‘Cost sharing’ websites.
 

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?

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....

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.

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............

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...

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.

They are pretty good. Last time I saw any there was a spike between 150 hours and 200 and then it settled down again.


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.

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.

Yes, and perfectly legal to share the cost.

But does anyone really believe that PPL's don't get re-imbursed for flying "their friend" ? Maybe even "In kind", a reasonable car purchase deal, or "consideration" when subsequently employing a friendly tradesman ?

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" ?

It really doesnt matter what we think. All that matters is what a court decides. This example is clearly illegal as charging someone for coffee or other unrelated products is irrelevant. I would hope a court would consider whether there is a clear agreement to SHARE the cost as opposed to make a contribution or do a deal. Nobody knows until the CAA decides to test it or is forced to test it. Caveat emptor

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.

I don't know what exactly some posters expect the CAA to test.

The pilot "making a contribution", however small (the amount is not specified in the rules), would make such flight legal within current rules.

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.

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?

I think the fundamental base line is that when not a commercial flight, the pilot cannot 'make' any money. It cannot make him a profit, just a way to fly more cheaply...

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.

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.

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.

Exactly this situation came to pass when a former Canadian Prime Minister accepted a flight on a [non AOC] corporate aircraft. This was later found to be a "gift", which the Prime Minister was not supposed to accept. So he promptly admitted the error on his part, and wrote a cheque for the cost of the flight. Then, there were instantly problems for the private operator of the aircraft, who had no authority to accept payment for the private flight.

It's about perception of risk.
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.

No, I certainly won't take part - I don't need anyone to tell me that. Having been a member of a civilian flying club for almost thirty years and seen some of the ignorance and incompetence that goes on at PPL level, I wouldn't touch any newly qualified pilot advertising on Wingly with a barge pole, nor would I advise anyone else to do so.

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 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.

The KLM accident was the result of a tragic human error, not a deliberate attempt to bypass regulations.

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 much as you (and many forumites) may not like it, if the Wingly "rules" are followed, there are no current regulations whatsoever broken or indeed bypassed in such a flight.

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.

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!

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?