Lockhaven wrote:I asked this question earlier to @Paul_Sengupta would you go to a website such as 'Wingly' and put your wife and kids in a PA28 with an unknown pilot advertising a total time of 110 hours to fly from the north of England to Jersey (that advert has since been removed) ?
On a nice day with good visibility, within W&B, probably yes.
But that wasn't the point that was made and the one I was replying to. I was just addressing the implication about cost and just stating that it wasn't out of kilter with the cost of hiring the aeroplane.
But I wouldn't pay the prices asked!
And knowing non-flyers, I don't think anyone else will either!
It was mentioned on here before, and I posted on Facebook about this in the last couple of days, that the cost sharing rules have a bit of an anomaly. If you own the aeroplane, you're only allowed to share the direct costs, fuel and oil, etc. If you rent, the whole rental cost can be shared, which includes the share of the aeroplane's fixed costs and the owner's profit..
I'm not pro Wingly, I was just addressing the point implied about money. As for the Tomahawk flight, that seems like exactly the thing that flying in one's early stages should be about, sharing one's enthusiasm for flying with someone else, and a local sightseeing flight has no implication of being an illegal charter. It's just where the pilot chooses to "ask around", i.e. on a website, which is the contentious bit.
AlanM wrote:Personally, I think the elasticity of acceptability and indeed the law is being stretched too far.
I don't disagree that some people are pushing it, but I don't think the Tomahawk flight is an example of this!