Wingly - Flying for reward or not?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Amblesidel
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...lford-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?
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...lford-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?
Last edited by anchorhold; 6th Feb 2019 at 12:03.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
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
TOO
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Just to clarify - it is a legal requirement to carry the aircraft flight manual or equivalent document on all flights (NCO.GEN.135)
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
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
