PPRuNe Forums


Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 7th Dec 2017, 11:39   #241 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Berkshire
Age: 40
Posts: 342
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.
Prophead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 13:51   #242 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 159
fill in form CA393 and see if the caa can do anything
memories of px is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 14:47   #243 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 62
Posts: 1,525
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....
robin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 15:29   #244 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 748
Quote:
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!
Jonzarno is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 16:50   #245 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 362
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.
PA28181 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Dec 2017, 22:20   #246 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Uk
Posts: 160
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 ?
150 Driver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th Dec 2017, 17:54   #247 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 748
Quote:
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.......

Last edited by Jonzarno; 9th Dec 2017 at 08:50.
Jonzarno is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 11:04.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1