Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
#1674282
Pete L wrote:Unless Wingly has a very small number of owners and employees, I'd argue it's operating outside of the rules - some of the costs of the flight are being shared with an entire company and their shareholders.


And you'd be wrong! :D

The rules concern themselves with who/what may pay for a flight, not (with the exception of pilot remuneration) who/what may be a cost.

Using your logic, SkyDemon need an AOC, as do Google (the tablet I use) and Lightspeed (my headset). Oh and Staples, because of the A4 paper used in the tech log.
#1674285
I’m sure I am not the only one to know pilots who offer Wingly flights.

I have personal experience of two pilots who succumbed to the pressure of needing to get their Wingly passengers back home after a weekend trip, when the Wingly passengers “complained” that they needed to get back to go to work the next morning.

In both cases, the pilots took off into weather conditions that they knew were well beyond their licence privileges.
Neither pilot held an IMC / IRR.

One pilot encountered bad weather but turned around and landed at an enroute airfield. He then contacted me asking for advice on how to circumvent the weather. I was able to advise him to wait 2-3 hours, then check the weather at specific enroute airports, and if they were good VFR, to route that (circuitous) way home.

The second pilot contacted me before take-off for advice on how to circumvent the weather. I advised him that the weather was way too bad and he should cancel the flight and wait for better weather the next day. I assumed he had taken my advice, however an hour later I received a text message saying that he was airborne, about 1/3 of the way home, and encountered severe bad weather, and asking for my advice. I advised him to turn around and land back at his start point. He said he couldn’t / wouldn’t do that, and again asked me to look at the weather radar and advice him of safest route home. I again told him he should turn around to find an airfield in VMC and land. I even told him which airfields near him were VMC. However when it became clear that he was intent on continuing, I gave in and gave him the information he requested (he eventually landed safely)

I have had strong words with both pilots. I advised them not be so stupid as to risk thier (or their families) lives on someone else’s agenda. I advised both to give up Wingly and to get the training to get an IRR.
One has followed my advice, the other hasn’t (and is off my contact list).
Miscellaneous, defcribed, TractorBoy and 7 others liked this
#1674289
Crikey.

I don't know what to make of that, other than those people clearly should not have a licence. No-one should need to be told that weather planning should involve checking the weather at en-route airfields, and the idea that a method of dealing with bad weather en route is to start sending text messages..... jeez.

Some people have astoundingly poor judgement. Perhaps that, rather than cost sharing (or any internet platform) is the real issue. How could judgement be better assessed when deciding whether or not to issue a licence?
#1674293
Miscellaneous wrote:Lefty, that demonstrates very well the difference between theory and practice. It seems there are many supporters that refuse to accept the inevitability of the exposure to risk. :(


For the benefit of the tape, I'm not a supporter. I just don't think it's illegal, nor should it be.

If you can't make command decisions without succumbing to pressure from passengers - no matter who they are - then you shouldn't be flying at all.
seanxair liked this
#1674294
defcribed wrote:Some people have astoundingly poor judgement.

I have to say, defcribed, with the greatest respect your surprise did cause me to wonder about your judgement. :D Can you not see the inevitability of this sort of pressure/action and that's not considering the competent stick and rudder pilot that may be a little naive.

An ability to fly is not evidence of being able to handle paying passengers.
#1674297
Just for completeness, after asking the CAA about their view on the legality of Wingly, I then asked my insurer who similarly gave a positive response.

The only thing stopping me from signing up with Wingly is that the current state of my interior would be embarrassing to show to guest passengers. Once this is taken care of in the summer, I’ll probably give it a go.
( I’ll of course be texting Lefty for weather advice the entire flight).
Flyin'Dutch', PaulB, defcribed and 4 others liked this
#1674300
@TLRippon just to be clear, I don't think anyone is advocating there are not pilots able to provide cost share flights as competent pilots and with the maturity to handle their passengers.

What I am personaly saying, and Lefty demonstrates it, that left open there is significant risk to the UNSUSPECTING public.
KeithM liked this
#1674301
Miscellaneous wrote:What I am personaly saying, and Lefty demonstrates it, that left open there is significant risk to the UNSUSPECTING public.


Although I’m sort of with you in some ways, especially the public’s understanding of what may constitute a risk, I’m not sure that there is any evidence of significant risk to the public. There is some anecdote and stories of poor decision making, but that occurs without Wingly in a certain type of pilot.

I wonder how many flights wingly has “arranged” and how many have ended badly.
#1674306
PaulB wrote:...but that occurs without Wingly in a certain type of pilot.

Absolutely, my concern is that WIngly gives those pilots access to the public at large.

@derekf , that's my point. A flying school cannot offer pleasure flights with an instructor at the controls yet any PPL can. I see a contradiction.
KeithM liked this
#1674309
defcribed wrote:......

If you can't make command decisions without succumbing to pressure from passengers - no matter who they are - then you shouldn't be flying at all.


I know a lot of people who have admitted to being pressurised. I have personally found my self in the air once thinking "why on earth did I take off?" for just this reason. Someone had bought us tickets to Goodwood Festival of Speed. I had always said "we must be prepared to go by road" on the morning it looked OK. As we taxied out the bad weather came over and I should have taxied back, but didn't. He had not deliberately pushed me to go. It was just he was so happy and having such fun I didn't want to disappoint him. Fortunately I was current in IFR, but in a permit aircraft it was very questionable. I should not have gone.
  • 1
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24