Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1673192
There has been a lot of comment on this forum about the possible problems of low houred pilots offering shared flights to the general public as a result of a recent change to cost sharing rules!

Understandably, many say the PPL pilots offering these flights do not have enough experience to complete these cost sharing/subsidised flights in the safety that the general public would expect.

Comments have also been made that PPLs should only be flying family and friends and not strangers introduced to them via a flight cost sharing website.

My argument is that internet flight sharing platforms are one of the best innovations that has happened in GA and will encourage more flying, more GA interest, more prospective PPL's and cheaper hour building for those wanting an aviation career.

In relation to the low houred pilot being a greater risk I have reproduced part of an article from the Austrailian Government. https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4171790/a ... _final.pdf

GENERAL AVIATION PILOTS

The propensity for pilots of different experience levels to be involved in accidents has been studied with a number of different pilot cohorts. In general aviation, a review of 72 accidents which occurred in degraded visibility found no effect of total flight hours, nor years of experience, although they did find that pilots in the younger age group were involved in a smaller proportion of these kinds of accidents (Groff & Price, 2006).

In a similar type of study, the effect of low experience on accident risk for New Zealand pilots in general aviation was reviewed with a particular focus on the concept that pilots with around 100-200 hours total time had a ‘special vulnerability’ compared to their colleagues with more than 200 hours total time (O’Hare & Chalmers, 1999). The same comparison was conducted for pilots with about 100-300 hours total time compared to the rest of the pilot population. Both studies found no evidence of increased accident involvement of low-hour pilots (O’Hare & Chalmers, 1999).

Another study of general aviation pilots examined the effect of age, experience and gender on accident causation and found that lower experience pilots were more likely to make errors that resulted in an accident than their more experienced peers (Bazargan & Guzhva, 2011). However, they found that while lower experience pilots were more likely to be in an accident, the more experienced pilots were more likely to be involved in a fatal accident. The sample used by the authors included pilots with less than 100 hours and less than 100-300 hours, meaning while it may cover some commercial pilots, the sample is not representative of air transport operations. The authors also defined air transport pilots with 300-2000 hours of total time as ‘...newly licensed airline transport pilots’; 2000-5000 hours of total time as ‘...moderately experienced airline transport pilots’; and 5000 hours or more total time as ‘the most experienced pilots’ (Bazargan & Guzhva, 2011).
#1673288
There are a number of high hour pilots on here, some with CPLs / ATPLs, some who own or run organisations with AOCs who like to look down on other pilots, saying they aren't good enough. Time and again, stats rubbish this. Time and again the arguments come out again. Pilots are taught to manage risk from the beginning.

Now it is a bit different when there becomes an expectation on a pilot to fulfil a function, so they are under pressure to perform in a situation they shouldn't be in or are unhappy to be in. Wingly (and equivalents) make it clear that the pilot is under no obligation to conduct the flight for any reason and that is understood by those organising flights using it. This ensures that the pilot is entirely free to conduct the appropriate risk assessment (weather, etc). If, instead, their boss is telling them to do the flight the pressure could make the risk assessment unbalanced and dangerous. Its this situation that the rules protect against.

Personally, I think the rules are currently about right. There is no evidence that the public is being put under undue risk. The public know there is a difference between going for a bimble in a Cessna 152 and travelling by Easyjet to Paris. The evidence (as in - no accidents across Europe attibuted to a low hours pilot being put under pressure to perform via a flight sharing app) backs this up.
#1673292
riverrock wrote:There are a number of high hour pilots on here, some with CPLs / ATPLs, some who own or run organisations with AOCs who like to look down on other pilots, saying they aren't good enough. Time and again, stats rubbish this. Time and again the arguments come out again. Pilots are taught to manage risk from the beginning.

Now it is a bit different when there becomes an expectation on a pilot to fulfil a function, so they are under pressure to perform in a situation they shouldn't be in or are unhappy to be in. Wingly (and equivalents) make it clear that the pilot is under no obligation to conduct the flight for any reason and that is understood by those organising flights using it. This ensures that the pilot is entirely free to conduct the appropriate risk assessment (weather, etc). If, instead, their boss is telling them to do the flight the pressure could make the risk assessment unbalanced and dangerous. Its this situation that the rules protect against.

Personally, I think the rules are currently about right. There is no evidence that the public is being put under undue risk. The public know there is a difference between going for a bimble in a Cessna 152 and travelling by Easyjet to Paris. The evidence (as in - no accidents across Europe attibuted to a low hours pilot being put under pressure to perform via a flight sharing app) backs this up.


What a breathe of fresh air!
#1673375
Wingly (and equivalents) make it clear that the pilot is under no obligation to conduct the flight for any reason and that is understood by those organising flights using it.


How clear? I suppose it depends if the person making the booking reads the T&Cs properly. Just like everyone does with Google, Apple, etc... :|
#1673379
It says this in the FAQ which is on the page before booking.

What happens if my flight is cancelled?
If the pilot cancels your flight due to bad weather or any other circumstances, you will be notified immediately via email or SMS. If the payment has already gone through, we will issue an automatic refund. Paypal refunds are immediate but card payments may take up to 72 hours.
Is my adventure guaranteed?
No. Wingly is not a commercial airline or a charter service, meaning flights may be cancelled for any reason including weather conditions or at the pilot's discretion. As there are no scheduled routes, you are simply sharing the ride with a pilot, we cannot guarantee the flight will go ahead. However, in the case of cancellation we will issue an automatic refund.
#1673380
I didn't have a problem with the way the CAA idea worked.

Two or three flying buddies could fly a rented or group owned aircraft out for the day, equally share the costs, fly flurther than they could on their own and pick up some experience along the way.

The participants might have a range of experience, from 100 hours to thousands but at least the participants knew the risks of flying a light aircraft and novice pilots picked up experience from the more knowledgable. I know I did.

Wingly is a different idea and is, IMHO, wrong. The people flying with very low time PPL pilots don't have a clue how inexperienced their pilot's are and don't know the risks.

On the other hand, is it introducing people to the joys of flight who would not participate otherwise?? If it does, then find a better way to do that.
#1673382
Sorry Harry. I don't know your background but I find myself disagreeing with most of what you post to the point where I wonder if you are a journalist stirring antagonism.
I am a pretty live and let live sort but there is no way I can support the carriage of fare paying passengers in aircraft operated by non commercially licensed pilots and I fail to understand why you are such a vehement evangelist for this (in my view,) potentially dangerous practice.
#1673393
No need to be sorry, although that is a rare word on here it seems. I don't know your background either Tom but I don't need to because its doesn't stop me from understanding you have a right to a point of view that may be different from my mine.

If you read my opening post you would not need to say, I fail to understand why you are such a vehement evangelist for this (in my view,) potentially dangerous practice.

The fact that you have failed to know or quote why I am in favour on such platforms negates your argument in my humble opinion
#1673395
Harry Brown wrote:No need to be sorry, although that is a rare word on here it seems. I don't know your background either Tom but I don't need to because its doesn't stop me from understanding you have a right to a point of view that may be different from my mine.

If you read my opening post you would not need to say, I fail to understand why you are such a vehement evangelist for this (in my view,) potentially dangerous practice.

The fact that you have failed to know or quote why I am in favour of such platforms negates your argument in my humble opinion
#1673396
Harry Brown wrote:No need to be sorry, although that is a rare word on here it seems. I don't know your background either Tom but I don't need to because its doesn't stop me from understanding you have a right to a point of view that may be different from my mine.

If you read my opening post you would not need to say, I fail to understand why you are such a vehement evangelist for this (in my view,) potentially dangerous practice.

The fact that you have failed to know or quote why I am in favour on such platforms negates your argument in my humble opinion


'Harry Brown' works for 'Wingly' :wink:
#1673400
I agree with Harry. This is what GA has needed for ages.

But we are not meant to fly, we have no wings, Aviation is dangerous.

When Joe public gets inside an old Cessna 150 they will know fear. When they climb inside a Robinson R22 they will know fear.

If they feel uncomfortable they will get out. They can have a refund, they have a choice.




Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk
#1673401
Harry Brown wrote:
Harry Brown wrote:No need to be sorry, although that is a rare word on here it seems. I don't know your background either Tom but I don't need to because its doesn't stop me from understanding you have a right to a point of view that may be different from my mine.

If you read my opening post you would not need to say, I fail to understand why you are such a vehement evangelist for this (in my view,) potentially dangerous practice.

The fact that you have failed to know or quote why I am in favour of such platforms negates your argument in my humble opinion



You like the sound of your own (virtual) voice so much that now you're just quoting yourself in a reply?

That aside. For somebody so thin-skinned you're pretty quick with the slings and arrows. Were they not such a nice bunch of people on here someone might have called you a rude name by now.
#1673407
Harry Brown wrote:My argument is that internet flight sharing platforms are one of the best innovations that has happened in GA and will encourage more flying, more GA interest, more prospective PPL's and cheaper hour building for those wanting an aviation career.


Well the concept didn't last in of all places the USA, it was closed down by the FAA for many of the same concerns being expressed on this forum.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... rns-remain
#1673416
Pilots are taught to manage risk from the beginning.


Hahaha, if only they learnt. :)

I fly with enough newly-minted PPL/CPLs to say, with some certainty, many wouldn't recognise and/or manage risk if Tango Man came and slapped them on the face with a big floppy glove. I've also employed instructors who have subsequently proven they are such a liability I wouldn't trust them with the kettle. :)

I had a look at CAP667 from the mid-90s (unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything more recent from the CAA) and there are some interesting facts that support the argument that the issue is rather more complex than just logbook hours. However, trying to put-on my Joe Public hat, I found the attached to be interesting:

Image

In simple terms, this implies that in the 90s I was a bit over two times more likely to die at the hands of a PPL than due to the combined efforts of Instructors, ATPLs and CPLs. Equally, it's also interesting to note that the CAA were still concerned at the relatively high percentage (about 30%) of instructor/CPL accidents.