Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 25
If people are using this to earn a living then that is not right and the rules say it is not right.

Cost sharing on flights, lets make it simpler.

When you passed your PPL, think back.

How much flying did you do on your own before you took up for friends and loved ones?

100 hours? a 1000 hours? I bet not. I bet within 20 hours you would have flown with a friend or loved one. I know I had, in fact I hate flying alone so I flew with someone all the time who normally wasn't a pilot.

I even organised trips to places with 3 friends and they helped pay the costs. Without this I would not have been able to fund my CPL as the hours building is the most expensive part.

Tell me where the difference is on a basic level here?
Harry Brown, defcribed, flybymike and 1 others liked this
Wingly sell gift cards! :shock: Nah, this 'service' just can't be right.

Finningley to pretty much anywhere local and posh and off field, like Doncaster on a race day, in an egg beater with an 85 hr PIC. :shock: :shock: ... ht=1912415
Last edited by eltonioni on Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
Nick, Lockhaven liked this
The DGAC tried to kill off cost-sharing (co-avionnage) 3 days before EASA rules came into effect , but had their decision overturned by the Council of State.

This is a free translation of the DGAC's communiqué at the time:

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has confirmed that the co-avionnage model falls within the scope of light aviation subject to European Regulation 965/2012 as of 25 August 2016.

In France, the light aviation sector is more developed than in most European countries. This activity is subject to rules relating to the aircraft, its maintenance, its equipment and operating procedures as well as the training, expertise and experience of pilots, which are less restrictive than those of public transport.

In order to make safety a priority in the development of this activity, the DGAC has decided to strengthen the European regulatory system pursuant to Article 14.1 of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 in the form of an operational directive with immediate effect, establishing the French regulatory framework:

For circular flights of less than 30 minutes between take-off and landing during which the aircraft does not travel more than 40 kilometers from its departure point, conducted by a private pilot: an experience of at least 200 flight hours after obtaining a pilot license and 25 hours flight experience in the last 12 months will be required; this provision will be identical to that concerning trial flights in flying clubs.
In the case of navigational flights, it will also be required, if the pilot does not have a commercial pilot license, to hold an instrument rating or an instructor rating.

In France, there are 25,500 holders of a private pilot's license and 12,300 holders of a commercial or airline transport pilot license. This new regulatory framework will enable approximately 14,000 pilots to cost-share navigation flights, more than a third of French aircraft pilots.

These measures thus reserve the practice of co-flying to professional pilots and experienced private pilots who are capable of managing degraded situations in the planning and execution of the flight. These guarantees of pilot experience and qualification, more proportionate than those required for public transport, thus protect passengers and pilots.
Irv Lee wrote: Sadly, Easa's Papal Infallibility means they never admit such mistakes but run with things regardless (for at least 5.3 years and counting).

[easa mode on]
It has been decided, after much learned discussion amongst unelected anonymous representatives much experienced in time lapse calculations, that the period mid sept 2012 to early February 2019 shall be deemed to be approximately 5.3 years. This is definitely not a mistake. There is however a roadmap being developed that may improve and develop this figure by a significant whole number digit by sometime in the mid 2020s.
[/Easa mode off]
I took friends and family flying when I was 52 hours TT and 4 hours on type... I do hope no-one considered that to be shocking.

If I was going to criticise Wingly, it would be that the very top thing in the FAQ should be 'Is it safe?' and there should be a detailed explanation of the risks associated with flying in a light aircraft. As has been commented upon above, to a lay person, 76 hours sounds like a lot, until you find out that it took that someone 76 hours to get their PPL and they've never actually flown a single hour post PPL*, or that they last flew 20 months ago and have just done a couple of circuits to get their passenger carrying currency back.

Just listing TT and time on type doesn't give anywhere near enough information to make an informed decision.

All that said, I don't share the outrage against Wingly that some seem to!

* not inferring that's the case here.
flybymike liked this
Ender wrote:
eltonioni wrote:Wingly sell gift cards! :shock: Nah, this 'service' just can't be right.

Finningley to pretty much anywhere local and posh and off field, like Doncaster on a race day, in an egg beater with an 85 hr PIC. :shock: :shock: ... ht=1912415

I cannot find his Doncaster race day advert? Are you making things up?
I posted the wrong link, it should be this ... ht=1912415

I wouldn't imagine there being much interest in a helicopter flight to Donny races on an average damp Thursday morning without any horses. Not sure if they would even give PPR, but I suppose one could ask Alex at the course. Bear in mind that particular PIC is offering a variety of off field landings, so none of the little luxuries of a licenced field.

I've nothing against cost sharing at all, or even Wingly in principle, but the gift card thing is beyond belief - imagine granny buying one of her grandchildren an 18th birthday treat and something going wrong. Wingly seems attract people who are pushing it in a commercial way. I noticed one at my field who does say that he's hour building, which is way more honest than some of the offers on there, and the rate looks appropriate as a shared cost.
stevelup wrote:I took friends and family flying when I was 52 hours TT and 4 hours on type... I do hope no-one considered that to be shocking.

Indeed, it was just the sort of thing I was doing at 50, 60 odd hours. I learnt on a 172 in Florida and converted to the Tomahawk when I started flying from Cardiff on my return, in fact. I did about 5 hours before I was happy flying the Tomahawk (it was a lot lighter in all respects than the 172!). A lot of my early flights from Cardiff were just local sightseeing flights, either on my own or taking any friends who wanted to come. I knew the area, it didn't involved the expense or dragons of landing away anywhere, and I knew what the weather was doing in the local area.
flybymike liked this
eltonioni wrote: Wingly seems attract people who are pushing it in a commercial way.

How does a new start commercial, for profit, operation in a very limited market place strictly apply the rules of cost share whilst striving to improve the bottom line, or indeed have a positive bottom line. For me it is not compatible with the enforcement of cost share in the previously understood sense.

Thinking aloud, is the Wingly fee a for profit payment? :?

Now that said, it's a glorious day here today and if there's anyone with an aeroplane who would like to cost with me...
Last edited by Miscellaneous on Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
AlanM wrote:
Dave Phillips wrote:73hrs total time, 6 on type. Passenger pays £83 for an hour in a Tomahawk. ... ht=1717891

That is really shocking. Truly.

How so?

Is a PPL allowed to carry passengers or not? Or just with a combination of hours/aircraft that you, or the other great and good of the forum, approve of?

Assuming a 50:50 cost share, £83 means the aircraft is costing the PPL £166 per hour. Not at all unlikely. We may think it represents poor value for money (I do) but that's hardly the issue.

I took friends flying when I had 46hrs TT. Is that allowed?

I'll say again, I don't like the public advertising of it. Sharing costs is not illegal and it would be unreasonable, unworkable and unenforceable to make it show. Being paid is illegal. The inflation of 'expenses' to allow someone to profit when they shouldn't be is a concept as old as the hills and not an aviation-specific matter.
flybymike liked this
My wife sat in the back in abject terror when I was Pu/t converting to the C172 before the GST, but that's a world apart from having a pre-booked paying flight with iffy weather and pressonitis.
Lockhaven, KeithM liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 25