Peter wrote:
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.
I doubt it. I think much more is done under the table where both pilot & passenger(s) know what they are doing, and no one is prepared to pay CAA £££ for a gazillion of pages of different assessments and manuals.
In the end, you can come to any aifield, pay a club for a plane and pay a pilot to fly to where you like – it is not a CAT operation.
As long as they are not from the same organisation, should fine, isn’t it?
Peter wrote:
es 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).
Re: Hunter crash – was it only a pilot suspected? I thought the display director did not intervene in time as well. Or am I confusing different incidents?
The CAA produced a huge report – here. I doubt the display director could have done anything.
The Sala PA46 was an organised non-AOC discreet transport operation 
All the way down to having only a Mode C in a PA46 
If the CAA knew about it, it would have been hard to bust, due to the peripherally organised payments. There were other operations like that in decades past – GA folklore is full of it if you know enough old guys – which the CAA tried to bust but had to “settle on the court steps” although the operator did decide to pack it up.
