Wingly - Flying for reward or not?

[anchorhold]

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]

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]

So what is Wingly, they were at my home field a few weeks ago, what are they about?

[Whopity]

I wonder what the present situation is with Wingly and cost sharing.

The following statement is from the CAA's website 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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. I’ve (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. I’m not against equal cost sharing - but where the pilot can contribute £0.01 and advertising as such....

I haven’t 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 that’s not fishing for business then what is?

[Whopity]

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]

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]

Agreed, but the public would expect the CAA to regulate such activity, as would the tabloids.

[BigEndBob]

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]

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]

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]

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

[MrAverage]

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]

Whopity,

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

[Ebbie 2003]

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.