Airborne_Again, you may relate the attitude to online flight sharing to countries cultural differences and the historical path of a country, that could be the case but it is a bit of stretch (for the anecdote, when student I used to participate in “hitch-hike + couch-surf competitions” across Europe (Sweden to Spain, France to Greece), at the end of it the main bar discussion was about difficult countries and capitals to hitch-hike/ouch-surf, so there is some truth behind “self organized/shared communities” 
)
But for online flight sharing, I guess the attitude is mainly down to 1/ club personalities and politics or 2/ genuine assessment of risk or worse the case where 1/ is disguised as 2/
Peter wrote:
But now imagine one member is picking up advertised flight requests. He’s going to be doinglonger trips (frankly, nobody will want to be flown 50-100nm; you can drive it in less time and you end up with your car at the destination)
trips with more wx exposure
trips to unfamiliar airports, or even countries
solo flights (nobody second guessing his risk assessment)
flights which push the w&b, due to unknown passengers / passengers of “difficult to judge” size
You will find some presidents that still oppose to online flight sharing even when “the risk box” is ticked…
Peter wrote:
But now imagine one member is picking up advertised flight requests. He’s going to be doing longer trips (frankly, nobody will want to be flown 50-100nm; you can drive it in less time and you end up with your car at the destination)
It seems to be the case that the vast majority of actual flights via sharing sites are indeed short, local trips (day trips to some place or local sightseeing flights) rather than the A-to-B type of flights one might have expected.
That is actually very good news, if the stats indeed support that.
I am sure few people have an issue with taking people up for sightseeing. That is well within the “mission profile” of a typical private pilot.
Just got this amusing email
So Peter, you gonna go?
Sounds like fun and they certainly figured out whom to go to!
The email was from an .ru address and marked very urgent, so I would probably need to clean the door handles afterwards really well 
I wonder if UK pilots realise that they can cost share only within the UK?
I also wonder whether other national CAAs have made a similar ruling.
It means the really pricey trips cannot be cost shared. But even the “usual one” from Shoreham to Le Touquet cannot be cost shared.
Also this article appeared in FTN – a UK training industry news sheet – regarding concerns about cost sharing, notably Wingly, being a cover for illegal charters, and insurance concerns with Haywards Aviation Insurance being directly quoted. It is mostly predictable… but the UK-FIR restriction mentioned above is doubtless something few are aware of.
ORS4 1234 is relevant only to operations to which UK law applies i.e Annex II aircraft. It mirrors the derogation in EU regulation, which is applicable to EASA aircraft and certainly covers Shoreham to LeTouquet in your aircraft.
If you have issues with insurance, Visicover explicitly covers cost sharing — see their FAQ. Vote with your feet.
You do not need Wingly to offer illegal charters. I have observed illegal charters ever since I got my license in 1995. Some just do it with a PPL. Other with CPLs try to circumvent the AOC requirement through ingenious pro-forma ownership structures.
So in my view those sites do not really bring anything new to the table as far as illegal air taxi is concerned.
The practice I am a little concerned about is interpreting flight sharing as including flights that are solicited by “passengers”. To me that does awfully resemble air taxi activity although the price is still supposedly shared between pilot and passengers.
certainly covers Shoreham to LeTouquet in your aircraft.
OK; thank you for the clarification bookworm. Actually my N-reg cannot legally cost-share for other reasons.
Vote with your feet.
No need to; under UK insurance law, everything not expressly excluded is covered, and Haywards don’t exclude sharing. That article I linked to merely states the IMHO pretty obvious caution in case of an accident where the rules had been stretched.
