Dodgy or legit?

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by JumpJumpJump

https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=...s&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]

Originally Posted by 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?

No requirement in UK for costs to be shared equally.
https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviati...ctory-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.

[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/...ation_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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Jonzarno

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.