‘Cost sharing’ websites.
The pilot "making a contribution", however small (the amount is not specified in the rules), would make such flight legal within current rules.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,572
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
I try to relate this to how competent I actually was when "just qualified" at PPL level (over 45 years ago) = not very competent!
I qualified for a PPL at the age of 17-18. I then joined the RAF and underwent basic flying training, followed by advanced flying training. The "wings" award didn't come until I had over 250 hours in total and by then I held instrument ratings on four different types of aircraft.
The training was far more intense than any PPL has to go through. With just over 300 hours of experience in total I arrived at my first squadron. I was then required to undergo six months of close supervision before being deemed "combat ready".
The thought of a newly qualified and possibly over confident hours builder (because that is what most of them are) flying unwitting, fare paying passengers is extremely worrying to say the least.
Sadly, the "Whoa!" factor will probably not come from the CAA, who seem to have stood back from their responsibility in this respect, but from the insurance companies.
I qualified for a PPL at the age of 17-18. I then joined the RAF and underwent basic flying training, followed by advanced flying training. The "wings" award didn't come until I had over 250 hours in total and by then I held instrument ratings on four different types of aircraft.
The training was far more intense than any PPL has to go through. With just over 300 hours of experience in total I arrived at my first squadron. I was then required to undergo six months of close supervision before being deemed "combat ready".
The thought of a newly qualified and possibly over confident hours builder (because that is what most of them are) flying unwitting, fare paying passengers is extremely worrying to say the least.
Sadly, the "Whoa!" factor will probably not come from the CAA, who seem to have stood back from their responsibility in this respect, but from the insurance companies.
What im not able to square is how regulation dictates commercial works requires commercial pilots operating with an AOC and that the cost of meeting that regulation beyond the initial aquisition of the commercial licence is high yet the same regulator seems reasonably relaxed with the opening up of cost sharing. Any insights?
Hi Sam yes i agree but of course the problem comes in trying to set a level on costs and how that is evidenced.
but really that wasnt the question from me, what i dont get is are the CAA unhappy about cost sharing but they are forced to suck it up because the wording is clumsy and the wording will change asap OR have they decided that actually the costs of regulation for commercial operators is too high and they will have freedoms asap? It seems from comments made by commercial helicopter operators that we are in an unusual place where neither is going to happen? That last option seems irreconcilable to me.
but really that wasnt the question from me, what i dont get is are the CAA unhappy about cost sharing but they are forced to suck it up because the wording is clumsy and the wording will change asap OR have they decided that actually the costs of regulation for commercial operators is too high and they will have freedoms asap? It seems from comments made by commercial helicopter operators that we are in an unusual place where neither is going to happen? That last option seems irreconcilable to me.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,572
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
An employer owns his own private aircraft, for which he employs a suitably experienced, two pilot CPL/IR qualified crew to fly for him. Because he does not hold an AOC he is prohibited by law to take along other passengers who contribute financially to the flight. Rightly so, because his organisation is not as tightly regulated or overseen as an AOC operation.
However, a newly qualified PPL without an IR can openly advertise to sell seats to offset the cost of any flight he undertakes.
Would anyone in their right mind willingly go on a European road trip in marginal weather with someone they have never met before and who has hidden the fact that they have only just passed their driving test?
Crazy.
However, a newly qualified PPL without an IR can openly advertise to sell seats to offset the cost of any flight he undertakes.
Would anyone in their right mind willingly go on a European road trip in marginal weather with someone they have never met before and who has hidden the fact that they have only just passed their driving test?
Crazy.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Marlow UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But surely that is the point. Crazy it might be, but the rules do not prevent it. Doesn't the Taxi industry have the same argument about Uber, and like it or not the fact that People are using the service,either Wingly or Uber (your so called crazy ones) will determine whether they succeed or not.
Let's face it some recent negative press about sexual crimes by Uber drivers hasn't stopped the service, and actually one of the worst mass murderers in Britain was a Taxi Driver.
Even if a Wingly trip ends up in a smoking hole, will it change things as people seem to think, probably not, because there is no 100% guarantee with fully qualified 20,000 hour experienced commercial pilots at the helm either. The worst aviation accident in history had the most senior KLM training captain at the controls, so despite all of the naysayers and indignation on here and other Pilot forums, experience and qualifications are no guarantee of quality in aviation or any other walk of life.
If you don't like the idea, don't take part, but don't condemn those that do, based on their perceived skill level due to the number of hours experience they have.
I expect many on here complaining about low hours pilots advertising on Wingly took their nearest and dearest up when they had similar low experience, so where does one draw the line.
Having got stuck overnight at Headcorn due to impending darkness on a return trip from France recently due to a 2.5 hour wait for fuel at Deuville, myself and wife were nearly killed in a head on collision in the taxi on the way back to the airfield in the morning. I don't know how we managed to miss it because I was sat in the front and the other cars number plate had disappeared under the bonnet line and I let out a scream before our taxi driver reacted and swerved to the side. A far more frightening experience than the Channel crossing flight
I do not use Wingly but have taken quite a few people for flights, both fixed wing and rotary , but never charged anything, but I have sometimes allowed them to buy me a cuppa at the destination. I am fortunate that I can afford to do so, and get pleasure from sharing the experience with people who might otherwise not have the opportunity.
One of the worst flights I ever had was with an experienced pilot the CFI asked to take me up for an experience flight before I learnt to fly. nearly put me off flying. So in the same way that some drivers have scared the heck out of me, some pilots have also done so, and the only common theme was that experience i.e. hours flown or miles driven were no indication of ability.
Let's face it some recent negative press about sexual crimes by Uber drivers hasn't stopped the service, and actually one of the worst mass murderers in Britain was a Taxi Driver.
Even if a Wingly trip ends up in a smoking hole, will it change things as people seem to think, probably not, because there is no 100% guarantee with fully qualified 20,000 hour experienced commercial pilots at the helm either. The worst aviation accident in history had the most senior KLM training captain at the controls, so despite all of the naysayers and indignation on here and other Pilot forums, experience and qualifications are no guarantee of quality in aviation or any other walk of life.
If you don't like the idea, don't take part, but don't condemn those that do, based on their perceived skill level due to the number of hours experience they have.
I expect many on here complaining about low hours pilots advertising on Wingly took their nearest and dearest up when they had similar low experience, so where does one draw the line.
Having got stuck overnight at Headcorn due to impending darkness on a return trip from France recently due to a 2.5 hour wait for fuel at Deuville, myself and wife were nearly killed in a head on collision in the taxi on the way back to the airfield in the morning. I don't know how we managed to miss it because I was sat in the front and the other cars number plate had disappeared under the bonnet line and I let out a scream before our taxi driver reacted and swerved to the side. A far more frightening experience than the Channel crossing flight
I do not use Wingly but have taken quite a few people for flights, both fixed wing and rotary , but never charged anything, but I have sometimes allowed them to buy me a cuppa at the destination. I am fortunate that I can afford to do so, and get pleasure from sharing the experience with people who might otherwise not have the opportunity.
One of the worst flights I ever had was with an experienced pilot the CFI asked to take me up for an experience flight before I learnt to fly. nearly put me off flying. So in the same way that some drivers have scared the heck out of me, some pilots have also done so, and the only common theme was that experience i.e. hours flown or miles driven were no indication of ability.
Moderator
An employer owns his own private aircraft, for which he employs a suitably experienced, two pilot CPL/IR qualified crew to fly for him. Because he does not hold an AOC he is prohibited by law to take along other passengers who contribute financially to the flight. Rightly so, because his organisation is not as tightly regulated or overseen as an AOC operation.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,572
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
I expect many on here complaining about low hours pilots advertising on Wingly took their nearest and dearest up when they had similar low experience, so where does one draw the line.
For example, the RAF rules I was subject to wouldn't allow a squadron pilot to fly his own wife as a passenger; although he could fly the wife of another pilot. Looking back, I never flew any of my family until I had been flying as a professional pilot for thirty five years or so. When I finally did, it was in a civilian registered, and maintained to AOC standards, twin engined aircraft when I had around 10,000 hours and an ATPL.
If you don't like the idea, don't take part, but don't condemn those that do, based on their perceived skill level due to the number of hours experience they have.
Would you go on holiday in an airliner flown by a Wingly pilot?
As for Uber taxis? No thankyou.
I've been in licenced taxis that were clean and driven very well, I've been in licenced taxis that were filthy and driven appallingly.
I've been in Uber that were clean and driven very well, I've not yet been in one that was either dirty or badly driven.
So far.
Currently seems most Uber drivers are uber-happy to have a job and will do anything to keep it - whilst perhaps some taxi drivers have been doing it for 20+ years and frankly aren't that bothered any more (which is understandable)?
I've been in Uber that were clean and driven very well, I've not yet been in one that was either dirty or badly driven.
So far.
Currently seems most Uber drivers are uber-happy to have a job and will do anything to keep it - whilst perhaps some taxi drivers have been doing it for 20+ years and frankly aren't that bothered any more (which is understandable)?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Marlow UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reiterate, experience and qualifications are no sure measure of how well things will be handled, despite what we might hope.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,572
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
I refer you to the KLM 747 crash I mentioned earlier, flown by the senior KLM training captain, who tried to take off in thick fog on an occupied runway.
I reiterate, experience and qualifications are no sure measure of how well things will be handled, despite what we might hope.
I reiterate, experience and qualifications are no sure measure of how well things will be handled, despite what we might hope.
I believe Sky Uber was the first such platform some few years ago. Not sure if it still exists. As soon as heard of such things I banned their use at our Club, before the emergence of Wingly. I don't know of any airfield around or near London that hasn't banned them. Our Airfield Manager did so over a year ago..............
As for Aero Clubs banning Wingly, entirely up to them what their aircraft are used for. Has no effect on my decision making with regards to my aircraft though.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of a South coast PPL blatantly advertising these flights as pleasure flights and sightseeing flights on social media. 4 up in a PA28 job’s at that. His inexperience is obvious to most inside the industry, but the worrying thing is that the reviews of his more or less commercial operation are excellent. The public just do not know.
The other worrying thing is that this guys FB is full of photos of his passengers flying the aircraft. Impromptu flying lessons from a 200 hour PPL. Accident waiting to happen.
At this same airfield, another company is advertising scenic flights, operated as a ‘pleasure flying club’. Nowhere on their website does it state that flights will be operated by a PPL. They get around things by charging a membership fee to their passengers. Hardly fair to legitimate flying schools and AOC’s.
The other worrying thing is that this guys FB is full of photos of his passengers flying the aircraft. Impromptu flying lessons from a 200 hour PPL. Accident waiting to happen.
At this same airfield, another company is advertising scenic flights, operated as a ‘pleasure flying club’. Nowhere on their website does it state that flights will be operated by a PPL. They get around things by charging a membership fee to their passengers. Hardly fair to legitimate flying schools and AOC’s.
Last edited by Hawker 800; 31st Jan 2019 at 09:58.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's kind of like steering a super tanker, you have to think ahead, and it happens slowly, but regulation is driven by what society wants - we elect the rule makers. Citizens should be making representations to the regulator if they would like to see a rule change. Sadly, eager, innocent passengers probably do not know enough to understand how much safety they are surrendering when they patronize chisel charters, so they probably won't be complaining about that type of service until after the accident. But we experienced pilots know better.
Eager PPL's will equate taking random citizen flying for compensation, to taking their family member. I don't buy it. Anyone's family member is a part of their life, in whom they have some emotional investment, random citizen with money, no. And, PPL knows that family member knows "where they've come from" in piloting. Sure, every pilot is entitled to transition from newly minted PPL to experienced pilot. However the risk taking, showing off, and pressure to continue a flight must be kept to a minimum during that phase of their learning. PPL X knows that cousin Y will go another day if the weather's iffy on flying day. Chisel Charter PPL will more likely see opportunity lost, and press on to collect the compensation, even if flying is a poor choice that day.
AOC's have three responsibilities here: To do their part to deny access to rental chisel charter PPL's, to comment back to regulators that their hard earned privilege and flying safety are being compromised by chisel charters, and, doing their part to inform the public as to the differences between an AOC service and chisel charters in terms of safety and oversight.
In the mean time, the PPL's who are providing this service to the general public around the spirit of AOC authorized services, should be ashamed of themselves, and they know it. The fact that social media provides a communication means to enable such a dubious service, does not legitimize it!
Eager PPL's will equate taking random citizen flying for compensation, to taking their family member. I don't buy it. Anyone's family member is a part of their life, in whom they have some emotional investment, random citizen with money, no. And, PPL knows that family member knows "where they've come from" in piloting. Sure, every pilot is entitled to transition from newly minted PPL to experienced pilot. However the risk taking, showing off, and pressure to continue a flight must be kept to a minimum during that phase of their learning. PPL X knows that cousin Y will go another day if the weather's iffy on flying day. Chisel Charter PPL will more likely see opportunity lost, and press on to collect the compensation, even if flying is a poor choice that day.
AOC's have three responsibilities here: To do their part to deny access to rental chisel charter PPL's, to comment back to regulators that their hard earned privilege and flying safety are being compromised by chisel charters, and, doing their part to inform the public as to the differences between an AOC service and chisel charters in terms of safety and oversight.
In the mean time, the PPL's who are providing this service to the general public around the spirit of AOC authorized services, should be ashamed of themselves, and they know it. The fact that social media provides a communication means to enable such a dubious service, does not legitimize it!
Bypass of regulation and the blatant advertising of sight seeing flights... then why aren't those bypassing regulations or advertisers being taken to task by authority under the existing framework of rules?
