Wingly & helicopters
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At some point yes, having said that at some point so will one or two AOC operators, but Wingly IMHO is much more likely to result in said outcome much sooner.
Whilst seemingly legal , it makes a mockery of holding an AOC and all of the associated costs.
A lot of companies now won't permit their self fly hire aircraft to be used for it, some when they find out that they are competing with their self fly hirers for pleasure flying business are less than amused and I can see why.
They (Wingly) used to have a one line entry on their website to say helicopter flights are not covered by their insurance, not sure if that is still there.
Whilst EASA Part CAT is overdoing it with regards to hoops to jump through for safe operations, schemes like Wingly massively under do it, there was a pilot last year with about 70Hrs TT near London offering pleasure flights up and down the Thames with no oversight through Wingly.
Whilst seemingly legal , it makes a mockery of holding an AOC and all of the associated costs.
A lot of companies now won't permit their self fly hire aircraft to be used for it, some when they find out that they are competing with their self fly hirers for pleasure flying business are less than amused and I can see why.
They (Wingly) used to have a one line entry on their website to say helicopter flights are not covered by their insurance, not sure if that is still there.
Whilst EASA Part CAT is overdoing it with regards to hoops to jump through for safe operations, schemes like Wingly massively under do it, there was a pilot last year with about 70Hrs TT near London offering pleasure flights up and down the Thames with no oversight through Wingly.
There is also an approx 77 hour TT helicopter pilot who operates out of Doncaster. Using an R22/44, he appears to advertise what can only be described as pleasure flights and helicopter experience flights to racecourses, hotels etc. Now I'm not saying he isn't able to do them legally, my point is it appears to be a blatant display of 'no AOC because I don't need one', and Wingly should be on top of this to put a stop to it. But they generate revenue from each flight so why would they even want to stop a flight that was technically 'legal'?
I wouldn't allow any member of my family or friends to get in an R22/44 with someone with 77hrs TT.
I was sure that you needed 100hrs on type to be allowed to fly with Wingly. Maybe they've changed the rules.
I wouldn't allow any member of my family or friends to get in an R22/44 with someone with 77hrs TT.
I was sure that you needed 100hrs on type to be allowed to fly with Wingly. Maybe they've changed the rules.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a number of concerns about pilot-ability, airworthiness for purpose and oversight - but the main problem for me is how Wingly (or similar) passengers can take a considered view of the risks of a proposed flight with so many unknowns.
I doubt many professionals here will not feel some concern about the single-piston over-water flight being sold to Isle of Man for example.
We professional pilots understand what that means in terms of risk and are free to make a knowledgable decision whether we buy it or not. Not so Joe Public who sees a very smart website, acknowledged it’s very well visually presented, and no doubt gets a (misguided) feeling that all MUST be ok.
That is wrong in my view.
I doubt many professionals here will not feel some concern about the single-piston over-water flight being sold to Isle of Man for example.
We professional pilots understand what that means in terms of risk and are free to make a knowledgable decision whether we buy it or not. Not so Joe Public who sees a very smart website, acknowledged it’s very well visually presented, and no doubt gets a (misguided) feeling that all MUST be ok.
That is wrong in my view.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or the bloke on the Wingly site offering lunch at various different Gloucestershire hotels in his R22 at prices that mean he's more than covering his flying costs. His picture of him all dressed up in 4 stripes made me a touch queasy.
VeeAny and I had quite a run in with Wingly a couple of years ago. They seem to have done no risk assessments for their involvement, when someone gets hurt I'd really love to see a Wingly director in the dock explaining the company's attitude..
The fact that you can now "request a flight" on their site, or buy a gift card tells me that they've moved right into AOC charter territory, without any of the several levels of compliance, risk assessment, training, or experience those of us involved in AOC ops are subject to.
From rumblings I've heard this week I believe that the Belgrano is stirring as one or two AOC operators have kicked the beast within, really quite hard.
SND
VeeAny and I had quite a run in with Wingly a couple of years ago. They seem to have done no risk assessments for their involvement, when someone gets hurt I'd really love to see a Wingly director in the dock explaining the company's attitude..
The fact that you can now "request a flight" on their site, or buy a gift card tells me that they've moved right into AOC charter territory, without any of the several levels of compliance, risk assessment, training, or experience those of us involved in AOC ops are subject to.
From rumblings I've heard this week I believe that the Belgrano is stirring as one or two AOC operators have kicked the beast within, really quite hard.
SND
I hope the CAA are in a position to start looking more closely at this sort of thing before someone dies and it ends up on their doorstep, having known about it but done nothing about it. The worst thing in the helicopter world is being able to say "I told you so"
Same **** happens here in Germany. If you extrapolate what some people here take for a seat for 30 minute flights in 172s, the hourly rate to rent one would be 300 to 400 Euros. If you're a member of a local flying club you can get one for as low as 160 Euros per hour so I call "bullcrap" to cost recovery and same share for everyone, including the pilot.
A guy was interested in a 44 type rating with us, turned out he was already advertising sightseeing flights (on Wingly!) starting at the airfield down the road, which he wanted to charter our helicopter for.
And don't get me even started on gyrocopters flying professional photographers and news people, undercutting commercial helicopter operators massively and the authorities turning a blind eye to it.
A guy was interested in a 44 type rating with us, turned out he was already advertising sightseeing flights (on Wingly!) starting at the airfield down the road, which he wanted to charter our helicopter for.
And don't get me even started on gyrocopters flying professional photographers and news people, undercutting commercial helicopter operators massively and the authorities turning a blind eye to it.
What we have now is what you get when things get over expensive and over complicated. It isn’t practical for a private owner to put his single onto an aoc due to cost etc and even if he does you will get little to no business at the rates the aoc holder will be wanting to charge . After 40 years I honestly can’t see any safety issues with leasing a machine and using a well qualified CPL to fly you ... most probably the same pilot who would fly you if you went to a local aoc business!! There are literally dozens and dozens of owners who sell a few hours to help with their overheads and have done so for decades quite safely .... however I bet they would be very happy to operate under an aoc specifically designed to be low cost if there was one ..... I am not an advocate of ppl,s selling flights of any kind but when the aoc prices get so ridiculously high you can see why the practice has come about .
I'm not sure how they will stir to anything given it requires a level of evidence, some of which (i.e. financial records) become rather moot if all is paid in cash or in kind and on the basis of their own guidance issued quite recently (in the grand scheme). This stirring smacks of the last stirring around display flying which predictably occurs once the horse is off and away and into the next county leaving the proverbial stable door blowing in the wind.
As the technology/regulatory lag has enabled the exploitation of ‘cost-sharing’ flights - perhaps technology will also cause their downfall?
i would imagine social media will provide ample evidence for prosecutors.
However, it does appear that The Belgrano only seems to be able to act after an incident (eg. illegal charter Manchester PA28) rather than before.
I shudder to think how many illegal charters have gone undiscovered - I guess all the ones that have not crashed?
There appears to be an increase in numbers of companies being strongly advised to piggy-back in existing AOCs rather than use short-term ‘day’ lease agreements.
i would imagine social media will provide ample evidence for prosecutors.
However, it does appear that The Belgrano only seems to be able to act after an incident (eg. illegal charter Manchester PA28) rather than before.
I shudder to think how many illegal charters have gone undiscovered - I guess all the ones that have not crashed?
There appears to be an increase in numbers of companies being strongly advised to piggy-back in existing AOCs rather than use short-term ‘day’ lease agreements.
Looks like you fell into that one Chopjock - I was wondering whom was going to think that not having an accident meant a ‘safe flight - but then I thought that no one using ‘P’ PRuNe be that naive and make such a crass comment on a practice that is undermining the reputation and safety of the sector.
I can only assume you have also been barred from posting on Royal Household social media sites ;-)
I can only assume you have also been barred from posting on Royal Household social media sites ;-)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all depends what you call “ illegal charter “ or “ grey “ charter . Take an airworthy helicopter and an experienced CPL you have potentially a very safe flight . Adding an AOC or signed lease documents does not , I believe , make it safer ! I would guess that there are far more “ grey” flights and lease flights going on every day than there are AOC flights ... and guess what ? Yes , it will continue to grow right until there are no AOC,s left , other than those doing £2500+ per hr twin operations . I certainly have seen no evidence at all that professionally conducted
non AOC commercial flights pose any more risk than any others .
non AOC commercial flights pose any more risk than any others .
Don’t be glib Chopjock - you know exactly what the statement means in the context of this post. You are officially Troll-like.
couldnt agree with you more NIgelH.
AOC does not mean no accident.
what it does mean is that the pilot flying the ignorant passenger has had to maintain an acceptable level of currency and ‘line-checked’ by his peers. Then there is the additional maintenance oversight etc.
whilst these additional safeguards and ‘hoops’ are meant to be beneficial, there comes a point within a theatre of ever-changing regulations and requirements where the manhours taken away from true AOC oversight actual increasing the risk of AOC accidents.
AOC costs are illogical.- especially when the CAA themselves fail their own audits (including stakeholder audits) due to a general drowning in paperwork and lack of relevant experience where it matters.
The common cry of AOC holders of having to explain how it is meant to work to the visitor from the CAA is deafening!
couldnt agree with you more NIgelH.
AOC does not mean no accident.
what it does mean is that the pilot flying the ignorant passenger has had to maintain an acceptable level of currency and ‘line-checked’ by his peers. Then there is the additional maintenance oversight etc.
whilst these additional safeguards and ‘hoops’ are meant to be beneficial, there comes a point within a theatre of ever-changing regulations and requirements where the manhours taken away from true AOC oversight actual increasing the risk of AOC accidents.
AOC costs are illogical.- especially when the CAA themselves fail their own audits (including stakeholder audits) due to a general drowning in paperwork and lack of relevant experience where it matters.
The common cry of AOC holders of having to explain how it is meant to work to the visitor from the CAA is deafening!
including stakeholder audits
gobbledygook from a gobsh!te!
gobbledygook
INFORMAL
/ˈɡɒb(ə)ldɪˌɡuːk/
nounINFORMAL
- language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of technical terms.
"reams of financial gobbledygook"synonyms:jargon, unintelligible language, obscure language;
gibberish, claptrap, nonsense, rubbish, balderdash, blather, blether, argle-bargle;
informalmumbo jumbo, drivel, rot, tripe, hogwash, baloney, bilge, bosh, bull, bunk, guff, eyewash, piffle, twaddle, poppycock, phooey, hooey, malarkey, dribble;
informalcobblers, codswallop, cock, stuff and nonsense, double Dutch, tosh, cack;
informalhavers;
informalgarbage, flapdoodle, blathers, wack, bushwa, applesauce;
informalbunkum, tommyrot, cod, gammon, toffee;
vulgar slang****, bull****, horse****, crap, bollocks, balls;
vulgar slangcrapola;
vulgar slangbulldust
"the authority wrote him a letter full of legal gobbledygook"
