No more cost sharing flights?
 

See below, from Wingly.

Admittedly it is getting a bit ridiculous with people offering "London tours" on Wingly, which is basically looking like public transport.

eg

https://www.wingly.io/en/flights/2056457

£800 per hour for an R44 self fly hire?, that doesn't sound like "cost sharing" to me

-------------

As you know, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has been working on amending cost sharing regulations in the UK. Their initial amendment proposal, communicated in December 2022, was incompatible with how PPL pilots use Wingly.

After meeting with Wingly and the AOPA on the 6th of April 2023, CAA officials took note of our concerns and later communicated that they will be reconvening to revise their proposal. They reassured us, expressing that the new regulation's primary focus lies on addressing illegal grey charters, with no intention to harm compliant cost-sharing platforms like Wingly.

Wingly was met with great disappointment after receiving the CAA’s revised proposal on the 26th of June. The CAA chose to ignore the arguments presented by general aviation stakeholders. After carefully analysing the text, it appears the outcome will likely remain unchanged.

The CAA’s new wording is as follows:



No advertisement or promotion of a cost shared flight is permitted unless the following conditions are met:

i. The advertisement is placed by the pilot intending to operate the flight.
ii.The advertisement relates to a specific flight that the pilot intends to take place, regardless of whether passengers are available for carriage, and should include the start and end locations, as well as the dates when the pilot intends to conduct the flight.

 
Reasons why this wording is problematic

👉 Point ii suggests that pilots will be obligated to operate each flight they advertise, ‘regardless of whether passengers are available for carriage.’ However, this is the opposite of how Wingly works. We offer our pilots the opportunity to advertise flights they enjoy operating, including their potential availability. If they find passengers to join them, then they will fly, if not, the flight will likely not go ahead.

👉 The CAA is creating overregulation which will damage General Aviation. There is no certainty that this amendment proposal will prevent illegal grey chartering, but it will definitely punish honest private pilot citizens and flight sharing platforms. It is highly likely that Wingly will cease operations in the UK if this regulation is implemented.

👉 The regulation process is flawed from the beginning. The CAA established a working group to review cost sharing regulations in the UK and produced a consultation in November 2021. Anybody from the public was able to share their opinion through a link they provided. The results, published in December 2022, highlighted the lack of statistical data collected to make a profound study and analysis on the matter.

It is deeply concerning that the CAA is prioritising online opinions over evidence provided by aviation experts which make us question the credibility of their decision-making process.
 
How you can help us oppose this regulation proposal

United as a community, we cannot allow the CAA to harm General Aviation. Taking action together is essential to challenge this unfair regulation proposal.

✅ Sign our petition: Together, we can bring the government's focus to our cause and encourage the press to challenge the CAA's proposal.
Sign Petition ✍️

✅ Write to your MP: ✉️ Wingly’s team, together with the AOPA, are preparing a new letter template that you will receive in the forthcoming weeks. We then kindly ask you to sign it and send it to your MPs.

Why is sending this letter crucial? The CAA has rejected our suggested changes and has proceeded in sending it to the DfT. We need as many MPs as possible to write to the DfT to stop this regulation and push for a change in wording.

We would like to thank you for your invaluable help and will be in touch.

We hope to see you in the air soon,


Ali Javed

UK Operations Manager at Wingly

The CAA position seems sound and sensible. They haven't banned cost sharing, they've just stopped PPLs offering pleasure flights for personal gain and profit.

I agree - the adverts I see popping up on social media look like a commercial operation. In my opinion Wingly exploits a grey area that the CAA are looking to close.

How do Wingly make their money?

Wingly take 17% commission i think

Even taking that into account an R44 doesnt cost £800 per hour to rent

Not sure how that fits into the current cost sharing rules. Suppose it must be part of the 'direct costs'?

R44 rental for one hour: about £550
Wingly fee: about £100

= £670

ie £160 per seat, per hour

that chap is charging £197 per seat, per hour

ie he's making a profit

Hargreaves add vat to your figures £ 134 to £ 670 and one has £ 804

i'm petty sure an R44 SFH is £550 inc VAT

"If they find passengers to join them, then they will fly, if not, the flight will likely not go ahead."

So the flight only goes if people pay? That's a commercial operation by any measure

That would be pretty cheap ? Not an R44 pilot

I dont believe it is against the law for someone to hire a helicopter and then ask a pilot be it a ppl to fly it for them ! That is an almost impossible situation to stop

Surely, if an agency such as Wingly is making money from a flight then it goes directly against the principle of direct operating costs of the aircraft.

Shy they are acting as a broker really !

Nothing wrong with that. But if the pilot is remunerated for doing so he needs a CPL.

Remember the Sala accident? The organiser went to jail.

Shy exactly what i am talking about, there are so many ways to legally to do these style of flights.

Customer can hire a helicopter, if he chooses to ask a PPL to fly it then that is up to him. What happens between the 2 of them is up to them.
I know of a few ppl's who are " employed" as transport mangers who fly the companies helicopter !
As to PT flight what most people on here dont realise, that a single engine helicopter with fare paying pax on board is not allowed to take off vertically, hence lots of companies dont bother with an AOC and elect to do a perfectly legal Net Jets model. The CAA is on a hiding to nothing unless it takes a long hard look at what actually goes on. At least Wingly is out there and can be regulated sensibly !

But those aren't cost sharing flights are they? Isn't this a separate problem?

It’s still not legal for a PPL to fly for remuneration though. That particular situation is a grey area and obviously policing it is difficult. But at least the hirer doing that is more likely to understand the risks he may be taking. The owner of the aircraft may not allow it in any case, due to the insurance implications.

A member of the public using “Wingly” or similar may be blissfully unaware of the possible safety issues of flying with a pilot who may have the bare minimum experience for a PPL and that the insurance for flight may be invalid.

Having seen “situations” involving inexperienced CPLH “hour builders”, let alone PPL holders, I shudder at the thought of one of the latter offering their services for hire and third parties should not be cashing in on it.

****e,
If an aircraft is hired and a CPL paid, then isn't that two lots of 'valuable consideration' and therefore against the law? I was under the impression that this particular issue can be worked around if the aircraft is leased and the lessee become the aircraft operator.
J

Jelly

There is no legal standing in terms of operator . It is not against the law for a member of the public to hire an aircraft. It is not against the law for that same person to engage the services of a CPL. Public transport is where an entity offers aircraft, fuel and crew

TBH I’m not sure, never considered that before. Mainly because I’ve never actually had to and having given back my headset a while back, I’m never going to.

But under what rules might it be illegal? :confused:

I was recently asked for advice by a private owner on this very subject. I trawled the rules and regs and struggled to find a definitive answer that I was confident was correct. My advice was to seek specialist advice from an aviation savvy law firm. Their advice was to set up a lease agreement and the lessee to become the operator. All crewing to be at arms length from the owner.

J

Jelly I do believe this was tested in court some years ago when The rivers authority hired a 44 with a separate CPL, CAA lost !

Seems correct (there are analogies with car sharing where the discussion has been more advanced). You can rent out your non-AOC helicopter to any person and that person becomes the operator for that flight under your insurance (if your policy includes rental). As the operator, they can then "borrow" a PPL (must not be paid) or hire a CPL (for any amount they like). The CAA are happy with this arrangement. Helipaddy talk about this at https://helipaddy.com/aocs-charter-and-rental/.

You have to be careful that the person or pilot do not sell any spare seats on the aircraft to other third parties. That would now become cost-sharing.

Selling a seat is cost-sharing?!

The registration of the helicopter also matters
I had a n Reg 600 and I went to ascot and wanting to have a drink I thought I would ask a examiner/instructor/cpl to take me , there was me and the Mrs and my freind and his wife 5 people
at ascot I was asked if I paid the pilot which I said no but I was going to ,the CAA man said paying the pilot was illegal as there was more than 4 in the helicopter so I said I won’t be paying him then
it took a year to sort out I even had to go to a solicitor to make a avidavit that I didn’t pay him

CAA are very hot on quizzing people at Ascot/Silverstone etc

That seems to be the only time they leave their cushy subsidised lunch HQ

I do think CAA have a point. The principle of wingly is great but as always some people will exploit the grey area. Just looked and some one is charging £100 each for 2 pax in a C172 for a max of 1 hour flight. Are C172 really £300 an hour?
surely getting in touch with a stranger and asking them to fly you around is pretty much public transport. Uber of the skys?

where does it say £300 per hour. 2pax x100 = 200

As a PPL, you must cover an equal portion of the flight. I believe the poster is pointing out that the flight wouldn’t cost £300 if split equally and therefore some is making money.

LZ

Yes, that's how I understood it too (and assumed it was obvious in this context)

from what I am to believe the cost has to be shared but not equally

So hypothetically your share is £1. Again exploiting the grey area

Edited because someone got upset

My understanding, in practical terms, is that if a flight is going to take place and will be flown from an advertised departure point to an advertised destination and others go along and pay a share of the actual operating costs, but no more, that is cost sharing.

If a flight or flights are advertised with no defined departure place or destination but the pilot agrees to take someone to a destination of their choice, that immediately falls outside the terms of cost sharing and encroaches into public transport, irrespective of who pays what.

Any form of profit being made over and above the direct cost of any flight, or any money taken by a third party/broker also falls outside cost sharing.

‘cost-shared flights by private individuals, on the condition that the direct cost is shared by all the occupants of the aircraft, pilot included and the number of persons sharing the direct costs is limited to six.’

Nothing about equal

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

Cost sharing flights are flights shared by private individuals. The 'cost-shared' part is in reference to the costs of the specific flight which can be shared only between the pilot and others onboard the aircraft. These costs are the 'direct costs' which are the costs directly incurred in relation to a specific flight (e.g. fuel, airfield charges, rental fee for an aircraft). There can be no element of profit for the pilot as these flights are not commercial, and if profit is suspected then the flight might be operating outside of the regulations and therefore be illegal. The pilot must pay a contribution to these direct costs.

Direct costs mean the costs directly incurred in relation to a flight (e.g. fuel, airfield charges, rental fee for an aircraft). There can be no element of profit.
Annual costs cannot be included in the cost sharing. These are the cost of keeping, maintaining, insuring and operating the aircraft over a period of one calendar year. There can be no element of profit.We want to strengthen current regulations in the following ways:

• We want to improve the definition of the direct costs which can be shared on flights to provide clarity for both pilot and passengers.
• We want to make it mandatory that all participants pay an equal share in the costs of a flight – including the pilot. However, the pilot can choose to pay more than their equal share if they wish.

The pilot has to make a contribution, that could be in the form of my contribution is my skill as a pilot, doesnt say anything about monies !!!!!! ( the implication may have been financial but it doesnt say that , probably lost in translation from EASA )

I see Wingly are having a "Back to School" (!?) sale - how does that work?

This will be interesting given the frequency of these type of flights advertised on social media between Northern Ireland and Scotland/Northern England. I believe various types, 44-206-350 have been used with a PPL with an accident history backed by someone previously convicted by the CAA for illegal CAT.

Cost-sharing worked fine for years, within the confines of a flying school, local club etc

then Wingly came along and now it's been ruined by people advertising flights that look like Commercial Air Transport flights and almost cost the same!

eg..

"cost sharing", £197 per person, for a London trip

https://www.wingly.io/en/flights/2056457


Commercial Air Transport: £167 per person!

https://www.heliair.com/store/london...er-tour-for-3/



This is why the CAA have got involved

H99 yup would agree CAT flight advertised as max weight of 18 stone per pax so that would be 756 lbs in an R 44 plus fuel and pilot, dont think that works ?