order
2016 (‘the Order’), hereby exempts, subject to the specified conditions, any aircraft, its commander
or operator from the requirement to comply with any provision of the Order which applies only to a
public transport or commercial operation flight and not to a non-commercial flight.
2) The specified conditions are—
a) The only valuable consideration given or promised for the flight or purpose of the flight is
a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the pilot in command;
b) all provisions of the Order applicable to a non-commercial flight are complied with;
c) the direct cost of the flight is shared by all the occupants of the aircraft including the
pilot;
d) the number of persons carried on the flight, including the pilot, is limited to six; and
e) the aircraft is not a complex motor-powered aircraft as defined by Regulation (EU)
No. 216/2008.

[tmmorris]

C. is missing 'equally' though...

[Jonzarno]

European court aide rules Uber is a transport company - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39882766)



I wonder if this ruling will have an impact on wingly and other flight sharing sites. Would wingly want to continue if they have to have an AOC to operate? At best they would have to take vigorous action to show that none of the flights advertised could be considered as transportation, and even that might not be enough.

Still, it's not definitive yet, although it's hard to see any court going against the decision.

FBW

I find it hard to see how this affects the cost sharing sites such as Wingly and Skyuber so long as they adhere to the cost sharing rules specified by the CAA and EASA.

There is no similarity between the operation of Uber, which is a commercial booking service for taxis that are plying for hire and reward, and operating as subcontractors under commercial insurance , (although I believe there may be litigation running to establish if they are really employees??), and a flight sharing intermediary such as Skyuber, Wingly or indeed the Seats Available / Wanted thread on this forum that simply matches pilots and riders wanting to share the costs of a flight.

Of course, if one of the cost sharing sites did cross the line away from facilitating genuine cost sharing into running a taxi service, that would be another matter and would anyway have been illegal before this latest ruling.

The choice of the name "Skyuber" by one of the ride sharing sites is unfortunate, as it gives the impression that the operation is similar to Uber which it is not.

[9 lives]

flight sharing intermediary such as Skyuber, Wingly or indeed the Seats Available / Wanted thread on this forum that simply matches pilots and riders wanting to share the costs of a flight.

I agree that it's a close call between the two "providers" and the forum on this site. So what's the difference which allows peace in my mind with this site's forum, yet disapproval of the other two? I perceive a difference of "public availability". A person who finds the "seats available" thread had to look for it, presumably as an element of exploring their interest in being a pilot - this is a pilot forum. However, Wingly ads are being pushed at me on FB. To me, FB is the highest form of "publicly available", reaching anyone, and actively promoting and profiting from private flights, rather than being simply a non involved link between two already "in" aviation people, with no profit involved.

By tolerating this, the regulators are disadvantaging those OC holders who have worked hard to meet the requirements. If I were an OC holder, I'd be barking mad at the regulators for allowing this fuzzy activity. Winlgy devalues the effort of those pilots who earn a CPL, and those companies who comply.

Perhaps it is this kind of shift which society ultimately wants, that's society's to decide. If that's the new direction of things, I'll have to hold my disdain, I suppose. But, I'm not holding it yet. The rules are clear in Canada, and for my experience the Wingly scheme is not legal in Canada. If I see Wingly ads on my FB when I return to Canada, I'll be registering a complaint with Transport Canada about it. Canadian commercial operators are my business partners, and I will be theirs....

[old,not bold]

If anyone has pointed this out already, I apologise!

Getting to Elstree from Central London is not comparable with getting to Kings Cross, is it? Same at the other end; NCL is a long way out of town.

In his letter Tom revealed that if he had taken the train from London King's Cross at the 17:00 it would have arrived at 19:42.
Instead, the flight which departed at the same time from Elstree Aerodrome, near Watford, London arrived at 18:30. Nearly twice as fast. That "nearly twice as fast" is pretty stupid.

[Jonzarno]

If I were an OC holder, I'd be barking mad at the regulators for allowing this fuzzy activity. Winlgy devalues the effort of those pilots who earn a CPL, and those companies who comply.

Perhaps it is this kind of shift which society ultimately wants, that's society's to decide.

I can understand this argument although, as a single data point, I would point out that when I offered rides before the FAA published their edict, none of the people I shared flights with could remotely be described as a potential client for a private charter or air taxi. At worst they might have deprived Michael O'Leary of 20 quid (which is less than their share of the cost of the flights we took) but, in at least two cases, they actually paid an airline for a return flight which they otherwise wouldn't have needed.

[9 lives]

In doing a little research on this topic, I found the Canadian regulation, which applies to this situation:



401.28 (1) The holder of a private pilot licence shall not act as the pilot-in-command of an aeroplane or helicopter for hire or reward unless the conditions set out in subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5), as applicable, are met.
(2) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement for costs incurred in respect of a flight if the holder


(a) is the owner or operator of the aircraft;
(b) conducts the flight for purposes other than hire or reward;
(c) carries passengers only incidentally to the purposes of the flight; and........




From what I have come to understand, a pilot renting a plane, and flying to the request of a passenger who intends to pay, would violate most if not all of a, b, & c above. Different regulations on each side of the Atlantic I suppose.

I suppose my legacy understanding of the Canadian regulations, and my predisposition to agree with them in this regard, makes me leery of the Wingly approach to organizing paid flights for "random" members of the public.

[Jonzarno]

ST

I think that regulation puts it quite well. If a pilot is doing a specific flight anyway, puts it on a cost share site and, as a result, gets a rider prepared to share the cost, that's OK. If they simply advertise along the lines: "I'll take anyone anywhere they want to go if they pay" that clearly isn't.

One grey area I noticed with Skyuber was that potential riders can post flights they are interested in taking. In most cases, I believe that to be innocent enough: a pilot wanting to take that up would still have to post the flight and wait for the rider to join it; but still I can see how that feature could be abused.

[9 lives]

With reference to the quoted Canadian regulation,

I think that regulation puts it quite well. If a pilot is doing a specific flight anyway, puts it on a cost share site and, as a result, gets a rider prepared to share the cost, that's OK.

The Wingly model may have rental private pilots doing this, which is outside the terms of (a), but more to the point, "... puts it on a cost share site...." appears to violate the regulation item (b) "conducts the flight for purposes other than hire or reward;". When the pilot lists the flight, it just became about hire/reward.

Again, in Canadian terms, I can imagine the regulator not getting too excited about an event or two of this, like the "insider" thread here. But I would think a rental pilot with weekly listings on an advertised website ('cause the ad was directed to me in Canada) which amount to "I'm going flying, but where would you like to cost share to go?" crosses the Canadian line. The regulator would not tolerate that for long!

[Jonzarno]

ST

Yes, I agree: that crosses the line in my book as well. For me the test is / should be whether the ad amounts to the following:

I, the pilot, am doing a flight to a specific destination on a specific day: does anyone want to come along and share the costs?

[NYBM]

By tolerating this, the regulators are disadvantaging those OC holders who have worked hard to meet the requirements. If I were an OC holder, I'd be barking mad at the regulators for allowing this fuzzy activity. Winlgy devalues the effort of those pilots who earn a CPL, and those companies who comply.


This just isn't a valid reason. Regulations should be for safety, not to protect profit.

ST

Yes, I agree: that crosses the line in my book as well. For me the test is / should be whether the ad amounts to the following:

I, the pilot, am doing a flight to a specific destination on a specific day: does anyone want to come along and share the costs?

But the regulation is explicitly intended to encourage PPLs to fly more hours, to improve currency and therefore safety.

[Jonzarno]

This just isn't a valid reason. Regulations should be for safety, not to protect profit.



But the regulation is explicitly intended to encourage PPLs to fly more hours, to improve currency and therefore safety.

Why "But"? Surely that's exactly what it does do whilst also prohibiting illegitimate commercial flights?

[NYBM]

Why "But"? Surely that's exactly what it does do whilst also prohibiting illegitimate commercial flights?

Sorry for the confusion, I was just replying to two comments in the same post. The cost-sharing regulation can only achieve its explicitly stated purpose if your suggested test isn't applied.

[9 lives]

Regulations should be for safety, not to protect profit. ......
But the regulation is explicitly intended to encourage PPLs to fly more hours, to improve currency and therefore safety.

Regulations should be whatever the public wants them to be, but with a clear understanding of all factors. "The public" chooses regulations, and regulatory change by a political or public consultation process (albeit a rather long one, sometimes). If "the public" are willing to surrender their sense of a minimum standard in pilot skill and experience, and operational oversight, (which are both in lace entirely for perceived safety), the public can ask for the required regulatory change, and perhaps, in Europe have so asked.

BUT, should such a change now entitle PPL's in non owner aircraft to start offering flights to the public, which are virtually indistinguishable from those presently only (in Canada, anyway) available within an operating certificate regulatory framework, it will become "buyer beware" for the public. For many things "the public" depend upon regulatory oversight for their sense of safety, as "the public" generally lack the knowledge and capability to assess the safety of specific things themselves.

I depend upon the regulator for food and drug safety, as I have no idea. So, I resist the idea that uninspected drugs or produce would appear in my store, indistinguishable from those which have met the standard of regulation.

Low time PPLs lack the experience and "lessons learned" personal knowledge to execute a flight at the same level of safety as a CPL flying within an OC system. If the public are willing to take this step back in actual safety of flying, they may participate in regulatory change to allow it. Right now, in Canada, anyway, the regulation is clear, to prevent PPL's in non owned aircraft flying for hire and reward in a publicly available way.

This is not about profit or not, however, no one is going to go through the effort to obtain and maintain the safety structure included in an OC, without the opportunity to make a profit too!

[Jonzarno]

The cost-sharing regulation can only achieve its explicitly stated purpose if your suggested test isn't applied.

I understand your point and, as you can see from my other posts here, I am very much in favour of genuine cost sharing. But (:)), at the same time as encouraging pilots to fly more, we still need to stop phoney "taxi service" operators from abusing the rules.

My suggested test seemed a sensible way of achieving that, although I'm happy to listen to other ways of achieving those twin objectives.

[JumpJumpJump]

https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=flights&flight=49241

Is a "sightseeing flight" not an AOC operation in the UK?

[bookworm]

https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=flights&flight=49241

Is a "sightseeing flight" not an AOC operation in the UK?

No, it is not. The purpose of the flight is immaterial to whether or not the flight is commercial air transport, unless that purpose is inherent in the exceptions to commercial air transport set out in the Air Ops regulation (e.g. as in (b) and (c) below). In this case, it appears to be operating as a cost-shared flight:

2(1) ‘commercial air transport (CAT) operation’ means an aircraft operation to transport passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or other valuable consideration;
…
5(1). Operators shall only operate an aircraft for the purpose of commercial air transport (hereinafter ‘CAT’) operations as specified in [Part-ORO and Part-CAT].
…
6(4a). By way of derogation from Article 5(1) and (6), the following operations with other-than complex motor-powered aeroplanes and helicopters, balloons and sailplanes may be conducted in accordance with [Part-NCO]:

(a) cost-shared flights by private individuals, on the condition that the direct cost is shared by all the occupants of the aircraft, pilot included and the number of persons sharing the direct costs is limited to six;

(b) competition flights or flying displays … [conditions]

(c) introductory flights, parachute dropping, sailplane towing or aerobatic flights … [conditions]

[MoateAir]

From the Wingly website FAQ page, In response to the "Is it legal?" section...

Yes. According to the European regulation (see art. 6 paragraph 4a regulation (EU) no. 965/ 2012) pilots are allowed to share flights as long as the aircraft does not exceed 6 seats and has a non-complex power unit. Furthermore pilots are only allowed to share the costs, they are not allowed to make any profit on the flight. Wingly's policy is that the pilot pays the same share of the flight as the passengers, or more. We have received written confirmation from EASA, stating that flight sharing and the advertising flight shares is totally legal, so long as the costs are equally shared. We also have the same letter of confirmation from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in the UK. In other words, because the flight remains a private one, the pilot does not need a commercial pilot’s licence to share his cost with passengers.

Forgive me if I've been misinformed for a long time, but isn't a Mooney classed as a complex, on which this flight occurred?

[ak7274]

No, a Mooney is non complex.

[bookworm]

The Wingly FAQ is carelessly worded.

Art 6(4a) of the AIr Ops regulation says:

By way of derogation from Article 5(1) and (6), the following operations with other-than complex motor-powered aeroplanes and helicopters, balloons and sailplanes may be conducted in accordance with [Part-NCO]:
(a) cost-shared flights by private individuals, on the condition that the direct cost is shared by all the occupants of the aircraft, pilot included and the number of persons sharing the direct costs is limited to six;

In the Basic Regulation

‘complex motor-powered aircraft’ shall mean:

(i) an aeroplane:

with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg, or
certificated for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nineteen, or
certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or
equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine

More recently, multi-engine turboprops have been permitted to operate under Part-NCO rather than Part-NCC, but a strict reading of the regulation does not permit them to be used for cost-sharing.

A Mooney is clearly an "other-than complex motor-powered aeroplane" and is eligible for cost-sharing.

[cotterpot]

From the Wingly website FAQ page, In response to the "Is it legal?" section...

Yes. According to the European regulation (see art. 6 paragraph 4a regulation (EU) no. 965/ 2012) pilots are allowed to share flights as long as the aircraft does not exceed 6 seats and has a non-complex power unit. Furthermore pilots are only allowed to share the costs, they are not allowed to make any profit on the flight. Wingly's policy is that the pilot pays the same share of the flight as the passengers, or more. We have received written confirmation from EASA, stating that flight sharing and the advertising flight shares is totally legal, so long as the costs are equally shared. We also have the same letter of confirmation from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in the UK. In other words, because the flight remains a private one, the pilot does not need a commercial pilot’s licence to share his cost with passengers.

Forgive me if I've been misinformed for a long time, but isn't a Mooney classed as a complex, on which this flight occurred?


No requirement in UK for costs to be shared equally.
https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/Aircraft-ownership-and-maintenance/Guidance-on-cost-sharing-and-introductory-flights/

The requirement for those costs to be shared equally has been removed. How much each individual person pays is not prescribed, but the pilot must pay something.

[bookworm]

The EASA report on Web-based cost-sharing flights is here (https://www.pplir.org/media/kunena/attachments/162/WP10_Costsharedflights.pdf).

[Ebbie 2003]

Well I think that comprehensively answers the initial question "dodgy or legit?".

I think we can call it legit ("except the French"!!)

There are now regulations and rules.

If you factor in the no need for equal shares thing I am guessing that the skies will be full of people zipping around with passengers.

Shame about the 14.1 and the French - I could have Wingly'd in Martinique and Guadeloupe - well with the right registration.

Still wondering what happens after the first fatal accident.

[John R81]

And the French position has changed.......


Shared cost flights (as noted above) are regulated by Article 6(4)(b)(a) of EU Regulation 965/2012, which authorises, by way of derogation, the operation of “non-complex motor powered aircraft” in the form of “shared cost flights by individuals, on the condition that the true cost is shared between all of the occupants of the craft, including the pilot, and that the number of persons carrying the cost does not exceed six”.


The French Civil Aviation Authority (DGAC) legislated 22 August 2016 to add further conditions in the case of internet-based sharing. This included a pilot’s experience and qualifications; matters not included in Annex VII. The DGAC justified this derogation based on Article 14 of EU Regulation 216/2008 (common rules of civil aviation), which provides States with the authority to derogate the regulation in cases of emergency.


On 22 June 2017 the Conseil d’Etat (the French supreme administrative court) overturned this regulation. Claiming to rely on Article 14 of EU Regulation 216/2008 was held to be unjustified, as flight sharing via the Internet was no more dangerous for passengers than flight sharing by another means.

[konsuijotai]

Official Record Series 4
United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority
Miscellaneous Air Navigation Order 2016 General Exemption E 4525 Sharing of the Direct Costs of a Flight by up to Six People

1) The Civil Aviation Authority, in exercise of its powers under Article 266 of the Air Navigation Order 2016 (‘the Order’), hereby exempts, subject to the specified conditions, any aircraft, its pilot in command or operator from the requirement to comply with any provision of the Order which applies only to a public transport or commercial operation flight and not to a non-commercial flight.

2) The specified conditions are—
a) this exemption only applies to flights that are not subject to the EASA Air Operations Regulation;
b) this exemption is only applicable to flights conducted within the London or Scottish Flight Information Regions;
c) all provisions of the Order applicable to a non-commercial flight are complied with;
d) the only valuable consideration given or promised for the flight or purpose of the flight is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight otherwise payable by the pilot in command;
e) no more than six persons (including the pilot) are carried;
f) the direct costs of the flight are shared by all the occupants of the aircraft including the pilot; and
g) the aircraft is a non-complex motor-powered aircraft, sailplane or balloon.

3) “Non-complex motor-powered aircraft” and “non-commercial flight” have the same meanings as detailed in Schedule 1 of the Order.

4) This exemption supersedes Official Record Series 4 No. 1188, which is hereby revoked.

5) This exemption has effect from the date it is signed until it is varied, suspended or revoked.

No: 1234 Publication date: 30 August 2017
M Shortman for the Civil Aviation Authority
30 August 2017

[ericsson16]

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1590-Cost_Sharing_Information_V2.1.pdf

[CessnaSteven]

Introduction
1. This information is intended to provide guidance for when the actual direct costs
of a passenger transport flight may be shared between the occupants of an
aircraft without having to comply with the regulations applicable to Commercial
Air Transport (CAT) or Public Transport (PT) flights.
2. This information supersedes that given on ‘cost-sharing’ contained in IN-
2015/029.
3. Under Commission Regulation (EU) No. 965/2012 (EASA Ops), a flight for the
transport of passengers, for which remuneration (payment) or other valuable
consideration has been made, is defined as a CAT flight. Under the Air
Navigation Order 2016 (ANO), similar circumstances exist where the flight would
be defined as a PT flight.
4. If a flight is CAT or PT, the operator must have an Air Operator’s Certificate; the
pilot must hold at least a Commercial Pilot’s Licence; and the aircraft must be
certificated and maintained in accordance with the appropriate requirements.
5. EASA Ops includes a derogation at Article 6.4(a) that allows a flight that would
otherwise be a CAT flight to be flown in accordance with the operating rules for
non-commercial flights subject to specific conditions. The conditions are that:
 The flight is a cost-shared flight by private individuals;
 The actual direct costs of the flight must be shared between all the occupants
of the aircraft, including the pilot, up to a maximum of 6 persons; and
 Only other-than complex motor-powered aircraft may be used.
6. Article 13 of the ANO also allows cost-sharing for what would otherwise be a PT
flight but is not in full alignment with the EASA Ops rules. In order to provide
equivalence with EASA Ops for the same category of other-than complex motor
powered aircraft, the CAA has issued a General Exemption (ORS4 No.1234)
which aligns with the EASA Ops derogation.
7. A guide for GA has been produced as CAP 1589.
Scope
8. The cost-sharing arrangements apply to other-than complex motor-powered
EASA aircraft operating under the EASA Ops and in accordance with Regulation
(EC) No.216/2008 (the Basic Regulation). This includes aircraft registered
outside of the EASA area but operated by an operator established or residing in
the Community subject to paragraph 14 below.
9. Similar alleviations in accordance with Article 13 of the ANO, or the General
Exemption mentioned above, permit cost-sharing in non-EASA aircraft which are
registered in the UK.
Guidance
10. The cost-sharing derogation to EASA Ops does not prevent the promoting or
advertising of cost-shared flights. This is also the case with non-EASA aircraft
flights under the General Exemption mentioned above.
11. The promotion of flights can include the use of online ‘flight sharing’ platforms.
12. It is recommended that any promotion of cost-sharing should inform potential
passengers of the safety levels of General Aviation flights with light aircraft as
compared to those of CAT operations.
13. Passengers should be made aware that the pilot may amend or cancel the flight
for any reason, including at short notice and is under no obligation to complete it.
14. The proportion of the costs that must be shared by the pilot is not specified in the
cost sharing derogation nor in the General Exemption; however, the pilot must
make a contribution to the actual direct costs of the flight being conducted.
15. Aircraft registered in a Third Country (e.g. the Isle of Man, Jersey, USA) are
required to comply with the relevant EASA Ops rules if based in an EASA
Member State. However, they may also be required to abide by the regulations
of the State of Registry which may prohibit conducting such cost-sharing flights.
Explanation of terms
16. ‘EASA aircraft’ means an aircraft which is required by the Basic Regulation and
any implementing rules adopted by the European Commission in accordance
with that Regulation to hold an EASA certificate of airworthiness, an EASA
restricted certificate of airworthiness or an EASA permit to fly.
17. ‘non-EASA aircraft’ means an aircraft which is not required by the Basic
Regulation and any implementing rules adopted by the European Commission in
accordance with that Regulation to hold an EASA certificate of airworthiness, an
EASA restricted certificate of airworthiness or an EASA permit to fly and is
generally covered by Annex II to the Basic Regulation.
18. Article 6.4a of EASA Ops applies to other-than complex motor-powered aircraft
and describes cost-sharing as:
‘cost-shared flights by private individuals, on the condition that the direct cost is
shared by all the occupants of the aircraft, pilot included and the number of
persons sharing the direct costs is limited to six.’
19. A ‘complex motor-powered aircraft’ means
i) An aeroplane:
 With a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5,700 kg; or
 Certificated for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than 19;
or
 Certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots; or
 Equipped with (a) a turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine; or
ii) A helicopter certificated:
 For a maximum take-off mass exceeding 3,175 kg; or
 For a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than 9; or
 For operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots; or
iii) A tilt rotor aircraft.
A ‘non-complex motor-powered aircraft’ or ‘other-than complex motor-powered
aircraft’ (which includes sailplanes and balloons) should be construed
accordingly.
20. GM2 Article 6.4a(a);(b) Derogations – ‘Direct cost’ means the cost directly
incurred in relation to a flight, e.g. fuel, airfield charges, rental fee for an aircraft.
There is no element of profit.
21. GM3 Article 6.4a(a);(b) Derogations – ‘Annual cost’ means the cost of keeping,
maintaining and operating the aircraft over a period of one calendar year. There
is no element of profit.
22. The ANO contains similar definitions at Schedule 1 which are also to be used
with the General Exemption:
 ‘direct cost’ means the cost (excluding any element of profit) directly incurred
in relation to a flight, including –
(a) The cost of fuel;
(b) Any charges payable in respect of the use of any airfield in connection
with the flight; or
(c) Any rental or hire fees for the use of the aircraft.
 ‘annual cost’, in relation to the operation of an aircraft, means the cost
(excluding any element of profit) of keeping, maintaining and operating the
aircraft over the period of one year.
 ‘non-commercial flight’ means a flight which is not a commercial operation
flight, a public transport flight or a flight for the purpose of commercial air
transport.
 ‘valuable consideration’ means any right, interest, profit or benefit,
forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility accruing, given, suffered or
undertaken under an agreement, which is more than a nominal nature.

There is a another document from the CAA posting this:

Information and guidance on the circumstances under which the
direct costs of a private flight may be shared between up to six
occupants (including the pilot) of an aircraft
European and National regulations permit cost sharing flights as follows:
■ The flight is a cost-shared flight by private individuals.
■ The direct costs of the flight must be shared between all of the occupants of the aircraft, including the
pilot, up to a maximum of 6 persons.
■ The cost-sharing arrangements apply to any other-than complex motor-powered EASA aircraft and this includes aircraft registered outside of the EASA area but operated by an operator established or residing in the Community.
■ Cost-sharing is also permitted in non-EASA (Annex II of the Basic Regulation) aircraft registered in the
UK. Direct costs means the costs directly incurred in relation to a flight (e.g. fuel, airfield charges, rental fee
for an aircraft). There can be no element of profit.
Annual costs which cannot be included in the cost sharing are the cost of keeping, maintaining, insuring and operating the aircraft over a period of one calendar year.

There can be no element of profit.

Additional guidance
■ In the case of a jointly-owned aircraft, the CAA considers the hourly rate, normally payable by a joint
owner for the use of their aircraft, to be a ‘direct cost’.
■ Cost shared flights can be advertised, including the use of online ‘flight sharing’ platforms.
Cost sharing flights: GA guide
Guidance from the Civil Aviation Authority September 2017
September 2017 | CAP 1589
■ It is recommended that any advertising or promotion of cost-sharing flights makes it clear that they
are private arrangements and not conducted in accordance with commercial air transport or, where
appropriate, public transport rules.
■ Passengers should be made aware that the pilot may amend or cancel the flight for any reason,
including at short notice.
■ The proportion of the costs that must be shared by the pilot is not specified in the regulations;
however, the pilot must make a contribution to the direct costs of the flight that he is conducting.
■ The General Exemption (ORS4 No.1234) which permits cost-sharing flights for Annex II aircraft only
applies to flights conducted within the London and Scottish Flight Information Regions.
Reference material
■ EASA Air Operations Regulations
■ Air Navigation Order (2016)
■ Sharing the direct costs of a flight (General Exemption, ORS4 No.1234) -
■ CAP 1590: Cost sharing flights: guidance and information -

[md 600 driver]

If only he'd have used Virgin trains' own website instead of rip-off Trainline he could have travelled by train for £56 and saved the fares from London to Elstree and airport to toon at the other end.
Hi redhil phil
I use trainline a lot for virgin trains to London from york and your comments made me think I could be getting ripped off by train line so I went and checked ,for same date ,train time ,ticket and rail card it was £51 on trainline and £75 in virgins website
Now that’s what I call rip off
It makes me think twice about using virgin at all , grand central go the same route if I have a choice I will use them ,
Not what you would have thought but thanks for the heads up even if it was wrong

[squidie]

I fear that a lot of private flyers, those of whom failed to either learn or were not taught good airmanship and basic common sense will be all over this without a thought. Hopefully those who did would approach this idea with caution. Yes it’s a good idea for private pilots to gain more experience and to less expense which will help a great deal. I have a feeling that the problem with this idea is the passengers are unaware of the dangers of flight and what exactly they’re doing when compared to CAT flights.

[Fionn101]

excellent comment squidie.

I wonder where the money is coming from for these sky taxi services (venture capital). what with server costs , staff wages and insurance.

I see that SkyUber have admitted they no longer see the model working, and have ceased operations.

Will the rest follow in their footsteps.

Fionn

[Good Business Sense]

excellent comment squidie.

I wonder where the money is coming from for these sky taxi services (venture capital). what with server costs , staff wages and insurance.

Fionn

Hope Wingly et all are paying their VAT !

[Quake]

I think this will only be 'legal' up to the point of the first accident. Personaly I think it is a terrible idea. A PPL holder with a pushy client (sorry cost sharer), who really needs to get somewhere, is a recipe for a swiss cheese fondue

[Jonzarno]

Hope Wingly et all are paying their VAT !

I doubt the business is big enough to get to the VAT threshold of £83k. Skyuber closed recently citing an inability to scale the operation.

[Good Business Sense]

I doubt the business is big enough to get to the VAT threshold of £83k. Skyuber closed recently citing an inability to scale the operation.


Quoted by wingly three months ago - recent quotes, which I can't put my hands on at the moment, are far higher - no VAT ??

Between the three countries over 80,000 people have registered with Wingly, including 6,000 pilots, and each month the community is growing by 20%. The Parisian start-up attracts around 600 monthly passengers, while there are more than 30,000 fights listed on the platform"

[Jonzarno]

Yes, but listing a flight doesn’t generate income. That said, if the business does cross the VAT threshold I’d be very surprised if they didn’t comply. The consequences of failing to do so are quite unpleasant!

BTW I’m not sure but aren’t they a German company? The Finanzamt there are even worse than HMRC!

[IFly]

I think this will only be 'legal' up to the point of the first accident. Personaly I think it is a terrible idea. A PPL holder with a pushy client (sorry cost sharer), who really needs to get somewhere, is a recipe for a swiss cheese fondue

Not sure you have grasped the concept of this Quake. It's the pilot who decides the destination and takes along chosen passengers to share the costs and fill vacant seats.

Of the 2 dozen or so passengers I have taken through this scheme, all have been a pure delight to have on board and fly with.

[Quake]

Not sure you have grasped the concept of this Quake. It's the pilot who decides the destination and takes along chosen passengers to share the costs and fill vacant seats.

Of the 2 dozen or so passengers I have taken through this scheme, all have been a pure delight to have on board and fly with.

Oh I get it allright, problem is, does the customer (as this is how most will percieve themselves), when they get there and the pilot says sorry mate wx is no good? Perhaps you have been lucky so far with your clients and perhaps you are strong willed enough to resist a pushy yummy mummy who wants to met BF for a quicky, but that wont be the case every time.

[John R81]

Perhaps you have been lucky so far with your clients and perhaps you are strong willed enough to resist a pushy yummy mummy who wants to met BF for a quicky, but that wont be the case every time.

What utter rubbish! That's not an argument against cost-sharing flights but an argument for rooting out inadequate "pilots".

You are the Commander on that flight, and its your responsibility. You can't shirk it, ignore it or blame someone else. Anyone who does not have the mental strength to make that decision EVERY TIME, regardless of pressure, please take of the fancy dress, hand back your license and get out of the driving seat before you kill yourself - and everyone else in the aircraft.

[IFly]

Thank you John R81, Unfortunately Quake thinks he gets it but he doesn't.

[memories of px]

This is air taxi , you need a commercial licence, you need an AOC, 1179, 1319,a professional licence,stop kidding yourself and trying to kid others, have you told your insurance company what youre doing?, have you told the airports insurance company what youre doing??

Not sure you have grasped the concept of this Quake. It's the pilot who decides the destination and takes along chosen passengers to share the costs and fill vacant seats.

Of the 2 dozen or so passengers I have taken through this scheme, all have been a pure delight to have on board and fly with.

Thats just nonsense, the pilot doesnt go to a destination unless a passenger wants to go there first!, just look at the wingly booking system!

[Jonzarno]

Let’s be clear about this: the authorities have said, officially, that offering cost sharing on sites such as Wingly is perfectly legitimate in EASA land. The FAA has said that it is not.

What is not legitimate anywhere is abusing the system to run an air taxi business for commercial gain. If you have evidence that people are abusing the Wingly site to do that, please report them to the authorities.

[memories of px]

have you told your insurance company??????

[Jonzarno]

If that is directed at me: no, as I fly an N reg on an FAA licence, I don’t offer ride sharing myself on line due to the FAA pronouncement.

That said: I see nothing wrong with others doing so, as long as they obey the rules under which there is no reason to declare legitimate cost sharing which has been going on perfectly legally since long before the internet existed.

You seem to have reached the conclusion that all cost sharing is an illegal air taxi service: it isn’t. As I have said repeatedly in this thread: there is no place for that kind of illegal operation. But banning all cost sharing, whether arranged on line or not, is chucking the baby out with the bath water.

[memories of px]

What i object to is some PPL with 75 hrs, ONE hour on type, sitting there with his stripes, offering flights from blackbushe to fixed destinations at fixed prices, what a joke! The general public should be made aware of what theyre booking up, maybe the BBC's Watchdog should do a piece on it.

[Jonzarno]

That’s a reasonable opinion to hold.

Whilst the METHOD (i.e. internet) by which the flight is offered is legal, offering the flight as you describe may not be if it is seen by the authorities as offering an air taxi service. You obviously see it as both a regulatory and a safety issue, so why don’t you report it and see what happens?

Edit: this was in reply to the previous post and I have not seen the advertised flight myself.

[memories of px]

CA393 completed, i'll update when i hear anything.

[IFly]

This is air taxi , you need a commercial licence, you need an AOC, 1179, 1319,a professional licence,stop kidding yourself and trying to kid others, have you told your insurance company what youre doing?, have you told the airports insurance company what youre doing??



Thats just nonsense, the pilot doesnt go to a destination unless a passenger wants to go there first!, just look at the wingly booking system!

Your post is based on hypothesis. My post is based on experience. I have only posted flights and taken Wingly passengers when I have had spare seats for predetermined destinations of my choice. Yes, insurance company is aware.

[turbopropulsion]

https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=flights&flight=288835

^^ This guy is even allowing patrons to take hold of the controls.

[memories of px]

Some other pilot mentions the costs are shared between the passengers! i also see on another post that he is unable to operate this service as Wingly flights have been banned at Elstree, common sense at last .

https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=flights&flight=311886

[Good Business Sense]

i also see on another post that he is unable to operate this service as Wingly flights have been banned at Elstree, common sense at last .

https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=flights&flight=311886

Does anybody know why?

[MrAverage]

And at Denham. Others will follow very quickly.


I banned them at our club as soon as I heard about them..............

Border Force and the Police most likely. Eventually they'll be limited to unlicensed airfields and farm strips.

[memories of px]

Does anybody know why?
because a ppl shouldnt be doing " scenic flights" or "fear of flying " courses
or let a passenger take the controls, and a thousand other reasons.
Use a professional pilot.

[memories of px]

to what standard are the aircraft maintained to? Public Transport?, Permit to Fly? do the
passengers get to know?

[Prophead]

There is a guy in Norfolk that advertises on facebook for passengers to go flying.

I would be furious if I had a genuine business providing air taxi or scenic flights and had gone though all the hoops to be legit.

[memories of px]

fill in form CA393 and see if the caa can do anything

[robin]

Had a look at the website and can see some really low-time pilots with few hours after the PPL/LAPL course. Looks like they are using it for 'free' flying or hours building.

It is probably just legal, but....

[Jonzarno]

It is probably just legal, but....

This discussion seems to be going round the same old arguments again and again. Wingly, and the other ride sharing sites, are simply a medium through which people can arrange to share flights and, so long as those flights themselves are legal, there is nothing wrong with that.

To be clear, as a matter of law:

1. Genuine cost sharing as defined by both the CAA and EASA (but not the FAA, who accept cost sharing but not these websites) is completely legitimate regardless of the medium by which it is arranged. For that reason, I see no reason for any airfield to ban genuine cost sharing flights of this type.

2. Running a taxi or other commercial service without the necessary licence and insurance is not legal, again regardless of how it was arranged; and if I was running an airfield, I’d ban flights of that type as well.

I honestly don’t understand why it is necessary, or even desirable, to try to ban all genuine cost sharing just because some people abuse the system. You might as well ban all cross-border GA flights because some people use them to smuggle in drugs. Surely the answer is to target the abusers and not the genuine cost sharers?

Edit: as I said in an earlier post, there is also no reason why the authorities can not also take action agains a site such as Wingly if they knowingly facilitate illegal activity.

BTW:I have no personal dog in this fight, because I have an FAA licence and therefore can’t use these sites myself. If I could, I would happily do so. Legally!

[PA28181]

As above, this has run it's course and it's no good having the same argument as the "remoaners" are having about stopping Brexit, it's here, live with it, it's legal, I know some will be jumping for joy at the first accident to prove a point, my own flying organisation and other acrft owners I know have banned all Wingly flights as is their perfect right to do so, but it is a legit way of getting in the air at a reasonable cost so where's the problem?

All this blah blah about insurance, maintenace etc etc is pointless. It's LEGAL. The comparison of AOC air taxi providers is the same argument any Black cab driver could have over cost sharing the petrol in cars going to work. Not relevant and I dont believe or would like to hear evidence from any AOC holder who could prove outright his business has suffered due to Wingly.

[150 Driver]

I'm neutral on the debate, FWIW I wouldn't do it but I'm not dependent on someone paying for me to go flying.

However, I struggle with the advertised flight referred to above from Redhill.

Pilot is PPL with total hours of 73, prepared to fly at 500 feet - presumably above sea level - for stunning views of Beachy Head.

I read further and see he has 'travelled across the Channel a fair few times'.

At 73 hours ... How ??? Something can't be right ?

Surely even the densest member of Joe Public might be suspicious of entrusting themselves to a 73 hour PPL ? Darwin waiting to work ?

[Jonzarno]

Pilot is PPL with total hours of 73, prepared to fly at 500 feet - presumably above sea level - for stunning views of Beachy Head.

500 ft above sea level? I hope not: Beachy Head is 531 ft AMSL. You might get a more “stunning” view than you expected....... :eek: :)

[CloudSurferUK]

Yes, but listing a flight doesn’t generate income. That said, if the business does cross the VAT threshold I’d be very surprised if they didn’t comply. The consequences of failing to do so are quite unpleasant!

BTW I’m not sure but aren’t they a German company? The Finanzamt there are even worse than HMRC!

French, Headquartered in Paris.

[Good Business Sense]

Ruling from EU about UBER

In its ruling, the ECJ said an “intermediation service”, “the purpose of which is to connect, by means of a smartphone application and for remuneration, non-professional drivers using their own vehicle with persons who wish to make urban journeys, must be regarded as being inherently linked to a transport service and, accordingly, must be classified as ‘a service in the field of transport’ within the meaning of EU law”.


Going to be interesting how this affects Wingly et all - I'm referring to, "Wingly et all" not "cost sharing"

[memories of px]

Uber has been deemed a ‘transport service’ by the European Court of Justice and not, as it previously argued, a digital service – a move that could have big implications for the way the company operates.The ride hailing company has previously argued it merely provides a digital service to connect passengers and drivers and so is not, in the classical sense, a transport company. But EU judges disagreed, ruling that Uber’s “main component is a transport service”.

Sounds familiar, any groans from the cheap seats?

[Jonzarno]

so much for the "this has run its course" brigade... watch this space

Groan...... :ugh:

https://www.pprune.org/private-flying/593079-dodgy-legit-10.html#post9768616

[Good Business Sense]

Wingly sells flight tickets to the public for flights with non professional pilots using their own vehicle - after the flight Wingly pays the pilot after deducting a fee

The above is almost word for word to that in the judgement against Uber.

In addition, Wingly sells GIFT VOUCHERS to the public for flights with yet to be identified non professional pilots. The Gift voucher is sold to person X who gives it to person Y for a flight with pilot A - person Y has to that point probably never even thought of taking a flight in a light aircraft never mind "cost sharing".

My insurer says that due to the transactions taking place they believe it is a commercial flight. Forget cost sharing - this is about Wingly which is a profit making commercial enterprise who makes money, using private pilots, from selling flight tickets to the public.

I see 6 seat aircraft are now demanding a premium - saw a Wingly flight being advertised on a Cherokee six that was charging the equivalent of over £400 per hour - I don't know the six but .....

[memories of px]

well said GBS.