Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 25
#1672665
Dave Phillips wrote:73hrs total time, 6 on type. Passenger pays £83 for an hour in a Tomahawk.

https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=fli ... ht=1717891


yeah but, at least he states "...... subject to Weight & Balance." unlike the 15,000hr idiot Mr Murgatroyd!

Wingly TT - I was kinda hoping that was hours post GST!
#1672670
The point some on here seem to be missing is sharing costs with family and friends after getting your licence.

I have no issues with sharing costs with family and friends, they know you, they have probably listened to all your tales of woe and difficulties getting your licence, they know your demeanour.

I asked this question earlier to @Paul_Sengupta would you go to a website such as 'Wingly' and put your wife and kids in a PA28 with an unknown pilot advertising a total time of 110 hours to fly from the north of England to Jersey (that advert has since been removed) ?

And now it has been noted 'Wingly' are advertising gift cards for sale would you buy a gift card and do the above ?

The issue I have with this is advertising, departure airport, time, places, number of seats available, destinations, its basically a charter in disguise by manipulating the rules, except you don't know what you are letting yourself in for i.e there is no oversight that a normal charter would provide.
Miscellaneous, AlanM, Nick and 3 others liked this
#1672673
I am not anti Wingly. Conceptually it has some merits.

I have also flown with a former colleague who offered to pick me up on his 46th flight hour...... I had no problem with that as I knew the person, watched him train and I knew the risks. However, He was not advertising to unknown people who probably have no idea of the regulations, What an AOC is etc etc.

Personally, I think the elasticity of acceptability and indeed the law is being stretched too far.
Lockhaven, Nick liked this
#1672677
Miscellaneous wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:...unlike the 15,000hr idiot Mr Murgatroyd!

Is this not the same individual who is behind many aviation failures, including the Blackpool fiasco?


yup, I think so. It's in court this week.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6674073/Greedy-pilot-overloaded-plane-29-stones-three-birdwatchers-make-1-000-profit.html
#1672679
The grey charter market has been going on since well before Wingly etc. Horse racing, for example, is rife with what are, to all intents and purposes dodgy charters.

My point is that there are always people prepared to bend the rules to suit their own, often financially driven need. Wingly, unfortunately, almost legitimises that process. The 'Gift Card' idea really concerns me. The end user is being shielded from the small print.
Nick, AlanM, Lockhaven and 2 others liked this
#1672683
Lockhaven wrote:I asked this question earlier to @Paul_Sengupta would you go to a website such as 'Wingly' and put your wife and kids in a PA28 with an unknown pilot advertising a total time of 110 hours to fly from the north of England to Jersey (that advert has since been removed) ?


On a nice day with good visibility, within W&B, probably yes.

But that wasn't the point that was made and the one I was replying to. I was just addressing the implication about cost and just stating that it wasn't out of kilter with the cost of hiring the aeroplane.

But I wouldn't pay the prices asked! ;-) And knowing non-flyers, I don't think anyone else will either! :D

It was mentioned on here before, and I posted on Facebook about this in the last couple of days, that the cost sharing rules have a bit of an anomaly. If you own the aeroplane, you're only allowed to share the direct costs, fuel and oil, etc. If you rent, the whole rental cost can be shared, which includes the share of the aeroplane's fixed costs and the owner's profit..

I'm not pro Wingly, I was just addressing the point implied about money. As for the Tomahawk flight, that seems like exactly the thing that flying in one's early stages should be about, sharing one's enthusiasm for flying with someone else, and a local sightseeing flight has no implication of being an illegal charter. It's just where the pilot chooses to "ask around", i.e. on a website, which is the contentious bit.

AlanM wrote:Personally, I think the elasticity of acceptability and indeed the law is being stretched too far.


I don't disagree that some people are pushing it, but I don't think the Tomahawk flight is an example of this!
#1672685
Sooty25 wrote:
Miscellaneous wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:...unlike the 15,000hr idiot Mr Murgatroyd!

Is this not the same individual who is behind many aviation failures, including the Blackpool fiasco?


yup, I think so. It's in court this week.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6674073/Greedy-pilot-overloaded-plane-29-stones-three-birdwatchers-make-1-000-profit.html


Yep thats him, one the most arrogant individuals you will ever have the pleasure of meeting.

And he never had a full commercial licence while operating the so called:

Mugatroyd who operated a commercial airline, plus flying schools and clubs told police: 'Without blowing my own trumpet, if it hadn't been for me on that flight that day you have been collecting four dead people out of that field.'


If memory serves me correctly he was issued in those days with a BCPL one step up from a PPL which is a restricted commercial licence granted only to allow a PPL instructor to continue instructing when the rules changed to JAA/JAR.

The commercial operation from Blackpool was using the turboprop aircraft an EMB110 Bandeirante which in those days was a single pilot aircraft and he used sit in the RH seat pretending to be a co-pilot, that operation along with many of his other scams went bankrupt.
#1672687
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
Lockhaven wrote:I asked this question earlier to @Paul_Sengupta would you go to a website such as 'Wingly' and put your wife and kids in a PA28 with an unknown pilot advertising a total time of 110 hours to fly from the north of England to Jersey (that advert has since been removed) ?


On a nice day with good visibility, within W&B, probably yes.

But that wasn't the point that was made and the one I was replying to. I was just addressing the implication about cost and just stating that it wasn't out of kilter with the cost of hiring the aeroplane.

But I wouldn't pay the prices asked! ;-) And knowing non-flyers, I don't think anyone else will either! :D

It was mentioned on here before, and I posted on Facebook about this in the last couple of days, that the cost sharing rules have a bit of an anomaly. If you own the aeroplane, you're only allowed to share the direct costs, fuel and oil, etc. If you rent, the whole rental cost can be shared, which includes the share of the aeroplane's fixed costs and the owner's profit..

I'm not pro Wingly, I was just addressing the point implied about money. As for the Tomahawk flight, that seems like exactly the thing that flying in one's early stages should be about, sharing one's enthusiasm for flying with someone else, and a local sightseeing flight has no implication of being an illegal charter. It's just where the pilot chooses to "ask around", i.e. on a website, which is the contentious bit.

AlanM wrote:Personally, I think the elasticity of acceptability and indeed the law is being stretched too far.


I don't disagree that some people are pushing it, but I don't think the Tomahawk flight is an example of this!


Then why not just like the good old days go to a flying school that has oversight and book/buy a gift card for a trial flight with an instructor ?

At least that way the public have some form of protection rather that jumping in to an aircraft with an unknown pilot who could even be elaborating his/her experience on the internet.

Do people booking these flights from places such as 'Wingly' with unknown pilots have a way of verifying the pilots credentials ?
Last edited by Lockhaven on Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
#1672688
My concern re Wingly is the lack of policing of their own policy.

The fact they knowingly permit adverts on their site to contravene their own policy.

Why do I say this; because every time the subject comes up it takes a forumite a matter of minutes to find numerous advertised flights which don't comply. The fact they let this happen demonstrates to me the underlying attitude within the business.

The concept of Wingly amongst pilots and students is fantastic, thereafter it is questionable. I would go as far as saying it is unethical to be profiting from people paying for flights where they are unaware of the risks involved.
Lockhaven, AlanM, KeithM and 1 others liked this
#1672689
Without getting to ' high & mighty' or 'Holier than Thou' about all this.

I've never asked anyone , passenger or otherwise, for any contribution towards the cost of my flying. ( The good lady, whom holds all the cheque books is excluded here).

I am an amateur, even if sometime I try to fly like a professional, and has been my pleasure and privilege to have taken so many aloft with me over the years.

G-JWTP
Last edited by G-JWTP on Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lockhaven, defcribed, AlanM and 2 others liked this
#1672698
Do people booking these flights from places such as 'Wingly' with unknown pilots have a way of verifying the pilots credentials ?


I don’t know about Wingly but, when I used to offer cost sharing on Skyuber, before the FAA declared these sites unacceptable, I had to submit copies of my licences and medical.

I suppose I could have lied about my hours by claiming hours in “G-BIRO” (but didn’t! :D )

In general, I think cost sharing is a good idea and I have nothing against sites like Wingly in principle. That said, I do agree that some of the ads on Wingly seem to me to cross the line and Wingly really does need to police this better. I would also like to see them explain clearly the difference between light GA vs CAT.

I also like the French idea of imposing a minimum qualification standard that is above the proverbial 45 hour PPL but below a full CPL and I think that they have probably pitched it about right.
Lockhaven, AlanM liked this
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 25