Post your pics, videos and vlogs here
By PrivatePilotAdam
#1727631
I know there is a mixed opinion within the community about Wingly, but its given me so much pleasure this year!

This video shows why... https://youtu.be/hHSS8mz4CCE

I read through pages and pages of comments before I joined, both positive and negative, but I thought the only way to find out was to give it a go!

I've met so many lovely people over the last 10 months (28 in total) and had the pleasure of flying 18 hours, and saved nearly £2,000.

Signing up was easy, I just needed to upload my medical, licence, passport to be verified.

My flying club is fully supportive of Wingly too!
kanga liked this
By baronbombburst
#1727648
I think wingly is a great idea too. And...... l'm usually the first to think 'bore off' the minute people pipe up with the same old arguments about it being illegal. I personally can't use it as I fly from a military establishment.

However, a quick search on wingly around my local area and I can see people charging what equates to an hourly rate of over £200 for a C172!

Wingly is great in principle, as long as it's used in spirit that was intended.
User avatar
By TLRippon
#1727650
£200 for a 172 is about right depending on where you get it if you include landing/parking at the other end.
By PaulB
#1727651
Doesn’t Wingly require the pilot to bear an equal share?

Anyway, I’m going to the popcorn shop, does anyone want any?
2Donkeys, JAFO liked this
By baronbombburst
#1727658
TLRippon wrote:£200 for a 172 is about right depending on where you get it if you include landing/parking at the other end.



This particular pilot was charging £171 when shared 50/50 (so £342 total) for a 1:30 sight seeing round trip. This works out at an hourly rate of £228. I find it hard to believe that is what the pilot is paying to rent.

Anyway, each to there own. There will always be some people who push the boundaries. Who am I to judge? I would use wingly if I could.
User avatar
By Sir Morley Steven
#1727662
PaulB wrote:Doesn’t Wingly require the pilot to bear an equal share?

Anyway, I’m going to the popcorn shop, does anyone want any?

I have just reread the CAAs page on cost sharing (good idea for any commentators on this thread to do it) and I still can’t see the bit that says costs have to be shared equally. Maybe the Wingly site says that?
By KeithM
#1727677
If I remember correctly, the omission of “equal” in the documentation has been discussed before in this forum.

I think we all know what the spirit and intention is and it says much about the selfish attitude and motives of those pilots who do not pay a minimum of an equal share and who, presumably, may also be misleading Wingly by doing so.

I would have thought that, in legal terms, such pilots could be playing with fire, especially in the event of an incident or accident irrespective of any bureaucratic errors or omissions.

Was this issue not a factor under consideration by the accident investigators following a fatal incident that made the headlines not so long ago?

Perhaps such pilots should consider setting aside any excessive cost savings to help cover any potential future legal fees?
User avatar
By kanga
#1727686
Rob P wrote:... The post is just some wannabe 'influencer' punting his YouTube channel.

Rob P


I don't know the OP (AFAIK), but I reckon this may be unfair. If there had been all the modern online tools (for weather, flight planning, navigation .. ) when I was newly qualified PPL ~50 years ago, and had had ready access to an aircraft to use, I'd have found Wingly a great way quickly to build up my flying experience in lots of ways useful both to me and to my future passengers. I like to think that my natural caution would have still meant that I was not irresponsibly exposing strangers to risks of which they were unaware and would have declined if they had known. I have always enjoyed talking first-time passengers (for me, usually youngsters eg Scouts on Aviation Camps, Young Eagles etc) through the issues involved in the imminent sortie. The fact that OP is doing his flying in a Club environment, ie under CFI oversight, suggests to me an extra level of responsibility. Good luck to him ..
BehyBill, Rob P liked this
By PaulB
#1727687
Sir Morley Steven wrote:I have just reread the CAAs page on cost sharing (good idea for any commentators on this thread to do it) and I still can’t see the bit that says costs have to be shared equally. Maybe the Wingly site says that?


That’s what I said isn’t it? It’s the Wingly site that requires equal shares (I tbink)
User avatar
By Rob P
#1727703
kanga wrote:I don't know the OP (AFAIK), but I reckon this may be unfair.


My point was that we have a perfectly serviceable forum for posting videos, but the OP chose to put it here with a slightly contentious post title, probably with the intention of collecting more viewers to his YouTube channel with consequent benefits in terms of monetisation.

Good luck to him, very enterprising, but somewhat transparent.

Rob P
Miscellaneous, Jonzarno, PaulB and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
#1727707
If something on Wingly appears not to be within the rules, report it, they'll take it down apparently.

Anyway, onto important things, I haven't had cinema nachos for over 25 years, but I remember that cheese sauce they put on them tasted quite nice, but made one's teeth go all furry (like sugar saturated fizzy drinks). I used to get them to shovel on a whole load of jalapenos as well.

You can get a reasonable nacho thing going by putting Doritos (others are available) in the oven for a short while. Don't put them in too long or the flavouring goes. Not worried about rubbery cheese, cheddar can go like that in the oven, as does mozzarella. Cheddar as more flavour though.
User avatar
By JAFO
#1727727
I know very little about YouTube and even less about Wingly (I am also fairly uneducated in the ways of the nacho - though I like the sound of Genghis' homemade ones). I've recently put a couple of videos on YouTube, really just to enable me to share the large files they end up being.

So, what makes someone like me - or the many well-known YouTube flyers - just some bloke who shares some of his videos and what makes the OP a would-be "influencer"? Genuine question. Is it the sunglasses or the subtle bars on his shoulder? I also have no idea about moneytization, either online or anywhere else in life.

I might even look at Wingly next year. I'm always keener on spending other people's money than my own. It is great to be able to share our privileged view of the world, too.

Anyway, sorry for the thread-drift, back to the nachos.
kanga, Chris Martyr liked this
User avatar
By Waveflyer
#1727747
Rob P wrote:Wingly? Who cares? The post is just some wannabe 'influencer' punting his YouTube channel.

Rob P

Rob P wrote:
kanga wrote:I don't know the OP (AFAIK), but I reckon this may be unfair.


My point was that we have a perfectly serviceable forum for posting videos, but the OP chose to put it here with a slightly contentious post title, probably with the intention of collecting more viewers to his YouTube channel with consequent benefits in terms of monetisation.

Good luck to him, very enterprising, but somewhat transparent.

Rob P

Rob
I don’t know why you make such dismissive gratuitous posts. Considering it’s Adams 5th post I thought he had made a valid point very well and it’s certainly not out of place in GA. I see you’ve made over 34,000 posts in the 16 years you have been on the forum so would have thought your vastly superior knowledge wisdom and journalistic skills could have encouraged the next generation. We all started somewhere.
Yes, I may be in a bad mood. The rugby score is not what I expected :roll:
kanga, Flyin'Dutch' liked this