Dodgy or legit?

[Jonzarno]

@GBS

No. I don't offer flights any more since the FAA proscribed them although I would if they allowed them.

I posted my experience earlier in the thread here:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...ml#post9732754

All I did was post the flights I was planning to do anyway and, if someone wanted to come, take a passenger on a legitimate cost sharing basis.

As I said in my earlier post, it certainly isn't a route to great wealth, but I did get to meet some nice people with an interest in aviation. I'd like to think that amongst them perhaps there is someone who decided to take it further, but I don't know if that happened.

[9 lives]

I don't think Wingly would ever 'harm' the income from flight schools.

Have you asked a flying school operator their opinion on this? They are at the center of the industry, and best positioned to form an opinion. Every time a fare is paid to be airborne, and it was not in an AOC aircraft, an AOC holder lost business.

If you want to go on a quick jaunt around the local area, and are happy to just do some sightseeing, then you pay half the price and go up with Wingly. You may then decide you enjoyed that flight, so you book a proper trial flight and get hooked, then complete your training with that school.

Or, also very possible, the victim buys the flight with the Wingly chisel pilot, and due to that unqualified pilot's inexperience, has a very scary flight, and decides it's not for them, when in the company of a properly qualified AOC pilot, the flight would have been a positive experience.

I cannot deny that there could be a rare combination of well experienced pilot, suitable plane, well executed flight, and right people combination which could make this scam work, and even then, it's still stealing away needed work for AOCs, but on the whole this is a horrible idea, and I hope it is squelched before someone gets hurt.

For those new pilots who think this is a suitable way to supplement their flying, will you still think that when there are no jobs available for you as a new CPL at an AOC, because these parasite organizations have redirected potential customers away? Do you expect the AOC will hire you, when they realize that your flying was supplemented by this chisel flying?

I have a good relationship with my local AOC's, though no financial interest. I own and regularly fly three planes. When the occasional person asked if I can be hired, I direct them to the AOC. When an occasional friend asks to be flown somewhere I sometimes agree, and there is no cost to them. Thereafter, I donate the operation of my aircraft to my local volunteer fire department for searches which otherwise could not be conducted safely.

I realize that the early years of flying are expensive, we've all been there. But you don't support the industry you're trying to join by undermining it, exploiting a grey regulatory zone, and funding a third party outfit who has no interest in supporting GA.

[tobster911]

OK, I've given up on arguing my P.O.V. Those who oppose the progression of flight sharing networks and making flying more affordable will always oppose it, and those who are for the progression of flight sharing networks and making flying more affordable will always be for it. I agree that a number of things could go wrong with this, but a million things can go wrong when you step outside your front door. You do it any way.

You will get people abusing the system, but then these people will be noticed, brought to the attention of the authorities, and appropriate action taken.

Every time a fare is paid to be airborne, and it was not in an AOC aircraft, an AOC holder lost business.

I would not dispute this as it is, technically entirely accurate. Unless, however, the cost of the AOC aircraft was too high and therefore said person looking for a flight could not afford it anyway, so technically it was never business for the AOC holder anyway. Like saying buying a 2002 BMW 3 series from Fred in a Shed is taking business away from the new BMW dealership up the road... Well, no.

Or, also very possible, the victim buys the flight with the Wingly chisel pilot, and due to that unqualified pilot's inexperience, has a very scary flight, and decides it's not for them, when in the company of a properly qualified AOC pilot, the flight would have been a positive experience.

Very possible indeed, but do humour yourself and have a look at the ratings that passengers have left for Wingly pilots and see that, actually, it is a very rare occasion that they'd have a scary flight.

The combination of experienced pilot, suitable plane and well executed flight leasing someone into training may not be as rare as you think (we'll never know for sure as I doubt there's any statistical evidence).

For those new pilots who think this is a suitable way to supplement their flying, will you still think that when there are no jobs available for you as a new CPL at an AOC, because these parasite organizations have redirected potential customers away? Do you expect the AOC will hire you, when they realize that your flying was supplemented by this chisel flying?

I think this is a little extreme. I've done some re-evaluating and can see that flight requests, on the whole, aren't the best idea. However, if I told a prospective employer that I had gained hours by cost sharing with various people, I don't think they would look down on this. If someone wants a flight somewhere specific on a certain day, they'd almost certainly go to an AOC because they know (or are at least 90% certain) that the flight will take place. With a Wingly flight, the pilot can call it off for any reason they like.

I have a good relationship with my local AOC's, though no financial interest. I own and regularly fly three planes. When the occasional person asked if I can be hired, I direct them to the AOC. When an occasional friend asks to be flown somewhere I sometimes agree, and there is no cost to them. Thereafter, I donate the operation of my aircraft to my local volunteer fire department for searches which otherwise could not be conducted safely.

It's nice to know you've got a great relationship with them, and to hear you own and fly 3 planes, fantastic! Directing people to an AOC when they request to hire a pilot is what should technically be expected anyway, no? And sharing a flight with a friend at no cost, then donating the operation of your aircraft to a very fantastic cause is noble indeed.

Now, I'm not assumptive, but I'd guess you've worked bloody hard to get where you are now, but the fact of the matter is if you're in a position where you own and operate 3 aircraft, donate them out and fly with a friend for no money, I reckon you've done quite well for yourself and actually, now, money isn't a big factor for you. This is where we'd all like to be, but unfortunately, not all of us can get there without a bit of help.

The early years are indeed expensive, which is why this is such a great opportunity to allow one to keep the costs low. I work what feels like a gazillion hours a week, for relatively little money, and spend most of it on essentials like food, housing, bills etc etc. What I'm left with at the end of the month, say £200, is enough for 1.5 hours flying. Now, if I need to build 100 hours, that's 67 months costing over £13,000! Now, imagine for a moment that that £200 paid for 1 hour in a 4 seater, and I could take 3 passengers every time I go, costing £50 each. (I know it's unlikely, but...) I can now afford 4 hours per month, so 25 months at a cost of £5,000. Suddenly, my dream career is in sight within a timeframe of just 2 years, rather than 5 and a half.

I genuinely believe that firms like Wingly do not have

no interest in supporting GA

because actually, what they're doing, is promoting GA.

Don't get me wrong, I am following this thread with great interest because as a discussion point, it's great. No one person's opinion is any more or less valid than the other. The fact of the matter at the moment, regardless of what side you're on, is that Wingly is operating within the law (having been endorsed by EASA), and it looks like it's here to stay.

[Ebbie 2003]

This, it seems, will all be resolved by new regulations/clarifications rushed through immediately following the first death/serious injury accident on a Wingly flight.

I would expect an FAA type set of rules.

Personally I own and operate a US registered Archer II, it is maintained to public standards - you want you can rent it, fly it yourself after a check out with a CFI - just want to zip around the island or to another island and but are not a pilot - I will rent you the airplane, all you need to do is find a commercial pilot who will fly you in "your airplane" - there are several here who will fly you for free, they get the hours towards their ATPL count. Legit by FAA standards, no holding out by the commercial pilot and the person flying is dealing with someone 'properly' trained AND EXPERIENCED.

I think this whole thing is dodgy, if they had a requirement to need public cat airplanes, minimum hours, IR or IMC etc. I could see, maybe, something that makes it legit but it just seems all rather "off" that a sixty hour PPL can be offering something like this. Also, I am not convinced that any of the mix of insurances mixed up in this would ever pay claims - time will tell.

Thanks to all who have participated in the debate following my original post on this, I think, important subject.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Ebbie 2003

I think this whole thing is dodgy, if they had a requirement to need public cat airplanes, minimum hours, IR or IMC etc. I could see, maybe, something that makes it legit…

legit(imate) is conforming to what the law is, Ebbie, not what to you would like it to be.

[Ebbie 2003]

The law changes all the time - we don't know what is until it is tested.

The law in this instance is at its fundamentals intended to protect naive people getting into airplanes with inadequately trained people.

There is a damned good reason why one must build hours and do additional training and certification before one can fly for reward.

As I said I don't see this wheeze surviving the first death.

[Jonzarno]

I'm sorry, but this doesn't reflect the reality of how these platforms work. Let me illustrate this with an example of a flight that I actually did via Skyuber.

The flight was from Cambridge to Prestwick leaving at 0800 with the "return" being the same day at 1600 to Biggin Hill. I got one rider on the morning trip at the princely sum of €86.65 which represented 25% of the direct operating cost. He found his own way home as my return flight wasn't convenient for him.

It didn't make me rich, and certainly didn't deprive any AOC holder of a charter as the rider was simply an aviation enthusiast who had no pressing need to fly to Glasgow but wanted to experience an airways IFR flight from the right seat, and would never have been able to afford the cost of a charter. If he really needed to get to Glasgow, all he had to do was buy an EasyJet flight from Stansted for £35.

That is typical of the flights I shared.

Whilst I accept that it is possible for people to abuse any system: I really don't see that as a reason to ban cost sharing altogether which is what those criticising these platforms are effectively arguing for. I say that because all of the disaster scenarios that they describe could apply equally to ANY cost sharing flight regardless of the medium through which it was arranged.

[JumpJumpJump]

Originally Posted by tobster911

OK, I've given up on arguing my P.O.V. Those who oppose the progression of flight sharing networks and making flying more affordable will always oppose it, and those who are for the progression of flight sharing networks and making flying more affordable will always be for it. I agree that a number of things could go wrong with this, but a million things can go wrong when you step outside your front door. You do it any way.

You will get people abusing the system, but then these people will be noticed, brought to the attention of the authorities, and appropriate action taken.



I would not dispute this as it is, technically entirely accurate. Unless, however, the cost of the AOC aircraft was too high and therefore said person looking for a flight could not afford it anyway, so technically it was never business for the AOC holder anyway. Like saying buying a 2002 BMW 3 series from Fred in a Shed is taking business away from the new BMW dealership up the road... Well, no.



Very possible indeed, but do humour yourself and have a look at the ratings that passengers have left for Wingly pilots and see that, actually, it is a very rare occasion that they'd have a scary flight.

The combination of experienced pilot, suitable plane and well executed flight leasing someone into training may not be as rare as you think (we'll never know for sure as I doubt there's any statistical evidence).



I think this is a little extreme. I've done some re-evaluating and can see that flight requests, on the whole, aren't the best idea. However, if I told a prospective employer that I had gained hours by cost sharing with various people, I don't think they would look down on this. If someone wants a flight somewhere specific on a certain day, they'd almost certainly go to an AOC because they know (or are at least 90% certain) that the flight will take place. With a Wingly flight, the pilot can call it off for any reason they like.



It's nice to know you've got a great relationship with them, and to hear you own and fly 3 planes, fantastic! Directing people to an AOC when they request to hire a pilot is what should technically be expected anyway, no? And sharing a flight with a friend at no cost, then donating the operation of your aircraft to a very fantastic cause is noble indeed.

Now, I'm not assumptive, but I'd guess you've worked bloody hard to get where you are now, but the fact of the matter is if you're in a position where you own and operate 3 aircraft, donate them out and fly with a friend for no money, I reckon you've done quite well for yourself and actually, now, money isn't a big factor for you. This is where we'd all like to be, but unfortunately, not all of us can get there without a bit of help.

The early years are indeed expensive, which is why this is such a great opportunity to allow one to keep the costs low. I work what feels like a gazillion hours a week, for relatively little money, and spend most of it on essentials like food, housing, bills etc etc. What I'm left with at the end of the month, say £200, is enough for 1.5 hours flying. Now, if I need to build 100 hours, that's 67 months costing over £13,000! Now, imagine for a moment that that £200 paid for 1 hour in a 4 seater, and I could take 3 passengers every time I go, costing £50 each. (I know it's unlikely, but...) I can now afford 4 hours per month, so 25 months at a cost of £5,000. Suddenly, my dream career is in sight within a timeframe of just 2 years, rather than 5 and a half.

I genuinely believe that firms like Wingly do not have because actually, what they're doing, is promoting GA.

Don't get me wrong, I am following this thread with great interest because as a discussion point, it's great. No one person's opinion is any more or less valid than the other. The fact of the matter at the moment, regardless of what side you're on, is that Wingly is operating within the law (having been endorsed by EASA), and it looks like it's here to stay.

you just became unemployable in my airline

[tecman]

I found that self-serving piece from tobster911 pretty hard to take, too. Many of us come from very humble backgrounds and managed to get a foot-hold in aviation with resorting to chisel charters, as well as managing to later make our aircraft available as easily as possible to newcomers. I've paid for nearly every hour of my flying and, now that I think about it, the few exceptions have often been by the grace of AOC holders who could probably ill afford it.

Ebbie has it pretty right. Regulators tend to manage by crisis and at some point a death or mishap will be tested in court and the whole "holding out" argument tested. By that point, the various insurers will have run a mile, with endless subrogation clauses invoked, leaving a set of unfortunates to slug it out. Understandably, a lot of the discussion here has been from the pilot's point of view but many of the saddest illegal charter/joyflight cases involve passenger deaths or injury where the survivors have been affected greatly by the lack of safeguards (including robust insurance) offered by an AOC. If you're not convinced by the arguments about the effects on AOC holders, at least take a look at some of the illegal charter outcomes in your jurisdiction.

[NYBM]

It's sounding a bit like people are using "safety" to bolster a flimsy protectionist argument, ie you feel the regulations should be there to inflate your income.

Undue pressure? I'm pretty sure (for example) I'd feel a lot more pressure from my wife wanting to know why we weren't going to get home on time than some stranger.

Insurance? If you believe wingly's insurers aren't going to pay up even though they explicitly say they will, why would you believe any other insurance?

Inadequately trained people? How is it more safe for an "inadequately trained person" to carry a passenger they happen to know?

[Jonzarno]

I really don't see what we are arguing about here. There are two aspects to this debate which are actually quite compatible with each other:

1. Genuine cost sharing, regardless of the medium by which it it arranged, is perfectly acceptable and legal (in CAA and EASA land)

2. Running a phoney unauthorised charter operation is illegal (and, IMHO, stupid!), also regardless of the medium by which it it arranged

In addition, anyone facilitating an illegal charter operation is also committing an offence and is liable to prosecution. Thus, it is actually also in the interests of the ride sharing sites not to allow ads which contravene the law whilst allowing ads that do not.

If anyone knows of a specific case in which the law is being broken, I'd encourage them to report it to the authorities.

Simples!

[n5296s]

Insurance? If you believe wingly's insurers aren't going to pay up even though they explicitly say they will, why would you believe any other insurance?

Really? I take it you've never had to make an insurance claim. Insurance companies are VERY good at finding reasons they shouldn't pay out, not to mention subrogation where they do pay out but then they try very hard to get the money off someone else.

If there's the slightest suspicion that you've been doing something outside the conditions of your policy, they won't pay up. I would read my policy, every word of it, VERY carefully before doing something like this.

Well, actually I wouldn't, because I flat out wouldn't do it in the first place, neither in FAA land, where for sure it is illegal, nor in CAA/EASA land, where it may or may not be legal, and we won't know until something bad happens and it really gets put to the test.

[Pittsextra]

The over reaction to some of this is incredible.

There is no doubt that the wording from some marketing flights is naive and consequently reflects badly but ultimately the concept that someone could get airborne, (either for pure enjoyment or for practical purposes) whilst a pilot making a flight gets some company and an appropriate contribution to the cost HAS to be a good thing.

We all know the age of the average GA pilot is 490 and so getting people aloft is great because perhaps 1 or 2 of them just might decide they might like to do it for themselves.

As said the wording from some is poor BUT nobody is arriving at a local grass strip to find a private pilot and his 1972 PA28 with the thinking it is anything other than a private pilot at a grass strip and a 1972 PA28.

Commercial pressure and customers thinking its some alternative to NetJets.... really?

[Good Business Sense]

As said the wording from some is poor BUT nobody is arriving at a local grass strip to find a private pilot and his 1972 PA28 with the thinking it is anything other than a private pilot at a grass strip and a 1972 PA28.

Commercial pressure and customers thinking its some alternative to NetJets.... really?

How long have you flown commercially - are you a professional pilot ? Doesn't look like it.

Re. First para - have you actually dealt with the general public in commercial aviation terms - sales, operations etc ?

Ref. second para - yeh, "really", are you not aware of the many accidents related to commercial pressure - for example, with highly trained professional pilots e.g. helicopter at Vauxhall, Augusta 109 at Gillingham in 2014, numerous biz jet crews pushed by CEOs etc etc .... commercial pressure comes in all shapes and sizes and that includes from a Wingly pax arriving at a grass airfield and pressuring the PPL to go ("it's taken me two hours to get here and I need to be there for my girlfriends birthday" - "it looks ok to me", "thought you were qualified", "I want my £109 quid back right now" etc etc) ! It's one of a Chief Pilots biggest nightmares. Have you walked the mile ?

If you're a commercial pilot you'll know what I mean !

[Pittsextra]

GBS - In the race to tell me what a nob I am you've missed the point I was making.

Where is the commercial pressure when the only outcome of any flight is the mere part reimbursement of your costs. I'm stood at the airfield with my 1972 PA28 checklist in hand and all keen and eager to fly.... Weather looks a bit grim and I'd rather not fly but you are suggesting Gordon Gekko is going to rock up and rip me a new one unless I go? And all for for what..? £100? OK.

Have a word with yourself will you. Heli in town was a result of a pilot wanting to do a nice job for a guy with the possibility to trade to a biz jet job.. yes commercial pressure. the 139 in Norfolk the pax was the employer.. yes commercial pressure. Snotter spam can, hundred quid for fuel and a bacon sandwich is hardly the same. Well not in most people's world.

[maxred]

Change, the marvellous world of change. Taken some time, but it is now upon the world of General Aviation. Most people don't like change. Takes a lot to alter the Strategic direction, with all stakeholders in agreement. The major problem for General Aviation, is that a lot of its participants need to wake up and smell the coffee. Change is coming, through a variety of mediums, and it would be better that the new wave is accepted, adopted, and molded into the brave new world. The silver, wiry, and shaped moustaches are disappearing.

[Jonzarno]

@GBS

GBS
With great respect, what you describe in your last post is very far from how these cost sharing flights work.

Certainly when I used to offer them, I always made it clear to riders as soon as they asked to join me on a flight that it was subject to change or cancellation, either due to weather or even just because my plans might change.

I wrote an account of the way I used to handle this in my earlier post in this thread and would encourage you to read it, as it addresses all of the points you make here. I will say that the grand total of commercial pressure I faced when I did decide to cancel or reschedule a flight was precisely zero.

The simple fact is that cost sharing flights are legal and have been going on legally since well before ride sharing sites had ever been heard of; and under CAA and EASA (both organisations not exactly famous for their flexibility in enforcing licensing regs!), arranging them using Skyuber or Wingly is legal as well.

If you think cost sharing flights should be banned because they are in some way less safe than a flight with no cost sharing: that's an opinion to which you are entitled, and I suggest you lobby the CAA / EASA for a change in the rules.

The suggestion that somehow these ride sharing sites are spawning a mass of phoney charter operations is simply not supported by the facts. AFAIK, someone has identified a single naive pilot who posted an ad that he shouldn't have done. That's very far from the nightmare you seem to be having about this.

That said: if anyone really does seriously try to sell phoney charters, whatever the medium they use to do so: they should have the book thrown at them, and I doubt it would take very long for that to happen. That is because it is also against the interests of the sites to allow such ads as they would probably also be liable to prosecution for promoting an illegal charter.

[Good Business Sense]

Originally Posted by Pittsextra

GBS - In the race to tell me what a nob I am you've missed the point I was making.

Where is the commercial pressure when the only outcome of any flight is the mere part reimbursement of your costs. I'm stood at the airfield with my 1972 PA28 checklist in hand and all keen and eager to fly.... Weather looks a bit grim and I'd rather not fly but you are suggesting Gordon Gekko is going to rock up and rip me a new one unless I go? And all for for what..? £100? OK.

Have a word with yourself will you. Heli in town was a result of a pilot wanting to do a nice job for a guy with the possibility to trade to a biz jet job.. yes commercial pressure. the 139 in Norfolk the pax was the employer.. yes commercial pressure. Snotter spam can, hundred quid for fuel and a bacon sandwich is hardly the same. Well not in most people's world.

So you're not a commercial pilot, just some one with an opinion who has never been involved with paying "customers" but still state

Where is the commercial pressure when the only outcome of any flight is the mere part reimbursement of your costs.

So commercial pressure affects experienced, professional pilots but you know, despite any experience, that it would not be a problem for you - therein lies one of the the problems with PPLs flying paying customers.

Jonzarno, it's pretty obvious you have not really read the Wingly website nor taken in much of the thread and continue to justify your decisions by stating the same irrelevant stuff - having read that the French are now stamping down on the practices (and changing the law and restricting the use of wingly etc) your justifications on how it works look hollow.

[davidjohnson6]

Let us suppose in theory that Wingly raise their minimum requirements for a pilot from brand new PPL to
a) 250 hours overall experence and
b) 50 hours on type and
c) aged over 25 and
d) gained PPL at least 1 year ago

And no more 'yeah I'm flexible, let me know if you fancy going somewhere else or on a different date' adverts
Yes, this would make the wingly site look a lot quieter but would likely act as a (admittedly arbitrary) quality filter to remove some people who maybe aren't ready to take passengers quite yet

Would that suffice to make people more comfortable ? My personal opinion is that if a pilot met those 4 criteria in a verifiable way, I'd be open to going up with them

[NYBM]

Originally Posted by Good Business Sense

So you're not a commercial pilot, just some one with an opinion who has never been involved with paying "customers" but still state

Are commercial pilots the only people in the world who have to deal with "paying customers" or have to say no to disappointed people?