Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 19
#1886001
The whole point about grey areas is that they will inevitably exist and the system will be abused. That doesn’t imply a bad system it implies foolish and/or unscrupulous humans.

If an experienced pilot and family call a mate and say something like “my plane is u/s do you fancy a trip to Blackpool I’ll pick up the fuel and landing fees” it might be argued it’s pale grey but it’s surely not abuse….
Lefty, AndyR liked this
#1886007
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!
#1886011
A4 Pacific wrote:
johnm wrote:2) If it ain't broke don't fix it.

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’?


The current law enables successful prosecution. What more do we want?
Flyin'Dutch', flybymike, johnm and 2 others liked this
#1886021
MattL wrote:Ok, so let’s take a scenario of a recently qualified PPL, no IMC or IR, renting a Cherokee 6 from Oxford. He needs to build hours for his Modular CPL. He flys 4 people he has never met from his dads business as cost share people to Scotland for a stag do and back. They have to go on Friday night and back Sunday afternoon. He pays £1 each way and his ‘passengers’ pay the other £700+ each way costs.

Do we think that is reasonable and safe activity? Would that be permitted under the current regs? How would greater enforcement of the current regs work?


It's relatively easy to come up with scary but hypothetical situations like this, but we don't, or shouldn't legislate against the 'worst our imaginations can come up with under current rules'.

What does the data say?

Ian
johnm, kanga, reubeno and 1 others liked this
#1886023
The current law enables successful prosecution. What more do we want?


That particular offence only came to light because two people died. But the ‘business model’ had allegedly been running for years. Now call me old fashioned, but I think it might be reasonable to make prosecutions easier before loss of life occurs?

What do you think?

As far as I can see this consultation is a first step to attempt to make enforcement and prosecutions easier and therefore more likely. All we need to do is identify which points are workable and which are problematic. Or make alternative suggestions.

Don’t just stick your fingers in your ears, and call the CAA names!

nWhat does the data say?


The data says in January of 2019 two people died in an illegal charter, but that for an extended previous period many innocent lives were put at increased risk. Not least because this offence is obscured to make it difficult to identify. Other ‘data’ suggests grey charters are not isolated incidents.

Why don’t we take a closer look by defining more clearly how such charters might be more easily identified?
Last edited by A4 Pacific on Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
#1886024
MattL wrote:Ok, so let’s take a scenario of a recently qualified PPL, no IMC or IR, renting a Cherokee 6 from Oxford. He needs to build hours for his Modular CPL. He flys 4 people he has never met from his dads business as cost share people to Scotland for a stag do and back. They have to go on Friday night and back Sunday afternoon. He pays £1 each way and his ‘passengers’ pay the other £700+ each way costs.

Do we think that is reasonable and safe activity? Would that be permitted under the current regs? How would greater enforcement of the current regs work?


I would ask if this is a reasonable scenario? Would you rent a Cherokee 6 you own to a new PPL for the weekend if you weren't happy the guy could fly it safely?

This is actually what the recent prosecution by the CAA regarding the Sala accident is about, after all...

Regards, SD..
Supercat liked this
By Lefty
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1886026
I am absolutely and categorically opposed to the idea of a 47 hour TT PPL offering to fly “all-comers” wherever they fancy going. Irrespective of any financial consideration, it is without doubt a risky practice. One only has to look at the aforementioned flightshare sites to find several such advertisements - all perfectly legal :cry: I also have concerns that the inexperienced PPL may not have developed the decision making skills or the personality to tell his passengers that it isn’t suitable to fly, and could therefore be pressured into flying in unsafe conditions.

A few years back, the CAA had rules governing charity flights which required that no ppl could carry (unsuspecting) members of the public on a charity flight unless that had a certain degree of experience and currency on type - and only under good VFR conditions. IIRCC you needed >300 hrs PIC, 50 hrs PIC on type and 5 hrs in the last 30 days. Perhaps this might be sensible for these cost sharing flights?

I haves personal experience of getting calls and texts from a Wingly pilot asking for help when he had taken off in conditions that were way outside his experience, skills or qualifications. My first advice was to turn around and land back where he had departed from, but he replied that he couldn’t do that as he and his Wingly pax had to get back for work. With some help and advice - it didn’t turn into an accident.


However I firmly believe that this is worlds away from an experienced PPL, agreeing to fly another PPL, or family or friends, who both know the pilots experience and are happy to trust them with their lives.
I have close family that live in distant parts of the uk, who have, in the past, asked me to fly them back to the uk for one purpose or another. As mentioned in an earlier post, I am often asked to fly other a/c owners to deliver / collect their a/c from distant locations. However I am not wealthy enough to be able to fly them for free. As @johnm wrote, this is not a risky situation - neither is it flying for hire and reward . I’m 71, got thousands of hours, I don’t need more hours to get a flying job, so what “benefit” am I getting, other than enjoying the flying and helping a friend. It seems to be a gross breach of my civil liberties to make this illegal.
skydriller, johnm, Highland Park and 2 others liked this
#1886027
A4 Pacific wrote:That particular offence only came to light because two people died. But the ‘business model’ had allegedly been running for years. Now call me old fashioned, but I think it might be reasonable to make prosecutions easier before loss of life occurs?

What do you think?

That it will make life harder for law abiding citizen but that the CAA won't spend a kopek more on enforcement and so will only prosecute when a case fall on their plate like after an accident.
#1886030
Attempting to be constructive I sat down this morning to properly read the consultation. I found it impossible onscreen and (at great cost to the environment) printed out the whole lot.

I think my next move will be to put the entire document in the post to the Plain English Campaign. It is close to being impenetrable in parts a real tribute to everyone in the 'working group' having insisted on their caveat being included, to the detriment of comprehension.

I shall report back should I ever reach the end.

Rob P
johnm, patowalker, Mz Hedy and 2 others liked this
#1886033
A4 Pacific wrote:
The current law enables successful prosecution. What more do we want?


That particular offence only came to light because two people died. ...........


.........one of whom was a famous football player.

Had be been a bricklayer, desperately trying to get home for a family medical emergency, it would have got 3cm on page 7 of the "Channel Island Times" and no prosecution.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1886036
@A4 Pacific
You are at liberty to disagree but you are misguided.

Charter flights are not allowed unless you have things like AOC and CPL.

However, PPL's can carry who they like, where they like, when they like, but are not allowed to charge. Because many folk feel uncomfortable about being non-contributing passengers and actually want to contribute so that they can enjoy the experience guilt free, the door is open for them to contribute to the costs as they see fit in discussion with the pilot.

PPL's are also legally aircraft captains and carry that heavy responsibility.

If some of those captains are irresponsible, that is nothing to do with the system and everything to do with sanctioning irresponsible individuals. So the focus should be on enforcement, not system design as the system allows exactly what it is supposed to.

It could be argued that WINGLY etc. encourage the less scrupulous and if there is evidence for that then shut them down, but don't change a working system.
NickA, flybymike, kanga and 1 others liked this
#1886040
A4 Pacific wrote:The data says in January of 2019 two people died in an illegal charter, but that for an extended previous period many innocent lives were put at increased risk. Not least because this offence is obscured to make it difficult to identify. Other ‘data’ suggests grey charters are not isolated incidents.


That case had nothing to do with cost sharing, it was about making a profit. Let's not try to resolve a problem in one area by legislating in another.

Why don’t we take a closer look by defining more clearly how such charters might be more easily identified?


In the case of legal cost sharing via online platforms, the information is there for all to see. It really couldn't be much more public. I am sure that some have tried to game the system by inflating direct costs, but if the CAA is blind to that, I suggest the solution isn't extra legislation.

I think the Sala flight would have still taken place under the proposed new rules, I don't see anything in the proposals that would help identify that flight.
johnm, flybymike, Flyin'Dutch' and 4 others liked this
#1886041
I wonder about the five passenger provision.

To me this, despite the 'common purpose' stipulation* seems an encouragement to use cost sharing as a substitute for a proper charter flight.

Rob P

*The pilot acquires a pair of binoculars and is, to all intents and purpose an avid twitcher.
Last edited by Rob P on Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sooty25, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 19