[Rob P]

The accident will eventually happen, but I doubt if even that will change much. Online flight-sharing is here to stay.

Anyone feeling that strongly about is should maybe take a wander through the site from time to time and pass on details of the £350/hr Cherokees to the CAA. If they see enough of them maybe they will persuade Wingly to become a bit more proactive in policing the cost share not profit aspect of their business?

Rob P

[defcribed]

Even if I were persuaded that it represents a reasonable guide to ability, a difference in annualised risk of .012 for a 500 hr pilot and .006 for a 2000hr pilot for one hundred hours flown equates to the difference in probability of an accident for a single hour of flight of about 6 in 10,000. This might be relevant at the aggregate but it isn't something that would guide me to an individual decision about a particular flight.

Ah-ha! Someone who understands the concept of statistical significance!

[NickA]

I hadn’t even mentioned that! But the confidence intervals are fairly wide, so a fair dollop of uncertainty should be added into the mix too.

[Miscellaneous]

It is a new audience. Isn’t that a good thing?

Not at any cost/risk.
When we have folks that apparently can't differentiate between a notice on a flying club notice board and a profit driven business on the internet I fear we may have hidden agendas where logical and reasonable argument will be ignored with those offering it often having their views undermined.

[jerry_atrick]

I have to be honest - I can't see the difference. Are you telling me flight sharing platforms are actively encouraging pilots to break the law and/or operate outside their safety limitations in any way more than a flying club notice board? I can see a benefit - they expose pilots who would operate under a cloak of opacity through a simple ad on a flying club notice board - the CAA, if they thought about it, could monitor these platforms to nip it in the bud much easier than paying a visit to every airfield, etc.

Advertising a desire to cost share at the notice board does not mean I will get someone I previously know, nor knows that much about flying (although, intuitively, one would expect the latter).

[TLRippon]

You all know there is a sticky at the top of this forum with the “Last minute
Meet up and fly” thread which so far has absolutely no takers. Must all be over in Wingly.

[Dave W]

The clue there (and explained in that very post) are the phrases "last minute" and "meet up". The concept is nothing like that of Wingly or its competitors.

That post has been up for less than a week, and a week at that when the weather has not been great. It's no great surprise that it hasn't built up a head of steam yet.

[riverrock]

stuff

That is an odd argument to make. By that logic it is OK for Wingly to allow 60 hour pilots to offer flights but not 1300 hour pilots. There are so many other confounding factors
...
Even if I were persuaded that it represents a reasonable guide to ability, a difference in annualised risk of .012 for a 500 hr pilot and .006 for a 2000hr pilot for one hundred hours flown equates to the difference in probability of an accident for a single hour of flight of about 6 in 10,000.

Apologies - I should have added a smilie to show I was being facetious

My point, and I think you've confirmed it with the numbers, was that low pilot hours don't mean higher accident rates - which sort of negates many of the arguments being put forward on this thread. I haven't seen any statistical backup to what seems to many the simple argument, that low pilot hours means someone is more likely to be involved in an accident / could put a passenger and themselves at greater risk.
The stats suggest that the accident rate (for non-IR holders) is highest for those at 500 hours (rate is lower if you have lower or higher hours than that). Yes I know those are USA stats - the numbers in the UK are too small to be particularly meaningful, and don't take into account that there are more GA pilots with few hours than lots of hours (the CAA doesn't know pilot hours, as far as I know).

Now I suggest a new thread could be started (I'm sure there must be an old one around somewhere, but we aren't allowed to resurrect those) to hypothesise reasons for those stats. There is this book https://www.amazon.co.uk/Killing-Zone-S ... 0071798404 which suggests up to 350 hours is the killing zone - which these stats dissagree with (I haven't read the book) but it might make some suggestions.

Can we stop slating low houred pilots?

[Miscellaneous]

I have to be honest - I can't see the difference.

Really, you don't think there's a difference in advertising on a notice board within a flying club and advertising to the general public on the internet?

Are you telling me flight sharing platforms are actively encouraging pilots to break the law and/or operate outside their safety limitations in any way more than a flying club notice board?

Nope, not even suggesting it.

I am suggesting that they have very different 'audiences' and I am telling you that Wingly are allowing adverts which do not meet their own written standards. I can also tell you that of the limited adverts I've looked at it is by far the majority.

I am further suggesting that many adverts are closer to being commercial than cost sharing.

[RisePilot]

I wish there was a "dislike" button

[Miscellaneous]

I wish there was a "dislike" button

Your dislike is noted RisePilot and I've logged you in the group I mentioned previously:

...logical and reasonable argument will be ignored with those offering it often having their views undermined.

'tis the internet, don't take it too seriously.

[masterofnone]

Anyone feeling that strongly ...

You beat me to it.... any one with a particularly strong sense of indignation is free to assume the role of unofficial Wingly police, and vent their frustrations toward Wingly and the CAA. Arguably much more productive than doing it here.

[Flyin'Dutch']

There are a good few reasons why the stats behind the book don't add up.

It is a pleasant enough read and understanding that an increase in hours does not automatically lead to increased safety is useful, but beyond that it doesn't deliver much else.

[jerry_atrick]

I have to be honest - I can't see the difference.

Really, you don't think there's a difference in advertising on a notice board within a flying club and advertising to the general public on the internet?

In a practical sense, not really... I have never seen wingly or other flight sharing platforms advertised in searches. I know someone in an earlier post said they get the ads all over the place after they initially visited wingly - but that is because they had visited the site and an advertising platform sees it and dishes up related ads.

At Fairoaks, the noticeboard is in the cafe.. The cafe on the weekend is full if unsuspecting public - mainly cyclists, motorcyclists and families just doing a bit of planespotting with their kids.. Are they any more suspecting than someone who may have randomly managed to find a flight sharing app? I would suggest the info in the flight sharing platform would ensure they are clued up if they want to be and that wouldn't be afforded by a small index card ad on a notice board.

Are you telling me flight sharing platforms are actively encouraging pilots to break the law and/or operate outside their safety limitations in any way more than a flying club notice board?

Nope, not even suggesting it.

I am suggesting that they have very different 'audiences' and I am telling you that Wingly are allowing adverts which do not meet their own written standards. I can also tell you that of the limited adverts I've looked at it is by far the majority.

I am further suggesting that many adverts are closer to being commercial than cost sharing.

I didn't think you were suggesting it, to be honest. The point I was making is, it is the pilots who decide to do something illegal and I bet without flight sharing platforms, they would do it and be as, if not more successful in their endeavours as it is all underground. At least we now can see this and that gives the info to the regulators they need to take action if they foresee it being a threat.

I was thinking about this today, and maybe a legal requirement should be that flight sharing platforms have to be a little regulated - for example, it wouldn't take too much to require them to say have a standard hourly direct cost rate and the number of, on average, useable seats assuming fuel to tabs (you can tell the aircraft I fly). That would be enough info to work out whether or not there may be a breach of the law and if so, it is up to the flight sharing platform to review and peak to the pilot to ensure the flight is legal and if there is reasonable ground to suspect it is illegal, take they have to take it off the site. Maybe mandatory reporting to the regulator? If they are found to be breaching the rules, that pilot should be excluded from flight sharing apps for a period of time (given the flight sharing platform should perform minimum doc and identity checks, etc).

OK - the above is crude and would have to be refined, but if we are really worried about the issues, then lets come up with solutions, speak to AOPA and if you feel that much about it, the CAA or the APPG rather than just bang on about how bad it is.

[edit] Of course, anything like this would have to be proportional to the quantified risk [/edit]

[Gertie]

But who actually wants an air taxi service?

The geography of the UK, lack of US-type infrastructure and the limitations of light aircraft in this country mean that genuine air-taxi trips which are useful, practical, reliable and cost-effective must be almost non-existent.

If there's three or four of you and an air taxi would save a hotel bill and half a day spent travelling then air taxis are well worth looking into. Ever tried to do a day trip from (eg) York to Penzance by train?

They have to go a bit faster than a spamcan, of course, and have all weather capability.

However Skype/Slack/etc appear to have vastly reduced the amount of routine travelling that people used to do for business meetings, so the demand is that much less.