Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 25
#1672588
A lot is being made of the experience and lack thereof of advertisers on some internet platforms.

I take it we all know the fact that the three major incidents we are aware of and have been discussed here have all been at the hands of pilots with > 1000 hrs and at least two of them having professional qualifications
AlanM, Irv Lee, defcribed and 1 others liked this
#1672593
Stepping far enough back so i cannot focus on individual flights and prices, (and of course viewing it with my anti EASA glasses on, so no need to point it out), do we have any detailed (believable internal leak) information at all how this particular feature of EU Law came about?
The whole issue seems to have a foundation on the word "equal" being missing when it comes to shares of costs. One word. Everyone seems to be assuming that missing that word out was deliberate, but without access to what was discussed, and seen how Easa has screwed one or two other things up through wording issues, I have always doubted this.
I can see other places where it looks like mistakes or "ignorance" have produced strange things that appear to indicate not only lack of consideration to effects, but even misunderstanding of other EASA regulations. Sadly, Easa's Papal Infallibility means they never admit such mistakes but run with things regardless (for at least 5.3 years and counting).
Yes I know there were illegal charters before but from observation the numbers seemed small enough compared to today to be happy with proper AOC holders spotting illegal air taxi ops and turning them in. Now the idea of flying strangers for very major payments is rife, further encouraged by the ease of communication, but there is a firm base of apparent legality around it which would mean that (unavailable) manpower is needed to police it and filter it. All for a "one word missing" oversight?
Lockhaven, Sooty25, Dominie liked this
User avatar
By Lockhaven
#1672599
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
Lockhaven wrote:
I just quickly setup a 'Wingly' account as a passenger and can now get a round trip flight from the north of England to Jersey plus night stop with a 110 hour PPL for around £250 per person based on 3 passengers flying in a PA28, he/she even offers collection from other airports, FFS and you are trying to tell me thats safe and legal.


Strangely that advert has now suddenly disappeared, what does that tell you ?


Not sure, but let's look at the costs. Don't know what they class as the north of England, but let's say it's 3 hours each way to Jersey. 6 hours flying. Let's pick a random price for aircraft rental for a PA28 in the north of England, let's say £150 an hour. That's £900. Plus landing and parking fees. 3 people at £250 each is £750, leaving the Pilot to pay the rest. Doesn't seem hugely out of kilter.

Depending on the PA28 to lift 4 people, it may be a more expensive one (180hp? Maybe even a 235 but I doubt it).

Just looked it up, Sherburn Aero Club are £157.50 for a Warrior.


Leaving the money aside for one moment, lets look at it another way given the accident thats just occurred.

Would you go to a website and pick a flight like that using a 110 hour PPL in a single piston aircraft and put your wife and kids in the aircraft and say see you later ?

Thats what I am getting at not necessarily the money aspect.
#1672609
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:A lot is being made of the experience and lack thereof of advertisers on some internet platforms.

I take it we all know the fact that the three major incidents we are aware of and have been discussed here have all been at the hands of pilots with > 1000 hrs and at least two of them having professional qualifications


The two I know of, Alderney only a PPL no instrument or night qualification and Barton that is now in the courts only a PPL. Whats the other one ?
#1672616
An earlier poster (sorry can't find it since the thread split) made the good point that focusing on who pays for the flight is surely the wrong way to try to define a 'charter' in an attempt to outlaw the grey variety. It's self-evidently both illogical and unenforceable. I have nothing against Wingly (or anyone else taking advantage of the current regulations) but surely the defining issue is the nature of what is being offered, not who is paying for it. If a pilot offers to fly specific flights, times or routes, isn't it at that point that recreational flying becomes charter flying, irrespective of who is paying for what?

I realise that this approach is obviously not foolproof, but at first sight it just seems more realistic....not least because it seems quite likely that promising a specific time and route was the defining characteristic of the arrangement between pilot and passenger in the current tragic case - and which led them, ultimately, to be in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong aircraft.
#1672623
[quote="Gustosomerset"]If a pilot offers to fly specific flights, times or routes, isn't it at that point that recreational flying becomes charter flying, irrespective of who is paying for what?
/quote]

May seem like pedantry, but the definition of charter is that it goes where the customer requests. The specific times and routes you mention falls under 'scheduled'.

The conclusions in this discussion are, I believe, tending to what really matters. It's not the money, it's a matter of common purpose, who's directing things, and public advertising is (for me at least) the massive red flag.

For a different perspective look at how London Taxis are regulated. It is the right to 'ply for hire' that is restricted to those with the hard-to-get licence, not the ability to carry paying passengers. I'm not saying it's the way to do it with aviation, but it's another perspective.
#1672630
defcribed wrote:For a different perspective look at how London Taxis are regulated. It is the right to 'ply for hire' that is restricted to those with the hard-to-get licence, not the ability to carry paying passengers. I'm not saying it's the way to do it with aviation, but it's another perspective.

AOC?
Lockhaven liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 25