PDA

View Full Version : Wingly - Flying for reward or not?


anchorhold
28th Jun 2018, 07:35
I wonder what the present situation is with Wingly and cost sharing. Here is the latest I have come across:

Robert, 105 hours total, 20 hrs on the T67, offering aerobatic pleasure flights, how long until this will end in fatalities. I think we all know that the T67 can really bite even in experienced hands. I should add £100 for 30 minutes, does a T67 really cost £400 an hour to hire?? Also various pilots offering sight seeing flights over built up areas such as London and Birmingham, I really wonder how legal these flights are.

I have never had a problem with PPLs cost sharing, but I really think Wingly is taking the **ss and the CAA are doing nothing. I say this as we have lots of young instructors capable of doing air experience flights. why is the CAA, AOPA or flying schools/clubs not opposing this situation. Likewise,why would a aircraft owner risk a declined insurance payout, for what they may argue in court is hire and reward.

Genghis the Engineer
28th Jun 2018, 20:02
Down my way a T67 is about £170/hr.

I agree - it's just setting everything up for a silly disaster that impacts on all of us.

G

BigEndBob
28th Jun 2018, 20:16
So what is Wingly, they were at my home field a few weeks ago, what are they about?

Whopity
28th Jun 2018, 23:39
I wonder what the present situation is with Wingly and cost sharing.
The following statement is from the CAA's website (http://www.caa.co.uk/Blog-Posts/Sharing-the-cost-of-recreational-flying/) and authored by Tony Rapson Head of GAD
Opportunities for UK private pilots to clock-up more flying time have greatly increased with the emergence over the last few years of online services such as Wingly and Coavmi. For a fee, these companies offer to connect general aviation pilots with passengers who are willing to share the costs of a recreational flight - fuel, landing fees etc. Until recently, pilots could only share those costs with friends or fellow flying club members, who all had to chip in.
I have an email from Dianne Park at the Air Regulation Enforcement Dept in which she states that Wingly is perfectly legal.

Other countries like France have applied a bit more common sense than the UK CAA and specified pilot experience requirements for such flights.

anchorhold
29th Jun 2018, 08:30
BingEndBob.... Basically wingly is a website where mainly PPLs can charges passengers for pleasure flights, have a look at this link:

https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=profile&user=82086 (https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=profile&user=82086)

This pilot has been given 27 five star ratings, I simply think that is not possible, and how can a member of the public assess the safety and professionalism of these pilots?

Whopity... When did the CAA ever show any common sense, this whole situation is a accident waiting to happen and eventually will become a 'legal can of worms'. The whole idea that the general public might think these flights are regulated. My other observation is that every comment made about these 'professional' pilots they get five stars.

What really puzzles me is the concept of sharing costs, does that have to be done equally, because in the case of £100 for 30 mins in a T67, I would not say that is equal payment or cost sharing. A case in point is three pax pay £60 each on a PA28 for an hours flight (£180), the pilot pay £10 for the landing fee, surely that is hire and reward.

I would also add that pleasure flights by FTOs under Ex. 3 Air Experience are better able to put in place certain measures in terms of 'security' as instructors should have been briefed by special branch and better able to screen pax and students.

Whopity
29th Jun 2018, 09:03
does that have to be done equally No, the pilot can pay 1P
that pleasure flights by FTOs under Ex. 3 Air Experience FTOs don't exist any more and Ex 3 is a Flying Lesson NOT a pleasure flight. (Legally)
instructors should have been briefed by special branch Thats a good one, never heard of that! I had to contact them a couple of years ago and they were the most elusive bunch to find you could ever imagine.

So far I am aware of two accidents involving this activity!

Duchess_Driver
29th Jun 2018, 22:26
So far I am aware of two accidents involving this activity!

Ouch.

Care to be a little more specific. I really do feel these things need to be brought to the attention of the ******** journalists who are singing the praises of this ridiculousness.

this is my username
30th Jun 2018, 05:30
I really do feel these things need to be brought to the attention of the ******** journalists who are singing the praises of this ridiculousness.

And what is the story going to be? "Flying Schools / Instructors say that most of the pilots they have trained aren't safe!"

I'm equally nervous about what is happening, but we either have a system which turns out safe / competent pilots or we don't .......

Whopity
30th Jun 2018, 08:23
Care to be a little more specific. No, but if you look at the accident records, then look at the purpose of the flight, they will stand out like a sore thumb!

Duchess_Driver
30th Jun 2018, 12:22
I'm equally nervous about what is happening, but we either have a system which turns out safe / competent pilots or we don't .......

Not arguing with the competency of most - but some. Iíve (unfortunately) witnessed some who do not listen and some, again, who are risk takers. We have a level of experience and training that must be achieved before pilots are allowed to do this kind of operation and standards that should be met before commercial ops can be undertaken. This is, whichever way you look at it a commercial operation and therefore there is double standards and are being used.

I know I am in the minority - but IMHO this practice should be stopped before someone gets hurt. Iím not against equal cost sharing - but where the pilot can contribute £0.01 and advertising as such....

I havenít looked for a long time, but there was a period when the same chap (Or chapesses) was advertising local flights more or less ever hour and if thatís not fishing for business then what is?

Whopity
30th Jun 2018, 13:26
And what is the story going to be? "Flying Schools / Instructors say that most of the pilots they have trained aren't safe!"
As they have neither been trained nor tested to "public transport" standards, then it is a fair assumption that they will not meet the standards expected by those they carry.

this is my username
30th Jun 2018, 14:20
As they have neither been trained nor tested to "public transport" standards, then it is a fair assumption that they will not meet the standards expected by those they carry.

I don't disagree - but that probably isn't how the story would be spun by a tabloid if they got their hands on it ....

Whopity
30th Jun 2018, 16:13
Agreed, but the public would expect the CAA to regulate such activity, as would the tabloids.

BigEndBob
1st Jul 2018, 21:43
I can see a local concern doing this, so a particular person doesn't bother to get instructor rating, skip that hassle, but just advertises cheap pleasure flights, which for a lot of TL's that's all they want, that get purchased by a relative or friend, that know no difference.
The only provision is that no profit is seen to be made or not a main function i believe.. Can see the flying schools losing customers.

I think the spirit of some johnny turning up interested in flying and there just happens to be a ppl who will take that person up for cost will be abused.

felixflyer
3rd Jul 2018, 23:16
The latest CAA magazine has an article all about cost sharing and shows some examples from Wingly. They seem to encourage the whole thing.

There is also a full page advert for Wingly in the magazine.

xrayalpha
5th Jul 2018, 09:09
Simple, Wingly banned from my airfield!

More complex: microlight instructors are not trained to "public transport" standards.

Much more complex: lots more businesses are being disrupted by highly-financed rule benders. So take Uber for taxis, air b'n'b for "hotels", etc. Ironically, most do not make any money!

Of course, Uber drivers don't have the same training as London cabbies, many air b'n'b's don't have the same fire prevention measures etc as a proper b and b, etc etc.

But none of that worries the public much - although I will take a London cab over an Uber after trying it a couple of times and being appalled by bad driving and our daughter in Glasgow has often felt uncomfortable in an Uber. Our son in Colorado loves Uber!

So we either adapt or die.

One flying school I know of does a lot of introductory flights. Keeps regulars in the air frequently, which must be a good thing. Bad for instructors? Yes. But not as bad as a flying school closing down.

So rather than moan, what ideas do we have to adapt?

Here's the first: upsell. Everyone does it - so why not sell more videos, hats, T-shirts to trial flying lesson customers.

Whopity
5th Jul 2018, 14:18
One flying school I know of does a lot of introductory flights Which is quite different from "cost sharing" If they are conducting a "lot" one wonders if they are complying with the marginal activity clause. Interestingly, putting Introductory Flight into the CAA website browser produced nothing, wheras Google produced a guidance document (http://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/CAA/Content/Standard_Content/General_aviation_and_events/Types_of_aircraft/Introductory%20Flights%20Guidance%20V%203.1.pdf)

MrAverage
6th Jul 2018, 12:11
In that respect, the new CAA site is just as useless as the old one. It's always been easier to find a document (using search words) on google.

xrayalpha
11th Jul 2018, 17:44
Whopity,

Most flying schools' activity is "marginal" - at least from an economic point of view ;-)

Ebbie 2003
2nd Nov 2018, 02:18
I was doubtful about Wingly.

Still am I think there should be minimum experience requirements; like 100 plus post PPL hours on type,

Thought I would give it a try - so last Sunday I Wingly'd an Austria couple - I have a US registered airplane, cost share marginal only (so fuel) in proportion. Barbados is not that big, can fly around it in half an hour, so other than the Wingly mark up/fee about twelve quid each.

Was interesting experience - I fly people around when I fly with no charge, so nothing unusual.

Not too sure if you're familiar with Bill Burr a comedian he has a routine about a helicopter pilot (very funny and tragic at the same time) - anyway it got me to thinking, someone could be in the P2 seat on Wingly and decide to go out in style - the people are strangers afterall.

MrAverage
2nd Nov 2018, 08:50
Ebbie!

Please check your insurance and the regs before doing another. I'm pretty sure the FAA banned the use of sites like Wingly................

selfin
4th Nov 2018, 00:26
Advertised cost-sharing, even in closed groups, is not permitted in US-registered civil aircraft.

anchorhold
6th Feb 2019, 11:42
I originally started this thread and I think the conclusion was that before the CAA was going to do anything about 'Wingly' type operations we would need a fatality.

We now have the Malibu fatalities and while not a Wingly flight, in terms of 'hire and reward' it is now open to questions, likewise the qualifications of the pilot. To add to this there is now an interesting prosecution in relation to illegal public transport of a flight that crashed into a field while operating out of Manchester Barton in 2017 as follows:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/robert-murgatroyd-barton-aerodrome-salford-15785933

The charges include endangering the safety of an aircraft, endangering the safety of a person, flying without an air operator certificate, acting as pilot without holding an appropriate licence, flying an aircraft otherwise than in accordance with the limitations in the flight manual, operating an aircraft without insurance and flying without the aircraft flight manual.

The final charge is an odd one 'flying without the aircraft flight manual. Having said that the pilot expected to make a profit of £1000, and the defence is going that the weight and balance was an error of judgement! I suppose the pilot's lawyer could also claim the wrong type of wind.

Is all the above going to be enough for the UK CAA act?

TheOddOne
6th Feb 2019, 12:16
I believe this person has appeared on pprune more than once over the years but is now 'sub judice'. I don't think that either this case or the PA46 off Guernsey have a direct relevance to Wingly. I both the former cases, we're talking about 2 pilots with decades of experience, not newbies trying to acquire same. So far, I've yet to hear of a genuine Wingly incident.

TOO

BillieBob
6th Feb 2019, 14:28
Just to clarify - it is a legal requirement to carry the aircraft flight manual or equivalent document on all flights (NCO.GEN.135)

TheOddOne
6th Feb 2019, 16:31
Just to clarify - it is a legal requirement to carry the aircraft flight manual or equivalent document on all flights (NCO.GEN.135)

...so I spent a rainy day .pdf-ing our precious original for our PA28. I then printed it out in A5 and put it in a binder, for the seat-back pocket. I weighed it. It's 1.5lb. Technically, I should now include this in the W&B basic aircraft weight. We're having a re-paint this year and a re-weigh and I'll certainly include it then.
Actually, I could just keep the .pdf in my phone, but it'll make it a bit hard to read when we're on fire.

TOO

Broadlands
6th Feb 2019, 19:02
Apologies for jumping into this thread late.

A couple of years ago I observed a cost sharing flight arrive from France and offload passengers. The ac had caught my attention when it descended into the airfield through very low cloud and missed the runway. I challenged the pilot and untimely filed an MOR.

Diane Park took the cause up as the pilot, an FAA PPL had been prosecuted twice before (and fined in magistrates court)for illegal commercial flights. The inference was the CAA can not seem to find a way to stop him. The CAA dropped the case started by my MOR due to the "expensive legal support given to the pilot by his friends".

Since then we have seen other cost sharing schemes try to use the airfield and have banned Wingly flights as a result. I just hope that the CAA will have more teeth to tackle this activity.

Pittsextra
7th Feb 2019, 13:17
The CAA dropped the case started by my MOR due to the "expensive legal support given to the pilot by his friends".

Since then we have seen other cost sharing schemes try to use the airfield and have banned Wingly flights as a result. I just hope that the CAA will have more teeth to tackle this activity.

One real issue is that highlighted by your other thread regarding supervision. The real question is when or how does prosecution of a regulation get affect by guidance? The CAA are not helped by their executive willingness to accept their funding model which by the nature of their work is unsustainable.

Just like the issues highlighted with display flying via Shoreham and issues with Wingly type flights are well known before any high profile fatal accident brings matters to the attention of a wider audience.

Broadlands
7th Feb 2019, 18:22
Pittsextra, quite agree.

My curiosity got the better of me so I looked up what the individual I referred to above is up to now. To my horror he is offering his services as a pilot again (I know he still only has a PPL) and listed himself in companies house as providing "Scheduled Passenger Air Transport".

I truly hope we never hear of someone getting hurt as a result.

Whopity
28th Feb 2019, 08:53
I just hope that the CAA will have more teeth to tackle this activity. As the activity is deemed legal, they have neither teeth nor remit. Its interesting how the Head of Enforcement resigned a few years ago and has never been replaced; the lady currently in charge used to be the PA. Rumour had it that the HoE resigned because there was little left that was enforcible!

Pittsextra
1st Mar 2019, 05:09
As the activity is deemed legal, they have neither teeth nor remit. Its interesting how the Head of Enforcement resigned a few years ago and has never been replaced; the lady currently in charge used to be the PA. Rumour had it that the HoE resigned because there was little left that was enforcible!

Yes the CAA have only themselves to blame. Their own attention to detail is (and I'll limit the adjectives only to be generous) is limited. Just look at the headline banner of this page from their website. This page has been current for years, and is current as of today yet it says:-

These Standards Documents provide guidance for a wide range of CAA approved flying training activities. The only mandatory requirements are found in the Air Navigation Order (2009) and JAR-FCL

List of Flight Crew Standards Documents (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=list&type=sercat&id=22)

Oh really? So even on a web page that pertains to give guidance that misdirects. what hope? I don't even think you'd need a fancy lawyer to escape any misdeed. Indeed so weak and confused are their documents that they themselves have no confidence in them.

Yet what are they doing in Gatwick? It comes to something when you can not find one single voice in defence of the organisation here which is a group that hold positions of great responsibility. If that doesn't send a message then nothing does.

The issue at the CAA is the people and it persists because they all feel utterly secure in their positions. The only escape is to end the CAA and therefore making all of the positions redundant. A new organisation should be formed where new candidates can apply and the good people at the CAA reapply.

Good Business Sense
1st Mar 2019, 11:47
..., I could just keep the .pdf in my phone, but it'll make it a bit hard to read when we're on fire.

TOO

But on the positive side, less paper to burn ! :-)

Duchess_Driver
1st Mar 2019, 15:09
But on the positive side, less paper to burn ! :-)

But perhaps more sources of ignition...????:}