Flight sharing sites (general discussion) (merged)

Peter wrote:

And for pretty obvious reasons; you are quite vulnerable when up there and there is a variety of angles on that especially if the pilot is a woman It’s like with internet dating… would you go somewhere where you cannot get away, on the first date? People may laugh but you can’t dismiss this bit of psychology out of hand.

Peter, I don’t get it. What’s special about a woman pilot? Are you concerned about being inappropriately, er, handled, in flight? I must admit, I don’t have that problem myself….

Or do you mean a female pax? There’s certainly a possible problem there, as males are more likely to show off their skills, whether real or imagined…Peacock Syndrome, I think it’s known as…

Patrick wrote:

Oh common! I think sometimes we as private pilots really need to get off our high horses.

It has nothing to do with horses, or getting off, or the height. My stand on this is a realist. The only thing that can come out of this is more regulations, stricter regulations and stricter control of those regulations. Just a whole bunch more of what we do not need. Maybe not immediately, but after the first accident connected to this, the entire non flying European population will literally cry out for more governmental control and regulation of this “death trap” that a SEP has shown to be. That aside, what is gained by this? nothing at all. We need to lower the bar in GA, not raise it. That way we can also lower the bar for commercial operations, so it will become possible for a pilot to take a CPL and have a normal life flying “taxi flying” or similar.

Nobody cared to try to answer the original question, which I find very interesting. It was not about (yet another) discussion of the legality of flight sharing sites as they are, nor if we should make cost sharing legal or illegal (that could be one of the consequences of the answers to this question, though).

As @dublinpilot has stated, there are obvious advantages and disadvantages to having these sites, and I think both would play out if some of them survive. So yes, we would attract more people to general aviation, as is already the case with current introductory flights organized by aeroclubs. If the flight goes well, I see no difference between a sightseeing flight sold as “introductory flight” by a club, and one which is brokered between a pilot and an interested person over a flight sharing website as to its effect for promoting GA. That this positive effect exists is widely accepted throughout the world and it is the reason why for example the French FFA fights to keep the right to do these flights. If we have more such flights (which I would expect from allowing brokering websites), we would have more of this positive effect.

Flights from A to B are already a bit different, because they might actually be useful as a means of transportation, something that some of the participants here seem to dispute, ridicule, or even seem to fear downright for a reason not known to me. It is obvious though that some inexperienced or badly trained pilots with a weak will may be pressured to do flights that they would not have undertaken if they had not had passengers. So I think more accidents would happen. But accidents, oftentimes tragic, happen already now with pilots taking along passengers they have found not through a website, or even during flight training, or during airshows, etc., which already produce the kind of headlines mentioned here. All of this has not stopped GA, so why should it do so in the future. It would just point out the risk, and people seeking rides would then be educated about them, what to look for to reduce them, and if they still decide to go for a flight, the state should let them go!

From this, you can see that I think the benefits outweigh the negatives for the future of GA, of allowing these sites. But I think the risks are also real, and the more is being done to educate users of a sharing website (both passengers and pilots), the better. In the end, there are still commercial providers of canyoning tours, racetrack driving or bungee jumping, and no-one would book one of these expecting the risk to be the same as a walk in the park.

Patrick wrote:

We all claim that for our own opinions, don’t we?

I don’t talk for “all”, only myself. The point is, cost sharing has always been allowed in Norway. Pre-EASA/JAR whatever it was a right that any PPL had. It was my right to share cost with anyone I chose. The only restriction was the people I shared the cost with had to be “friends, family or acquaintances” up front, and no commercial advertising was allowed. It is no ones elses business how and why I and my family and friends share costs. There were no 6 person limit either.

This new EASA regulation adds a commercial dimension into this, and then – as by magic – it is every single bureaucrat’s business who I fly with and how we share cost. How any normally intelligent person would want such a thing is beyond me. It is bound to end in disaster. A couple of accidents here could very well destroy GA for all eternity. It is the most likely outcome of such accidents in fact.

Actually, EASA doesn’t care who I share a flight with. So your old regulation is more restrictive than EASAs stance on that topic…

I agree with RWY20 that nobody really read the question.

Flight Sharing is not necessarily Cost Sharing. The legality of the latter varies as we have read and whereas cost sharing is involved, I expect that the final word has not by far been spoken.

Flight Sharing does not necessarily involve cost sharing. If I want to offer my spare seats for someone who would like to experience flying, i would expect this to certainly get some people interested and therefore might create some new pilots eventually. I can do this out of my own pocket, as many do it. Some will kind of cut the “compensation” corner by accepting to be invited for the ALB after the flight. In other words, like with your car, if you take someone along for a ride you’ve been wanting to do anyhow and don’t charge him for it, then he may well pay you a coffee at the rest stop. For the puritans and possibly for insurance detectives looking to worm themselfs out of a claim this may well already constitute a forbidden compensation, but with normal folks it is just normal civil behaviour.

Flight Sharing sites per se are a tad more problematic, but it still depends if compensation is involved or not. A site which simply offers empty seats for people to hitch a ride on without compensation, there is no problem. Even if there is cost sharing involved according to the laws of the land, it can still be ok if we are talking about flights which are not done purposely for the passenger.

IMHO, EASA has gone the correct way. Switzerland has handled cost sharing flights as legal since I can remember. We had the rule that in order for a flight to be regarded as commercial it had to be all of:
- Against compensation
- Open to a non-restricted number of people (i.o.w everybody)
- Advertized

So it was legal to e.g. fly a family friend against full cost paid by the said friend and on a route he asked of you.
It was legal to advertize such flights in a club mag as long as the ad mentioned clearly for which restricted group of people (e.g. club members) the offer was intended.

However, if someone e.g. wrote in a forum “I’ll fly you where every you want against cost compensation” it was not, as anyone could read it.

Where I am totally with LeSving is when it comes to outfits like “Uber” who are trying to openly undermine the law by offering commercial flights or drive without being in the possession of the neccessary licenses, insurances and when these things are against the law.