Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 19
#1886315
It seems we are trying to solve two different problems. Is the consultation about

1) Legal Cost Sharing and “concerns” raised by unnamed groups - as is inferred in the consultation or
2) Illegal charters.

If it’s the first item. Is the concern safety or commercial. The paper suggests it safety. In which case the burden should be on the pilot to inform the passenger of the risk. Making itn”equal cost” or “common purpos” doesn’t allow the passenger to be more informed about the risk. But before we add more admin- where are the facts and evidence?
If it’s commercial it can only be flying clubs complaining about A to A flights. Which I sympathise with.

If it’s Illegal Charter - the paper needs to be torn up and started again.
MikeB, Supercat liked this
#1886316
Miscellaneous wrote: It would help if the CAA understood the problem before suggesting a solution


Yes the objectives are not clear: regulating Wingly advertising? protecting local club/school trial A/A flights? catching illegal A/B charters? regulating friend & family flights?

Maybe it's just about appearance of doing something?
#1886321
Do you honestly think the CAA will set up a notification system for passengers to sign either digitally or by paperwork which does not involve the CAA taking a fee?

This is a CELMA system in the making with a modest £8 per passenger fee in the background.

Remember the CAA is a profit making agency and GA doesn’t pay enough apparently.
Snorker, flybymike, Flyin'Dutch' and 1 others liked this
#1886326
TLRippon wrote:Do you honestly think the CAA will set up a notification system for passengers to sign either digitally or by paperwork which does not involve the CAA taking a fee?

This is a CELMA system in the making with a modest £8 per passenger fee in the background.

Remember the CAA is a profit making agency and GA doesn’t pay enough apparently.


I bet my little pink curly tail on the fact that the CAA will try and monetise this.

Another thought - If I am given a lift to the airfield by someone who is also going to the airfield that day - but for different reasons and I offer to buy them lunch to say thanks, should I inform the DVLA, should they inform the DVLA? Surely that is an illegal taxi-ride, my safety will have been jeopardised by the shoddy driving and the fact that the aircraft/oops I mean car hasn't been maintained to the same standard as errrrr, no hang on, it has an MOT tooo. Oh. Dear.
#1886338
Could make an exception when you didn't need the paperwork.
If the passenger is / was:
- a pilot
- ever taken any sort of flying lesson
- a relation of a pilot
- a friend of a pilot
- has previously been in a light aircraft
- has watched a TV program which included flying any sort of small aircraft
- has watched a YouTube (other platforms available) of an aircraft being piloted

therefore they will understand that there is an increased risk, so no need for the paperwork in relationship to safety.
Rob P, rdfb liked this
#1886362
I have to admit to having replied to the conclusion, sorry meant consultation, before having really given this a lot of thought. As I was working through I was hit by how little background explanation some of the questions had and how there was often not an appropriate answer for the question posed. I'm wishing I could retract my answers after having read all of this and submit them again.

This is obviously all about the black charters (lets not dance around calling them grey, they're usually well outside of anything a responsible PPL would do, flagrantly disregarding both the spirit and the letter of the law).

Why don't we just put a simple requirement on non-commercial flights; passengers are under no obligation to contribute to a flight and they have to be told this before they get into the plane.
Unless you hold a CPL or equivalent and operating under a properly registered commercial organisation which allow you to charge for a flight, this has to be stated in any adverts and as part of the safety brief. Hell we could have the CAA put up posters around the airfields "Don't get scammed. If you don't have a ticket, you don't have to pay".
For simplicity, as we have now, any contribution they do pay cannot exceed the direct operating costs of the flight, (although I do think owners should be able to include a maximum of say 2% of the maintenance, hanger and insurance costs that they have incurred in the past 12 months towards the hourly operating cost, this being simpler to demonstrate if challenged than say potential future engine/prop replacement costs).

If you advertise on Wingly or similar, take a random someone flying and they then don't pay, tough; rate them on Wingly as free-loaders, it's unlikely anyone else will take them flying again. If the passenger knows they can potentially fly for free, they must be able to figure out for themselves there is some extra personal risk compared to hopping an an Easyjet for having no obligation to pay for the ride. If you don't want to take the risk of taking someone else flying for free, don't use Wingly; if you want to guarantee getting paid, get the qualifications which mean you can charge for the flight.

If you take a mate to recover a plane, and he wants to pay for the fuel (in burgers, Rubles, or 'personal services') they can. Someone in the club who regularly gets a lift and doesn't reciprocate in some way, will soon find the only way to collect their plane from maintenance 150 miles away is public transport. If you want to take family and let them contribute, they can, and you don't have to foot an equal part of the bill.

Black charters will soon stop if they can't guarantee they will cover the costs of their flight. For those that ignore the rules, the book just got a bit heavier and easier to throw in their direction. Wingly type adverts will still allow people the oportunity to share the cost of their flight if they're already going somewhere and have a spare seat or just want to share the pleasure of flight with someone who otherwise might never get the chance.

None of this would have saved Sala. It won't prevent pilots operating outside the scope of their skills, or with expired invalid ratings. At least it's not burdening the rest of us with a load of extra bureaucracy unnecessarily though.
Sooty25, rdfb, Not30wagain and 1 others liked this
#1886375
aerosbitbasher wrote:I have to admit to having replied to the conclusion, sorry meant consultation, before having really given this a lot of thought. As I was working through I was hit by how little background explanation some of the questions had and how there was often not an appropriate answer for the question posed. I'm wishing I could retract my answers after having read all of this and submit them again.



Find the confirmation email you will have received, and then forward it to ga@caa.co.uk with the request that they delete your submission. You must be entitled to withdraw your opinion before the closing date.
#1886381
There is no numerical data in the consultation to indicate the scale of the (grey charter) problem.

How many suspected grey charters are being investigated each year?
How many are proven to be illegal charters?

How many accidents have there been in proper legal charters each year?
How many accidents have there been in suspected grey charters each year?
How many accidents have there been in proven illegal grey charters each year?

How many accidents have there been in GA flights each year?
How many accidents have there been in GA training flights each year?
How many accidents have there been in solo GA flights each year?
How many accidents have there been in cost sharing flights each year?


For the above what is the trend over the last 10 years and what were the aircraft types and what licence/ratings did the aircraft commander have and time on type? Was the aircraft commander an owner or renter of the aircraft?
johnm, flybymike, MikeB and 1 others liked this
#1886445
I see load of references on having commercial licences or commercial organisations, are people aware it's illegal to fly public transport in SEP?

Are there any PA28 on AOC operated under Part-CAT with public transport and paying passengers? VFR, IFR, Night?

I doubt having commercial licence or organisation allow charging for pax on PT flights? except for what is already NCO flying (trial flights, instruction and owner aircraft...)

Ignoring aerial photography, banner towing, ferry flight and owner aircraft...
MikeB liked this
#1886469
I see load of references on having commercial licences or commercial organisations, are people aware it's illegal to fly public transport in SEP?


VFR public transport in an SEP is allowed, on an AOC obviously. Historically operators who conduct A-A flights with members of public have done so under the guise of trial lessons, so the market for SEPs on AOCs is limited, but they do exist. Various warbirds on SSAC as well.
Ibra liked this
#1886500
The consultation makes significant emphasis on the reasonable difference in safety standards and training and oversight of commercial flights.
We all know that some commercial passengers are particularly nervous at the best of times.

The pandemic lockdowns put both commercial and non-commercial flights at a temporarily elevated level of risk until pilots got used to doing real flying again.

This AAIB bulletin appears to be an interesting example with a hint that use of a commercial sim might not be enough to fully de-risk a lack of currency of real flying.... and a potential disaster was averted by intervention of the tower controller and radar controller.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/aaib-special-bulletin-boeing-737-800-g-fdzf-deviation-from-expected-flightpath-during-a-go-around-aberdeen-airport

I dont recall any news of any of the airlines notifying passengers of their increased risk to allow the passengers to assess all the facts on the safety of the commercial public transport flight they were about to undertake, so that passengers could assess whether they wanted to cancel or postpone their trip.

Did these passengers have to do a pandemic special "Passenger Declaration and Consent" Form?
A bit like the form in this consultation with similarly worded items such as
-The pilot has fully briefed me/us on the certain risks and dangers which are applicable to aviation.
- In signing this declaration, you are confirming that you fully understand and accept in full the risks that can be involved in flying as a passenger in a public transport flight.

The proposed form omitted there is a risk of death.

There is a risk of death in ALL forms of private and public transport even when the professionals are at the controls.
This is perhaps something most people choose to ignore or just dont think about it in their daily routine (or some people would never go anywhere beyond easy walking distance).
Providers of motorsports events and experiences have a consent form that reminds participants there is a risk of death and serious injury with some wording attempting to indemnify the organisers and staff from being chased by the participants relatives/lawyers if things go badly wrong.
There will be people that dont understand the legal terminology and simply sign because they want to enjoy the experience.

Notionally the risk will be higher with amateurs with a licence to operate a vehicle (and the general public will have many experiences of professional and non-profession car/van drivers making mistakes to support this assumption, and that anyone can make a mistake).
So there should be an expectation of knowing there will be some difference regardless of whether it is for a plane, a boat, a car, a van, a motorbike, .... even if they dont know the actual difference is for the specific mode of transport.

In general the public have no knowledge of the different kind of pilot licences and ratings so even if they asked to see these documents they would not know what they are supposed to look like. They have no idea of their validity for the airspace, the specific aircraft type and country of registration of the aircraft, and country of issue of pilot licence.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 19