No way would I let my family wth a PPL I had never met.

I came across some awful PPL's when carrying out check rides when they had exceeded the flying clubs 28 day currency rule in my days as a flying instructor.

Wrong. Our condemnation is centred around the increased risk these passengers take without informed consent. Nobody says professional pilots under an AOC cant have an accident, but that is to confuse hazard with risk. When a passenger goes on a Wingly flight he hasnt a clue how the pilot's training differs from a commercial pilots, hasnt a clue about the oversight missing without an AOC. The rules surrounding commercial operations, which certainly are not perfect, are designed to provide an acceptable level of risk. The charter is worthless because the PPL is equally ignorant about what is missing,. He cant properly advise his fare paying passenger, sorry contributor, about the variance so both fly off with an increased level of risk.

I still fear for the first flight that leads to a fatality, even if the recent fatalities off Alderney dont end up in the Courts. The CAA may let things happen, but that is quite different to how a judge opines. And the pilot, or his dependants, may be decimated.

Don't confuse things. It is not a matter of PPL or CPL, it is a matter of skills. I have had many ATPL guys taking a checkride and performing uttermost bad in a small aircraft. Being a commercial pilot and running under AOC won't necessarily qualify to take passengers in a PA28! In fact, not few ATPL riders have less hours actually on the yoke than a typical PPL pilot, quite some fly by buttons on a glass cockpit only. This may be one reason for the confusion outside the pilots community, many license arguments are insurance discussion only.

Yes, an important theme for consumers of non AOC transportation services to consider!

Yes, 20,000 hrs. at 35,000 ft on auto pilot with hot and cold running stewardesses.

Doesn't meant they don't know a thing or two about survival tho'.

They may have less handling skills when it comes to GA aircraft, but these will quickly be re-learnt. What they will have as a result of their experience is a high appreciation of risk and defence mechanisms in which to mitigate these risks. I thought I was experienced when I had 200 hours. I thought I was really experienced when I had a thousand hours. Now I have 17,000 hours, I realise I'm still learning.

If operated under an AOC, the pilot (CPL or ATPL) would have been trained and tested on type, be that a 747 or a PA28

A good point to make reference to The Killing Zone definition by Paul A. Craig: between 50 and 350 hours flying the accident rate of pilots is highest. Yes, the total numbers decreased but the zone still is where it was before. A possible way to get pressure from the 'sharing' websites would be to only accept pilots beyond 350 flight hours, correct? I see it as damn stupid to let pilots exactly on their most probable accident rate around 100-150 flight hours take unfamiliar passengers.

At 100hrs a pilot thinks he knows it all.

At 500hrs he knows he knows it all.

At 5000hrs he knows he'll never know it all.

Just had a closer look at that website of 'Wingly'. Somehow I doubt that offer like 'All flights can be individually tailored.' and 'Flexible Dates' or 'Request a specific flight directly If you can not find the flight you want, request the flight directly to pilots!' were in the mind of the authorities when not stopping this. What do you mean?

When I did a test in the past, one of my criteria was "Would I be happy with my family being flown by this pilot?" And being a safety professional, I know the details of some airline's operations and there are some I will not let my family get on. The danger here is that the cost sharers do not have the experience to judge by these criteria and won't know if the operation is safe or not - the pilot profiles are uninformed and naïve. And with the extra pressure the pilot faces to get their 'fare paying passenger' to their destination, safety margins will be eroded.

I have heard it mentioned on PPRuNe and other pilot forums that there is not the data to suggest that this operation is unsafe. Safety is not just reactive - if you apply a standard risk matrix to Wingly operations, the result is quite high. In my opinion, Wingly is taking advantage of EASA's weak regulation and the eventual result will be catastrophic and tragic.

I notice with interest that Sky Uber has already ceased operations.

Cost sharing guidelines have been updated:

https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviati...aring-flights/