Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 19
#1886042
If the new rules came to fruition it would appear that taking a friend for a trip out for lunch in a two seater would become illegal if papers weren’t signed for the flights there and back and fuel costs carefully documented. :roll:

I think the current legislation, properly enforced, is probably effective enough. But it’s the “properly enforced” bit wherein lies the problem.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1886044
Only three things to add:

1) Wingly is advertising a Christmas promotion with a 25% discount if you buy a flight. Isn't the fact that they offer a discount thereby cementing the commercial nature of the flight in question?

Image

2) On several Wingly adverts, the cost is expressed '[from] per passenger'. While I accept fuel usage will differ, by advertising based on passenger isn't this obviously commercial, given that the cost should be not far-from-fixed regardless of passenger numbers?

Image

3) Enforcement could easily be directed at people who are pro-actively advertising multiple flights with pre-determined dates, scheduled ahead of time:

Image

I often can't tell whether I'm flying 48 hours ahead of time, so heaven knows how a basic PPL can know when and where they'll be flying several weeks ahead.

I agree that making it 'easier' to pursue is good, but I'm not convinced that it's hard to identify the rogues already. The proposals being consulted on seem to be boiling the ocean for little gain.
User avatar
By russp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1886051
flyingearly wrote:Only three things to add:

2) On several Wingly adverts, the cost is expressed '[from] per passenger'. While I accept fuel usage will differ, by advertising based on passenger isn't this obviously commercial, given that the cost should be not far-from-fixed regardless of passenger numbers?

Image



It's entirely proper that the cost is from per passenger, say the fixed cost is £200 and there is 1 pax - that's £100 each, 2 pax £66 each and 3 pax £50 each .. so the cost is from £50 depending on how many passnegers want to go..
#1886053
A4 Pacific wrote: Why don’t we discuss how we ARE going to contribute to stamping out this nasty risky fraud


If I wanted a role in law enforcement, I'd get a job with the police. You must have been the student hallway "patrol" as child in school handing out infractions for not have a hall pass.

I've got a loaf of bread in my kitchen with a warning to "remove bread from plastic bag before heating". It's NOT my job to protect the people that label is aimed at.

If you're so damn worried about CAT businesses success, spend your time promoting some manner of identifying proper businesses, instead of assing up GA for private pilots.

Some friends/family want to split up the cost of a flight; it's nobody else's damn business.
#1886067
russp wrote:
flyingearly wrote:Only three things to add:

2) On several Wingly adverts, the cost is expressed '[from] per passenger'. While I accept fuel usage will differ, by advertising based on passenger isn't this obviously commercial, given that the cost should be not far-from-fixed regardless of passenger numbers?

Image



It's entirely proper that the cost is from per passenger, say the fixed cost is £200 and there is 1 pax - that's £100 each, 2 pax £66 each and 3 pax £50 each .. so the cost is from £50 depending on how many passnegers want to go..


It was the more the point that it should be advertised as 'Up to £XX per passenger' to highlight how more passenger = further splitting the costs. Otherwise you're effectively advertising for a group of 3 to begin with.
#1886087
Ah yes - Wingly bashing again - the system which has shown zero increased risk of accident, as flights are recorded and so can be statistically analysed.

A 2 min glance shows that the discount is on their gift cards - pilots see the same amount of money. It is effectively reducing Wingly's profit margin on the service they provide. Everyone knows that a fair percentage of gift cards are never cashed in...
Wingly charges a commission of £10 + 15% of the total booking price (+VAT) which is part of the reason that the per passenger numbers don't generally multiply out.

If advertising something - its always going to start with the lowest possible price.
Delta_Wing, flybymike, RisePilot and 2 others liked this
#1886095
to me, there are a few variables that just need defining.

Profit - define this, you could argue that a pilot contributing £1 towards a £100 flight does not "profit" from the flight, however, if that pilot is hour building to either gain an additional endorsement or just to fill his log book to reduce insurance costs, he is profiting in a non cash sense. You could argue that he has gained the full cost of the flight.

Relationship - How does the pilot know his passenger? If they are known prior to the flight, for example, friend or work colleague, it is not a relationship created by the flight. Wingly, for example, creates a relationship because of the flight.

Frequency - in conjunction with the above, there has to be a point where occasional, social joyrides turn into commercial flight experience. where is the threshold for this?

My next query is regarding liability, if the passenger is required to sign a Passenger Declaration and Consent Form, will this transfer any financial liability in the event of an accident to the passenger?
#1886098
What is the evidence for passengers being unhappy about not knowing about the risk they are undertaking (compared to CAT)?
It is pretty obvious to the great unwashed, that riding a motorbike is higher risk than a car. That flying in a small single engine aircraft is higher than in an Airbus A330.
RisePilot liked this
#1886100
A4 Pacific wrote:I disagree.

1) Just because we can’t prevent law breaking doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. That’s perverse!

2) After Henderson, you don’t think there’s a problem? Really? Comments about Wingly and PPLs turning up with 4 bars on their shoulders. The fairly widespread suggestion that suspicious activity is not unusual, but people don’t wish to ‘get involved’?



This is a problem of non-enforcement.

Every few weeks the little van of the German CAA is seen on the airfield and they do ask to see people's papers.

To hope that the problem goes away with other pilots being 'vigilant' seems naive in the extreme.
skydriller, A4 Pacific liked this
#1886101
riverrock wrote:What is the evidence for passengers being unhappy about not knowing about the risk they are undertaking (compared to CAT)?
It is pretty obvious to the great unwashed, that riding a motorbike is higher risk than a car. That flying in a small single engine aircraft is higher than in an Airbus A330.


Eh no.

Why would they even know that there are different regulations and requirements between the two?
#1886103
A4 Pacific wrote:
johnm wrote:There are two old saws that apply here:

1) The system (or regulation) that cannot be abused has yet to be invented.

2) If it ain't broke don't fix it.

The proposals simply complicate matters and are therefore counter productive. The abusers will still abuse and those who interpret the rules sensibly will have additional complexity and difficulty and so helpful and useful activities may be curtailed due to excess caution and/or the dreaded gold plating......


I disagree.

1) Just because we can’t prevent law breaking doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. That’s perverse!

2) After Henderson, you don’t think there’s a problem? Really? Comments about Wingly and PPLs turning up with 4 bars on their shoulders. The fairly widespread suggestion that suspicious activity is not unusual, but people don’t wish to ‘get involved’?

Unscrupulous individuals and Walter Mittys are prepared to risk others’ lives. What we are discussing here is a consultation. People like you will object in accordance with the jerk of your knee. But this is about making it easier to stamp out dangerous greedy fraud! Precisely for all the reasons already stated it’s easy to get away with putting innocent lives at risk, What the CAA are doing here is starting a discussion in the hope that a way of identifying when clear cut rules have been broken, in order to make enforcement easier!

Why don’t we discuss how we ARE going to contribute to stamping out this nasty risky fraud, rather than just shrugging our shoulders and making ad-hominem attacks on the staff at the CAA whilst innocent people’s lives continue to be put at risk through greed and/or deluded over confidence in some’s ability/experience/qualifications.

Contribute rather than just nay-saying!



We want to stop grey charters. There are two parties involved, the pilot and the passenger.

Passenger -
    I would support making a signed declaration a requirement. It provides a standard form of words that are regulator approved so the passenger cannot then say they were mis-informed. This would capture activity taking place off web-platforms, as such platforms already have such T&Cs so are arguably "more safe" in this respect.
    I would suggest, to avoid onerous admin, that a signature is required per person per aircraft per pilot, but not on every subsequent flight. i.e if you're flying with the same friends you dont need to do it every time

Pilot
Generally, creating any more regulation from the pilot's perspective (other than the above) isn't going to stop illegal activity. I don't think, what looks like a tightening up the rules through the “common purpose” definition will make a jot of difference to illegal activity.
However – and this is where I may got shot down.....
*Disclaimer – I have used Wingly before
I don’t support A to A flights for “strangers” that are advertised via Wingly or in any other means other than through word of mouth. If you’re doing it from friends/family, that’s fine. But if you’re doing it for a random person you’re taking money out of Flying Schools/Clubs pockets. Furthermore, from an hour building perspective I’m not convinced the learning quality of A to A sight seeing flights on nice VFR days are the best.
So, I would suggest that A to A flights remove the definition of Common Purpose as this is Reductio ad absurdum in that if its flight with a stranger there would never have been Common Purpose, but it its with friends/acquaintances I don’t think we should stop these flights and the declaration form above covers the caveat emptor aspects (wow, two latin phrases in one sentence)
For A to B flights, this is trickier. I don’t think Common Purpose is useful here either unless we genuinely want to ban example given in this thread e.g. taking a friend to pick up their own plane from maintenance. Whatever definitions you use, you’ll end up penalising the majority of generally safe, competent pilots and/or removing the opportunity for valuable hours building.
To stop grey charters the approach needs to be intelligence led. We should look to technology (AI, ML) to start looking at anomalous patterns, routes, combinations of pilot, aircraft and destinations to drive informed ramp checks.
#1886105
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
riverrock wrote:What is the evidence for passengers being unhappy about not knowing about the risk they are undertaking (compared to CAT)?
It is pretty obvious to the great unwashed, that riding a motorbike is higher risk than a car. That flying in a small single engine aircraft is higher than in an Airbus A330.


Eh no.

Why would they even know that there are different regulations and requirements between the two?


Why would they know that there are different rules and regulations to drive a lorry, min-bus, large bus, truck, HGV, motor bike, heavier motorbike, taxi ...

There is a clear expectation that different things require different licences, and when something is part of an organised service (taxi vs car share) then additional processes or qualifications are required. Wingly (and other public shares, and charity flights) are very clear that they are being operated by private pilots.
If you advertise air experience flights, then more scrutiny is required of the pilots (not a lot, depending on the club, but some).
If you charter an aircraft, you expect the pilot to have additional qualifications.
RisePilot liked this
#1886110
Ok. So they're advocating that before any flight with anyone else in the aircraft the pilot shall fill in an online form (well paper is so passé) with his/her own details, the passenger's/passengers' details and the intended start and end points for each leg of the flight. The completed form shall then be digitally signed by each passenger. A sort of flight plan on steroids.

Before long someone who realise that errors are being made so it will become a criminal offence either not to fill one in or to make a mistake.

This whole thing is totally misconceived. Personally I fly for pleasure. Flying with friends is more pleasurable than alone. This sort of bureaucratic nonsense would kill that pleasure.
johnm, Flyin'Dutch', flybymike and 2 others liked this
#1886114
Those who seek to justify any of this nonsense have become part of the British disease, where controls and paperwork govern almost every aspect of life. It's been a growing problem since the 1980s and should be resisted not justified.

THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE ANYTHING about the cost sharing system.
skydriller, flybymike, lobstaboy and 4 others liked this
#1886123
VRB_20kt wrote:Ok. So they're advocating that before any flight with anyone else in the aircraft the pilot shall fill in an online form (well paper is so passé) with his/her own details, the passenger's/passengers' details and the intended start and end points for each leg of the flight. The completed form shall then be digitally signed by each passenger. A sort of flight plan on steroids.

Before long someone who realise that errors are being made so it will become a criminal offence either not to fill one in or to make a mistake.

This whole thing is totally misconceived. Personally I fly for pleasure. Flying with friends is more pleasurable than alone. This sort of bureaucratic nonsense would kill that pleasure.


How are you going to do this if your airfield has no wifi and limited 4G coverage ? :roll: I wonder if these guys ever venture outside the M25!
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 19