I wonder what the CAA actually wants.
The old wording “within the premises of the club” would be interpreted by any UK court as including a website based club. This was never tested – obviously because the CAA does not want a precedent. Like Brussels/Cologne, they much prefer FUD.
And, anyway, the regs were comprehensively worked around by loads of “seat sharing” websites. You would not get a “seat” on any of these unless you offered to cost share. One exception I recall was a woman pilot who was looking for a date 
Given that the CAA actions over the years have been much more political than safety based (look at their prosecutions: “illegal charter” always gets hit, because AOC holders pay fat fees to the CAA, and they busted Henderson while leaving the wreckage – which might have been a good learning data point – under the sea in case it revealed dodgy maintenance) so one would expect the CAA to want to block the use of Wingly etc as quasi charter (which, let’s face it, it very nearly is).
I completed it too.
The fact that they don’t put the current regulations into the survey, only what they want you to agree with, is really trying to get you to agree with them by default. They aren’t making alternative easy to consider.
Yes; a disgraceful and quite transparent bit of subterfuge.
They are relying on the fact that only a few % of UK GA know the history of this thing.
If there is a full reversion, we will just get loads of “seat sharing” websites. There is nothing illegal about making the “seat” conditional on agreeing to cost-share.
Also completed it.
Also completed it, again stating that the choice of destination is irrelevant as both parties are beneficiaries – the pilot gets to increase his experience / currency at a reduced cost, the passenger gets to their destination. However I would like to see some sort of regulation in the way that costs are charged – for example, I just went on to Wingly and chose someone at random flying near Bristol and one which caught my eye was a pilot charging from £207 / person for a flight from (eg) Kemble to Sandown and back, in a PA28-161. Flying direct would be around 35minutes; however let’s assume he flies the route he’s advertised both there and back – would you fly that both directions? – i.e. first head south east over Swindon until directly north of Southampton, route through their overhead then fly direct to the needles and across to the Sandown and flies the same route in reverse, they’ll be there in approx 49 minutes each leg (zero wind) – so let’s call it an hour each way.
According to the pilot’s ad, it’s 2 hours 40 minutes flying all told. But let’s say it is actually 1h 20 minutes per flight. Where is the cost sharing if 3 people join and pay £621 for that flight there and back? Basically if the pilot can charter a PA28-161 for £232 / hour all in, that flight is fully paid for with no cost to the pilot. I know that (eg) Dunkeswell offers their Warrior III for £205 / hour all in and out of curiosity, I googled Kemble and guess what – the aircraft the pilot is planning to use from Kemble is offered for £200 / hour…..
Interestingly enough, the same pilot is offering a day excursion to Scillies from Kemble – same aircraft (PA28-161) for up to 3 additional people from £217 / person. That’s a 4 hour flight, there and back, at which point his charter cost is actually cost sharing.
I’ve never offered cost sharing in flights but I do think the system is open to abuse and should be more regulated to ensure that the rules of cost sharing are actually met.
Interestingly enough, the same pilot is offering a day excursion to Scillies from Kemble – same aircraft (PA28-161) for up to 3 additional people from £217 / person. That’s a 4 hour flight, there and back, at which point his charter cost is actually cost sharing.
Perhaps more interestingly is whether the airplane’s M&B is legal.
I am somewhat sympathetic with the CAA on the abuse of cost sharing for in effect for-profit, non AOC, grey charters. Perhaps I am in a minority on this site, but my impression is that there has been a growth in grey charter operations and this is definitely not a public good, or healthy for the long term survival of GA. Some personalities on social media also seem not to try to disguise this type of operation. The CAA doesn’t have the resources to police this, and therefore increasing regulation/ legislation is probably their only policy action.
RobertL18C wrote:
I am somewhat sympathetic with the CAA on the abuse of cost sharing for in effect for-profit, non AOC, grey charters. Perhaps I am in a minority on this site, but my impression is that there has been a growth in grey charter operations and this is definitely not a public good, or healthy for the long term survival of GA.
I’m afraid you are in the minority – the majority wouldn’t care.
RobertL18C wrote:
The CAA doesn’t have the resources to police this, and therefore increasing regulation/ legislation is probably their only policy action.
That is the problem – the CAA don’t have resources to make life worse for those running grey charter ops, so they make life worse for the rest of the pilots.
@arj1 while the safety record on grey charters is not great, perhaps on private cost sharing there hasn’t been any major incidents as it is not that widespread?
Insurance carriers seem to ask if you intend to carry out cost sharing, and where there have been fatal accidents the estate of the pilot is emptied out, so good old economics will provide regulation through self interest.
Perhaps if the safety framework of AOC procedures was applied, including lodging copies of M&B/Performance/Fuel Plan with the operator, duty and currency standards, which arguably are public mother and apple pie goods, then these operations may get adopted more widely. I suspect outside a normal club member environment (the majority of these operations, and implied by the CAA survey not offensive to the CAA), the amount of actual hours flown on the operations is small. Also very small in the context of grey charter trying to use these rules as a fig leaf.
RobertL18C wrote:
arj1 while the safety record on grey charters is not great, perhaps on private cost sharing there hasn’t been any major incidents as it is not that widespread?
I think problem here is if the client knows it is a grey charter, but they both pretend it to be cost-sharing – there is no way to enforce it, especially if both pilot and customer explicitly record it down in e-mails & messages as the cost-sharing. On top of that the customer might foot the bill for fuel and parking (in cash), and that would more than cover the full cost of the flight. Or it all could be organised it through “corporate flying”…
RobertL18C wrote:
Perhaps if the safety framework of AOC procedures was applied, including lodging copies of M&B/Performance/Fuel Plan with the operator, duty and currency standards, which arguably are public mother and apple pie goods, then these operations may get adopted more widely.
I would always have W&B calculations printed and with me, as well as fuel plan. And I will print the performance graph as well, as I kind of expect it to be ramp-checked at any point… Same with currency standards – 3 takeoffs & landings, 1 at night, etc, unless flying with an instructor.
RobertL18C wrote:
I suspect outside a normal club member environment (the majority of these operations, and implied by the CAA survey not offensive to the CAA), the amount of actual hours flown on the operations is small. Also very small in the context of grey charter trying to use these rules as a fig leaf.
I think you are right, it is small outside the school environment, and I think that the CAA here are still going through it knee-jerk reaction phase after the Sala crash.
Is wingly a big thing? I know the idea is super provocative, and the CAA is evidently determined to do all it can to block it, but is it really significant? For starters, almost nobody who owns a decent plane does it. Your headsets will get trashed…
One can advertise flights freely but that is what “seat sharing” sites were doing anyway.
Yes the Sala crash has got the CAA hot under the collar in the same way that they hammered Shoreham airport (and continue to do so) over the Hunter crash there which was nothing to do with the airport (it was just a cowboy pilot).
