Dodgy or legit?
 

This seems rather dodgy or are such "non-common purpose" flight services now legit in EASAland?

Man flies from London to Newcastle for half price of train | Daily Mail Online

I can't see the problem. True, the risk is many times that of travelling by rail or scheduled airline but presumably that's been made plain to people using the service. The actual cost of running a Mooney from Elstree to Newcastle must be far in excess of what was actually paid - I shouldn't think £67 even covered the fuel. I see the pilot was going that way anyway and thought it was a great way of introducing someone to the joys of flying.
If you regard it as a cheap Trial Lesson, it seems to put it into perspective.

Dodgy.

I wonder if the aircraft insurer thinks that this is the use of the aircraft they are insuring. If there's a claim, the owner will find out...

The traveller, who is a member of "the public", presents the story of his travel as though he "bought a ticket" on a private flight. I doubt that the private flight met the characterization of carrying the passenger incidental to the flight.

Pilots considering offering themselves to provide this type of service really should understand exactly what they are getting themselves into. Personally, for me... not even close to the bother and risk....

The service this guy used, Wingly have their own 'cost sharing friendly' insurance policy underwritten by Allianz covering aircraft, pilot and sharers. If I understand correctly the policy only pays if the original insurer refuses a claim.

Also keep in mind that this guy paid £67 for his seat. There could well have been another sharers onboard too.

Dodgy.
This is an air taxi in all but name. Professional pilots study very expensively to exercise the privileges of the commercial licence and to have we PPL holders doing their work is simply wrong.

Under the FAR's this practice is downright illegal.

One needs "common purpose" - so I happen to be flying to the pace you want to go and so we share the "costs" - the costs to an owner are the marginal costs - so fuel, fees, a quid or two for the oil etc. and maybe something for the engine fund.

I am aware of a couple of companies who are trying to do this sort of thing in the US - as a result it now transpires that simply posting on the internet an intent to make a trip and seeing of anyone wants to come along or is going that way is also not legit.

Personally with my airplane, which is maintained to the public standard, I will rent you the airplane even if you can't fly and I'll even give you the numbers of the commercial pilots in the area checked out to fly it - seems this is legit, if you want to share costs no problem - the pilot will fly for free as he crawls his way towards the magic ATPL numbers.

The important thing is the it is insured for this and a commercial pilot is flying it - a random member of the public being flown by a PPL seems to me to open up all sort of problems.

The weird thing is that in the land of the EASA, who I understand clamp down on everything compared to the supposed "open" US authorities, just a notice is possible and not a cause for concern.

Turning to the FAR's again - there is a complicated set of rules even for taking members of the public on quick flights around the circuit for a charity event - minimum numbers of hours are needed, notification of the FSDO etc. but here newly minted PPL can fly someone who will likley not know his abilities and "Mr. PPL" will no doubt feel the 'pressure' to get the punter to the destination - recipe for disaster I think.

As has been said it will be interesting to see what happens when the first death or serious injury occurs.

'Bent Charter'

This kind of thing isn't new... There was a company called SkyUber that made the news some time ago.

The way it is reported however, is a little misleading to say the least! It does sound as though he "purchased an airline ticket", but he really didn't, he got lucky that someone was going there anyway.

I am not surprised of some of the responses on here being a little off with regards to this practice, but this is not too dissimilar to taking your friends & family flying and them paying for share of the costs. Most people have a destination in mind (whether local or not), and most passengers don't pay the full share of the flight... The only MAJOR difference is that you don't know the person sitting next to you. He could be a criminal, drug addict, or some sort of fanatic! You just don't know - and that alone would freak me out!

It does look a little bit like an advert for wingly though...!

Are you referring to the pilot?

Nice one.

alex90,

I sit next to perfect strangers around 100 times a year giving them flying lessons for the first time. I'll be planning to encourage them to take control of the aircraft after about 10 minutes from strapping in. I think that you can reduce the risk of issues by carefully laying down the ground rules in a friendly manner before starting the engine.

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.

hahaha! Talkdownman - definitely goes both ways does it not?

TheOddOne, I always (certainly wrongly) had the belief that someone seeking a trial lesson / seeking to pursue flight training would be unlikely in being a lunatic. Especially at those costs per hour!! But I am 100% sure that I am wrong. Also - in a trial flight environment, you'd like to think that you'd be able to smell a rat, don't you? If the character looks/feels a little dodgy, you may or may not wish to continue the trial lesson whilst still on the ground. I feel when you have someone who has paid for a seat, rather than an experience / training flight, the attitude is somewhat different, and these kind of teasing questions to figure out if the person sitting next to you, who happens to have a set of controls is of sound mind...

Uberair anyone?

Nothing wrong at all as long you make sure they understand perfectly clear that they are flying with a rank amateur who is building hours in order to meet the entry requirements in order to become a professional pilot where they will then be trained to carry fair paying passengers. They should understand the risk clearly they are undertaking and that they are paying you a share of the costs as a friend not for a flight service.

In Australia the regulator allows cost sharing but only if "public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of public advertisement or announcement".

This subject has been done to death both here and on Flyer. Bottom line is that both Wingly and Skyuber claim to have official confirmation from EASA that what they are doing is legal. The FAA, on the other hand, consider this to be "holding out" and therefore they do not approve it.

I confess to some concern that AOPA (UK) appears to be endorsing this with adverts in the magazine and I'm pretty sure I got an email from them about it recently.

Notwithstanding my qualifications it's not for me.

That sounds fun. If, for example, the original insurer has a clause that if there are multiple insurers they only pay their share .. ... ???

On of the questions asked when taking out life insurance is about flying other than as afee paying passenger. Could be that your private life insurance might not pay out. You then rely on liability insurance. I am thinking about the general public not those involved in aviation who should have notified their insurer in any case. Can't see a mention of this on their web site.