‘Cost sharing’ websites.
Thread Starter
‘Cost sharing’ websites.
Just browsing Wingly I am staggered how many low houred pilots are touting for business.
My understanding of the rules on cost sharing is that a passenger can make a contribution to the cost of the flight where the pilot is already going from A to B.
However the Wingly website appears to list many private pilots openly suggesting this is the Uber of the skies.
Rotorway helicopter and C152 PPL’s with around 75 hours is not my idea of safe paid passenger flying.
There is one guy with a total of 55 hours advertising flight in a DA40!
This system appears to completely undermine proper regulated commercial charter operations.
My understanding of the rules on cost sharing is that a passenger can make a contribution to the cost of the flight where the pilot is already going from A to B.
However the Wingly website appears to list many private pilots openly suggesting this is the Uber of the skies.
Rotorway helicopter and C152 PPL’s with around 75 hours is not my idea of safe paid passenger flying.
There is one guy with a total of 55 hours advertising flight in a DA40!
This system appears to completely undermine proper regulated commercial charter operations.
Last edited by Mike Flynn; 27th Jan 2019 at 11:13. Reason: typo
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we really want to open up this box of pandora discussion again?
When Wingly arrived, there was a lot of fuzz and after heavy discussion it was accepted under specific circumstances by EASA. The fact of authorities being unable to enforce the specific circumstances set it to be legal was also openly discussed. The problem is EASA not doing the same as FAA, say No to any of this business. I wonder how many N-reg aircraft will be on Wingly ... I wonder how many of these pilots do declare the fees collected in their income statement too ... As long as there are holes in the cheese, worms will crawl through. Interesting enough it looks as if with increasing flight hours pilots appear to abandon Wingly, guess why?
When Wingly arrived, there was a lot of fuzz and after heavy discussion it was accepted under specific circumstances by EASA. The fact of authorities being unable to enforce the specific circumstances set it to be legal was also openly discussed. The problem is EASA not doing the same as FAA, say No to any of this business. I wonder how many N-reg aircraft will be on Wingly ... I wonder how many of these pilots do declare the fees collected in their income statement too ... As long as there are holes in the cheese, worms will crawl through. Interesting enough it looks as if with increasing flight hours pilots appear to abandon Wingly, guess why?
Mike, you are absolutely correct but, since neither the inappropriately named European Aviation SAFETY Agency nor our own incompetent authority appears to give a toss, there doesn't seem to be a lot we can do about it. At least, not until one of these inexperienced fools is pressured by his paying customer into doing something stupid, and someone dies.
The risk of a 100 hour pilot having an accident may be no greater on a Wingly flight than when he is flying alone or with a friend. The issues are
first that it is a further nail in the coffin of small AOC operators, many of whom are also training establishments. It may increase training and competency costs, reduce choice, and hasten the demise of general aviation
second that one day there will be an accident or a tax investigation or something else and as always happens in the UK the result will be to punish and ban. The industry and hobbyists will be hit with restrictions and additional regulations.
I suppose if you have a shiny new PPL, are desperate to fly and have little understanding of GA this seems like a great idea. Time to educate....
first that it is a further nail in the coffin of small AOC operators, many of whom are also training establishments. It may increase training and competency costs, reduce choice, and hasten the demise of general aviation
second that one day there will be an accident or a tax investigation or something else and as always happens in the UK the result will be to punish and ban. The industry and hobbyists will be hit with restrictions and additional regulations.
I suppose if you have a shiny new PPL, are desperate to fly and have little understanding of GA this seems like a great idea. Time to educate....
Thread Starter
In my opinion there is genuine cost sharing between club pilots where often ppl’s share flying legs.
However rookie pilots with a new licence are hardly qualified to be flying the general public on sight seeing expeditions.
It appears from my limited research the helicopters and aircraft are often rented.
That of course throws up insurance issues.
I have seen pictures online of ppl’s wearing a pilots shirt with four bars.
There are sightseeing helicopter tours through the Thames being touted.
The recent Malibu accident highlights what happens when things go wrong.
However rookie pilots with a new licence are hardly qualified to be flying the general public on sight seeing expeditions.
It appears from my limited research the helicopters and aircraft are often rented.
That of course throws up insurance issues.
I have seen pictures online of ppl’s wearing a pilots shirt with four bars.
There are sightseeing helicopter tours through the Thames being touted.
The recent Malibu accident highlights what happens when things go wrong.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure I agree with wingly... flying light aircraft isn't exactly without risk. Do the general public really know what they're letting themselves in for? At the very least the min requirements should be a CPL or FI ticket.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has already been done to death in multiple threads across multiple fora. For example:
Dodgy or legit
Dodgy or legit
I have just got back into GA after many years away from light aircraft. If I find another like-minded PPL who wishes to share the costs of some flying then there should not be a problem. I am astounded however at the lack of experience indicated on these web-sites by pilots who offer sight-seeing and similar air experience flights on what is clearly an attempt to gain financial reward on the pretext of expenses. I well remember, decades ago, being asked by my then flying club to fly a couple of engineers to Biggin so they could fix an aircraft; I knew diddly squat in those days and got hopelessly lost somewhere over East London and it was my knowledge of Geography rather than navigation which got me out of a potential hole. Can of worms methinks............
Thread Starter
This has already been done to death in multiple threads across multiple fora. For example:
Dodgy or legit
Dodgy or legit
I was minded to look at Wingly because of the Malibu accident which was clearly in breach of the rules.
It apears to me the CAA need to sharpen their act. Like many I have a US airman certificate which clearly states it is only vald when used in conjunction with a British licence.UK rules must therefore apply when flying N reg in UK or European airspace?
I seem to recall the CAA being involved in trying to stop a US instructor using his N reg aircraft for instruction at Norwich some years ago.
I am appalled at some of the blatant touting for business by very low houred UK pilots.
Whilst sharing the concerns about low hour pilots, the regulating authorities (in the UK at least) have defined it as legal. Therefore, it's legal.
I don't like smoking, it kills thousands of people every year (both directly and indirectly) but I'm not calling for it to be criminalised...
I don't like smoking, it kills thousands of people every year (both directly and indirectly) but I'm not calling for it to be criminalised...
I visited an airfield the other day and the resident training establishment have notices to members stating that their insurance company have declared flights of this nature to be unacceptable and therefore they are not to be done, if you continue you are effectively uninsured using this particular fleet of aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Barbados
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does look as if it is being used as a cheap and likely risky air taxi.
Some pilots are just certified, with scary low hours - I am guessing that they do not own the airplanes and likely only fly when they get a 'punter'.
I actually signed up to it, to see what it is like and how it works - got connected to a couple for my usual Sunday morning circuit of the island - I own the airplane, it takes 30 minutes or so and Avgas is US7.50 a gallon, so marginal cost about $12 each, plus they would have the Wingly fees on top - I didn't give Wingly my bank details so I didn't take the money.
It was as fun trip, they got to see the island from the air, spotted the flying club's 172 zoom by and a Boeing heavy freighter on short final as we joined the circuit. At the time I had about 300 hours, a couple of hundred in the airplane, in a very benign environment with which I am very familiar, in near perfect weather, constant flight following - but I thought even during the flight, what if I were lower hours, in an unfamiliar rental, on an unfamiliar route, in less perfect weather, with serious expectations of my passengers to get to their destination. Then my weirdest thought, a good way for a couple of strangers to commit suicide - but then I do tend to see the downside of things.
Now here it gets even weirder - I am a VFR only pilot, no plans for an IR, but quite like the idea of doing a a commercial non-IR which the FAA have - that would mean I can only fly 50 miles or so from the airport with passengers. To do a VFR only commercial one must have 250 hours - this is a rule of an aviation authority which EASA thinks doesn't have such good standards as EASA, which has determined that 250 hours is the minimum number of hours and then after additional training will limit one to 50 mile trips - not Wingly type adverts as that is holding out.
So singluarly unimpressed that Wingly does not have a minimum number of total hours and hours on type.
Still waiting for the first Wingly passenger death - there is a suggestion that the Channel crash, although not a Wingly flight, had some of the characteristics i.e. a not legitimately certified pilot, low on currency in an unfamiliar airplane (the armchair pundits are postulating not running the pitot heat during the flight, the story does that the POH says on all the time in the conditions of the flight).
I do agree with the idea that it there is always risk, it seems that renter's insurers have determined that it is too great, so no Wingly flights (likely to renters concerned about their vicarious liability) - I banned a renter from renting my airplane six years ago when I found the surprising number of "friends" she was flying down to Union were yacthies paying a small fortune for the flights (px in my Archer their luggage in her Archer - seems mine was deemed better maintained!). As an aside, her Archer was the one that was written off on Richard Terrelonge's off airport landing five years ago when the engine quit turning base, and her Seneca likewise when the gear failed and it belly landing here.
While not a fan of regulation I do think that Wingly type flights should require airplanes be maintained to commercial standards (100hr inspections), that the pilots should have 100hrs post PPL, 10 hours in the type, under take some form of training in managing strangers in the airplane, some document to show to Wingly that they meet those requirements.
Some pilots are just certified, with scary low hours - I am guessing that they do not own the airplanes and likely only fly when they get a 'punter'.
I actually signed up to it, to see what it is like and how it works - got connected to a couple for my usual Sunday morning circuit of the island - I own the airplane, it takes 30 minutes or so and Avgas is US7.50 a gallon, so marginal cost about $12 each, plus they would have the Wingly fees on top - I didn't give Wingly my bank details so I didn't take the money.
It was as fun trip, they got to see the island from the air, spotted the flying club's 172 zoom by and a Boeing heavy freighter on short final as we joined the circuit. At the time I had about 300 hours, a couple of hundred in the airplane, in a very benign environment with which I am very familiar, in near perfect weather, constant flight following - but I thought even during the flight, what if I were lower hours, in an unfamiliar rental, on an unfamiliar route, in less perfect weather, with serious expectations of my passengers to get to their destination. Then my weirdest thought, a good way for a couple of strangers to commit suicide - but then I do tend to see the downside of things.
Now here it gets even weirder - I am a VFR only pilot, no plans for an IR, but quite like the idea of doing a a commercial non-IR which the FAA have - that would mean I can only fly 50 miles or so from the airport with passengers. To do a VFR only commercial one must have 250 hours - this is a rule of an aviation authority which EASA thinks doesn't have such good standards as EASA, which has determined that 250 hours is the minimum number of hours and then after additional training will limit one to 50 mile trips - not Wingly type adverts as that is holding out.
So singluarly unimpressed that Wingly does not have a minimum number of total hours and hours on type.
Still waiting for the first Wingly passenger death - there is a suggestion that the Channel crash, although not a Wingly flight, had some of the characteristics i.e. a not legitimately certified pilot, low on currency in an unfamiliar airplane (the armchair pundits are postulating not running the pitot heat during the flight, the story does that the POH says on all the time in the conditions of the flight).
I do agree with the idea that it there is always risk, it seems that renter's insurers have determined that it is too great, so no Wingly flights (likely to renters concerned about their vicarious liability) - I banned a renter from renting my airplane six years ago when I found the surprising number of "friends" she was flying down to Union were yacthies paying a small fortune for the flights (px in my Archer their luggage in her Archer - seems mine was deemed better maintained!). As an aside, her Archer was the one that was written off on Richard Terrelonge's off airport landing five years ago when the engine quit turning base, and her Seneca likewise when the gear failed and it belly landing here.
While not a fan of regulation I do think that Wingly type flights should require airplanes be maintained to commercial standards (100hr inspections), that the pilots should have 100hrs post PPL, 10 hours in the type, under take some form of training in managing strangers in the airplane, some document to show to Wingly that they meet those requirements.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instinctively it feels wrong.
But I wonder what the accident stats are for low hours PPLs vs higher?
I read something in the CAA Skyway code that made a nod towards the idea of complacency in higher hour pilots... though it didn’t go as far as making it a statistical fact.
But I wonder what the accident stats are for low hours PPLs vs higher?
I read something in the CAA Skyway code that made a nod towards the idea of complacency in higher hour pilots... though it didn’t go as far as making it a statistical fact.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I wonder what the accident stats are for low hours PPLs vs higher?
I presume sub 100 their confidence isn't high enough to give them enough rope to hang themselves with.
Most will give up when they get their 150 hours to start CPL and IR training.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Barbados
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I have not seen any reliable figures it is a "well established" fact that the high period of risk for private pilots is in the 300 - 400 hour period.
I suggest that this is when one has moved from the only flying in perfect conditions to gaining a little more confidence that they should have (I am low 300 hours and experienced such a thing this Saturday in Martinique - very dodgy weather, I was 1800ft 3 miles from the airport in and out of cloud and about to call it quits and fly back home when a large gap appeared - when I was 200 hours I likely would not have left home due to the 1400ft broken cloud on their METAR).
These issues of numbers are not the issue here. I as 200 or lower pilot would not have flown - but what if I had people I "had" to fly - that 'pressure' would slew the numbers - that's the whole point, not can someone fly in their local area - yes certified, but rather the judgement of should I or should I not do the flight, especially with someone I may be letting down; thus getting into a situation that I cannot (maybe by the skin of my teeth) get out of when the decision proves a bad one.
There is a whole lot of officious stuff that goes with flying no matter where one flies and under what regulations - the no paying passengers without additional training and certifications seems to have stood everyone in good stead for decades. The fiction of cost sharing is just that, a fiction - looks at some of the prices people are quoting, no way is the pilot paying his "share" are seems to be making a nice profit from it. As I said waiting for the first deaths from one of these wheezes, the company will likely disappear, and the relatives will, I suggest, have a pretty good claim against the regulators who permitted it to happen.
I suggest that this is when one has moved from the only flying in perfect conditions to gaining a little more confidence that they should have (I am low 300 hours and experienced such a thing this Saturday in Martinique - very dodgy weather, I was 1800ft 3 miles from the airport in and out of cloud and about to call it quits and fly back home when a large gap appeared - when I was 200 hours I likely would not have left home due to the 1400ft broken cloud on their METAR).
These issues of numbers are not the issue here. I as 200 or lower pilot would not have flown - but what if I had people I "had" to fly - that 'pressure' would slew the numbers - that's the whole point, not can someone fly in their local area - yes certified, but rather the judgement of should I or should I not do the flight, especially with someone I may be letting down; thus getting into a situation that I cannot (maybe by the skin of my teeth) get out of when the decision proves a bad one.
There is a whole lot of officious stuff that goes with flying no matter where one flies and under what regulations - the no paying passengers without additional training and certifications seems to have stood everyone in good stead for decades. The fiction of cost sharing is just that, a fiction - looks at some of the prices people are quoting, no way is the pilot paying his "share" are seems to be making a nice profit from it. As I said waiting for the first deaths from one of these wheezes, the company will likely disappear, and the relatives will, I suggest, have a pretty good claim against the regulators who permitted it to happen.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The right side of the Pennines
Age: 73
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion there is genuine cost sharing between club pilots where often ppl’s share flying legs.
However rookie pilots with a new licence are hardly qualified to be flying the general public on sight seeing expeditions.
What is to stop a PPL hiring the club aircraft, paying for it, but then charging "the friend" for a cup of Nescafe brewed up in the club kitchen afterwards ? Not ethical, or approved by the CAA, but would that be "legal" ?
Last edited by YorkshireTyke; 28th Jan 2019 at 23:42.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’d forgot I’d even got a copy. Over on another thread someone mentioned Fate is Hunter, and it reminded me of how many of the old classics I bought back when I was qualifying.
Off to raid some boxes.
What is to stop a PPL hiring the club aircraft, paying for it, but then charging "the friend" for a cup of Nescafe brewed up in the club kitchen afterwards ? Not ethical, or approved by the CAA, but would that be "legal" ?
The reality is that whilst the 'coffee' is paid for after the flight, there will never be an investigation because the flight clearly went well.
And it's the same (no investigation) result if an accident prevents the coffee being bought at all.
And it's the same (no investigation) result if an accident prevents the coffee being bought at all.