[Dodo]

FLIGHT SHARING WEBSITE DANGERS
Report Text: I have had cause to discipline a number of flying club members who have been using flight sharing web sites to advertise cost sharing flights

I just wonder how many groups and clubs allow cost sharing and how many don't. I am a member of 2 groups. One has chosen to ban such flights, the other has not made a rule, so I presume any legal flight remains legal.

I also wonder about the the term "discipline" in this context.

FWIW I personally have no wish to fly strangers, but I have friends who tell me that it they have had enjoyable experiences offering such flights.

[Gertie]

I also wonder about the the term "discipline" in this context.

I assumed it meant that the members had done things which were not allowed under the terms of the membership agreement that they had voluntarily chosen to sign (I find it difficult to imagine what else it could mean), and that some remedy short of terminating the contract (ie terminating their membership) had been considered appropriate.

[riverrock]

https://www.chirp.co.uk/upload/docs/General%20Aviation/GAFB%20Edition%2078%20-%20November%202018%20(Electronic).pdfp3

Its up to groups / clubs / owners on their own appetite.
I understand that Wingly (as discussed here previously) is more restrictive that the regulators. There have been no issues (AFAIK) so far with flight sharing, so is adding restrictions just gold plating?

Every PPL has gone through training, including human factors and discussion on press-on-itis. Any car driver can share their drives with others without restriction (until it becomes hire - and then you need a taxi licence).

My experience is that new PPLs are much more cautious than those who push the boundaries after a few hundred hours, and accident stats bare this out. Lots of PPLs also drop out soon after they get their licence. If this keeps PPLs flying, gaining experience in a touch financial climate, it could / should improve safety!
My experience is also that passengers are more than happy to not fly in bad weather (etc). Wingly isn't a reliable way to get from a to b but have a flight "experience".

[Rob L]

Its up to groups / clubs / owners on their own appetite.

appetite?

[riverrock]

to risk

[Joe Dell]

They tell porkies. One Wingly advertiser claimed to have 100hrs on type. I'd checked him out. The week before.

[Human Factor]

An easy way for Wingly to prevent this sort of thing would be for them to require the pilot to either be a shareholder or owner of the aircraft to be used. While it probably wouldn’t entirely eliminate the problem, it would certainly help.

[MikeB]

FLIGHT SHARING WEBSITE DANGERS
Report Text: I have had cause to discipline a number of flying club members who have been using flight sharing web sites to advertise cost sharing flights

I must have a warped mind (perhaps prompted by that recent thread on here concerning corporal punishment) as I have an image of the poor Wingly Pilot, trousers down, prostrate over the flight planning desk while punishment is administered with a CRP5.

[flybymike]

That’s why they call it aCRP

[kanga]

CHIRP link:

https://www.chirp.co.uk/newsletters/general-aviation

[Ebbie 2003]

I had a go of the Wingly thing to see how it works.

In my own airplane.

Never gave Wingly my bank account details to make sure I didn't get paid - it went smoothly, not too sure it is a good idea though - it did occur to me while flying a young couple that flying with total strangers could be a risk.

I do fly people I meet here around when I go fly - the stranger thing, need to vet one's passengers I think.

On the how do groups stop the use of Wingly - essy just have a provision that says thousand pounds an hour for such flights if yer actual 172M.

[MikeB]

Good point about vetting passengers Ebbie, but curious why you felt you had to make sure you didn't "get paid"?

[defcribed]

FLIGHT SHARING WEBSITE DANGERS
Report Text: I have had cause to discipline a number of flying club members who have been using flight sharing web sites to advertise cost sharing flights

I also wonder about the the term "discipline" in this context.

To me it suggests some sort of little-Hitler type CFI who thinks he actually has some sort of real power over those who fly from that airfield.

The mentality required to actually write those words and send them to CHIRP...... the mind boggles.

The aviator is a customer. If they break the rules of the airfield then by all means decline their business going forward. But to suggest that you can 'discipline' them, it's actually quite funny.

[Human Factor]

To me it suggests some sort of little-Hitler type CFI who thinks he actually has some sort of real power over those who fly from that airfield.

It doesn’t say airfield it says club. A club has rules, which members are bound to abide by. If they don’t someone needs to enforce them. I would suggest a professionally qualified nominated post-holder is probably the most appropriate person to do that.

If not, who would you suggest?

[Dave W]

I suppose that it depends on whether or not the Club did in fact have clear rules against that sort of thing, and if the pilots in question were deliberately breaking those rules. If it did, then very much fair enough.

If there were no rules against it, the the solution would be for the Club management to discuss the situation and either introduce such a rule - or decide to accept it.

The CHIRP article does not say whether any such Club rules existed.

The full CHIRP Report, and response, is:

FLIGHT SHARING WEBSITE DANGERS
Report Text: I have had cause to discipline a
number of flying club members who have been
using flight sharing web sites to advertise cost
sharing flights. Despite only just passing their
PPLs, they have seen this as an opportunity to
'hours build' at minimum cost.
Instead of steadily building experience and
knowledge through their initial flying days, they
were acting as pseudo single pilot air taxi
operations. Although I accept the current
regulations permit this activity, its continued
growth across UK GA gives me grave concerns.
A quick scan of the site and flights on offer
raises the hairs on my experienced
Examiner/CFI neck!
Issues:
- Inexperienced pilots (often only around
100hrs) are offering complex flights, with
multiple unknown passengers and the risk of
distraction and 'press-on-itis' is very high.
- It is clear that the 'passengers' (many often
are minors) are generally unaware of the
private and unregulated nature of the flights
and level of risk involved.
- Flying clubs are having pilots expose third
parties to airside and airborne risks with little
knowledge of what their business is being
exposed to; airside personnel access and
movement should be controlled and this is
just an invitation for strangers to get access
airside.
- Some of the flights have dubious ability to
meet weight and balance requirements -
witness the number of flights being offered as
pilot + 3 in a PA28.
- We are always being counselled not to
expose GA to the obvious risk of smuggling
or people trafficking - this just opens up more
temptation for illegal activity.
I fear it is only a matter of time before some
unsuspecting poor 'passengers' are involved in
a serious accident through these schemes. I
would be very interested to hear what aircraft
insurers view on the matter is as well.

CHIRP Comment: Pilots with appropriate
licences are permitted to carry passengers.
However, if the risk of their doing so is
considered unacceptable, then there is a need
to consider whether their training is adequate.
That said, CHIRP has concerns about aspects
of cost sharing including the risk of low-hours
pilots being pressured into flying in unsuitable
conditions. It is also a concern that 3rd parties
might be unaware of their pilot’s experience
level and the risks of flying with low-hours pilots.
Fortunately clubs and training organisations can
control activity in their aircraft in order to
minimise the risks. However, owner-operators
and syndicates may not have the experience or
authority to do this effectively.