How The FAA Shot Down 'Uber For Planes' (fee.org) 216
SonicSpike quotes a report from the Foundation for Economic Education that first appeared at Forbes: Imagine traveling from Boston to Martha's Vineyard in under an hour and for less than $70. Believe it or not, this option was available from Flytenow's website or app, by looking for a general aviation pilot who was making that trip, and then splitting the cost with that pilot and whoever else was sharing the flight. Entrepreneurs were bringing private air travel to the masses until Flytenow's leadership met with members of the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure that they were complying with all laws and regulations. Instead of embracing this service, the FAA used tortuous logic to ban Flytenow and other online flight-sharing websites because it considered these to be "common carriers" (such as Delta Airlines). Private pilots cannot possibly comply with the myriad regulations that apply to the large airlines. In what follows, Flytenow founders Alan Guichard and Matt Voska explain why the federal government should make the FAA allow flight sharing to get off the ground.
Oh hell no (Score:5, Insightful)
Those regulations are in place for a reason. Your Uber ride can be an unlicensed, uninsured deathtrap as it is: dropping out of the sky and killing innocents because you were too lazy to follow FAA regulations is an entirely new level of stupidity.
Re:Oh hell no (Score:5, Informative)
Excepting that, as with traditional ride sharing, as opposed to hiring, the pilot was making that flight anyways, and he's fully certified for general flying, just not taking paying passengers.
Re:Oh hell no (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, just like the Uber driver was already planning on driving from my house to the airport. I just hopped in because he happened to be going that way.
Re:Oh hell no (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this may be a little different though. The economies of "splitting the cost" don't favor the pilot if they weren't intending on making the flight anyway. If an Uber driver was forced to pay for half the cost of the trip you would see a drastic reduction in the number of "ride sharing" (fake taxi company) drivers.
As long as there are mechanisms to prevent this from turning into "the uber of the sky", I think I'd be OK with it. But you know damn well that the number of pilot that happened to be flying between Chicago and Las Vegas three times a day would increase exponentially...
No Profit...Ever! (Score:5, Insightful)
In order to carry a passenger for hire and make a profit you have to have your commercial ticket. Period.
Private pilots ride sharing, not matter the circumstances, are not allowed to make a profit. Period.
So their only reason for doing something like this is to cut their expenses. It would make no sense for a private pilot to start making daily runs to Chicago if they only broke even on expenses and actually lost money considering their time. And not many people are about to trade a nice comfy seat traveling at 5000 MPH for a cramped, drafty, noisy cockpit unless there is no service available or they are just a fan of small planes.
So the FAA's reason's are flawed. No one will start flying others around for profit...that's illegal. Many people DO make regular runs in their aircraft and allowing this service would have the benefit of boosting general aviation.
I suspect this is more about taking away a $250 fare from the airlines.
Re:No Profit...Ever! (Score:5, Informative)
A commercial pilot's license lets you be hired to take cargo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
An ATP (Airline Transport Pilot) license is required to take passengers for hire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And of course a type rating for the type of plane you're flying.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No Profit...Ever! (Score:4, Informative)
As noted by someone else, you are incorrect about requiring an ATP to carry passengers. You can hire a commercial pilot to fly your plane, or a rented plane. You can charter an aircraft (including pilot) from any number of places,that operate under part 135 instead of part 121 (scheduled service).
With regard to type ratings, this is also incorrect--those are only required for aircraft larger than 12,500 pounds. To put that into perspective, a Cessna Caravan (capable of being configured to haul 9 passengers) weighs less than 9,000 lbs fully loaded.
PP-ASEL.
Re: (Score:3)
Not correct. A commercial pilot certificate lets you fly for non-scheduled operations - think charter flights, on-demand sightseeing flights, powerline and pipeline inspections. "Uber for the sky" would be exactly this - non-scheduled on-demand operations ("Part 135"). An Airline Transport Certificate is required for scheduled operations - which includes not just Delta, American etc but also FedEx and UPS who fly under Part 121.
It's not based on whether it's passengers or cargo.
Re:No Profit...Ever! (Score:5, Funny)
And not many people are about to trade a nice comfy seat traveling at 5000 MPH for a cramped, drafty, noisy cockpit...
Especially since 5000 MPH is over twice as fast as an SR-71 and is way the fuck faster than any commercial aircraft available. New York to Los Angeles in 30 minutes is kinda hard to beat.
Re: (Score:2)
And not many people are about to trade a nice comfy seat traveling at 5000 MPH for a cramped, drafty, noisy cockpit...
Especially since 5000 MPH is over twice as fast as an SR-71 and is way the fuck faster than any commercial aircraft available. New York to Los Angeles in 30 minutes is kinda hard to beat.
I had to go back to the original comment to make sure that indeed they said 5000 MPH; as I read it to be 500 MPH when I saw it. As you quoted, they did indeed type 5000 MPH (obviously I am not the poster of said comment). Good catch; though my money is on it being a typo (I'd give you a +1, funny if I ever got mod points again).
Re: (Score:2)
Most general aviation planes don't even make 300mph.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL!
Well, we can dream, can't we?
Re:No Profit...Ever! (Score:5, Insightful)
In order to carry a passenger for hire and make a profit you have to have your commercial ticket. Period.
Further nit pick...
As a private pilot you CAN share expenses with a passenger, but the emphasis is on "share" meaning that the pilot must have some reason, other than the passenger is paying, to go someplace. You cannot be paid for your time or collect a penny more than ACTUAL costs as a private pilot to take somebody (other than yourself) or something someplace. Unless the pilot is shouldering at least some of the costs, it's getting really close to the grey area, especially if you don't have any previous or ongoing relationship with your passenger.
So your life long friend can pay your expenses when you fly him out to go fishing someplace. You could even drop a bag off that he forgot on his trip to grandma's house and accept reimbursement of expenses. However, you cannot meet some stranger at the airport, collect a stack of cash and then transport them and their luggage someplace. You cannot run a business that involves flying people or cargo as a private pilot.
Re: (Score:2)
So...no profit allowed
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Now that is a nit-pic.
But I wouldn't put it past the FAA
Re:No Profit...Ever! (Score:5, Informative)
You cannot be paid for your time or collect a penny more than ACTUAL costs as a private pilot to take somebody (other than yourself) or something someplace.
You cannot even collect full actual costs. The pilot must be paying a full share of the costs, and no, you cannot include the thousands of dollars it took you to get your license as part of the costs for a ride-share.
Not only that, but those doing the sharing must be for a related purpose. You cannot set up a system where three other people pay 3/4 of the costs of a trip unless the trip has a shared purpose for all four people. "One person wants to go shopping at Macy's, one person is going for a work meeting, and one is connecting to a commercial flight to ..." is still illegal. "All four are going to the same meeting ..." is ok.
So your life long friend can pay your expenses when you fly him out to go fishing someplace.
No, he cannot. He can pay a share of the costs, but not all of them. The reasoning behind that includes the fact that being able to log hours as PIC is a benefit to the pilot, and so is "remuneration" in part for the flight.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree slightly. "Share" does not mean "Evenly share" it means "Share" and the rule is you CAN share the actual costs. However, the FAA is going to take a very dim view of your "operation" if you, as a private pilot, engage in activity that looks or smells like a business, even if you loose money. For instance, your employer can pay your expenses for you to fly yourself to a business meeting, no problem. You might even take some fellow employees along for the ride who are going to the same meeting and
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you are not "flying for money" as a private pilot knock yourself out,
Sorry, but money isn't the only profit that a private pilot can make from "sharing the costs".
but if you start hauling strangers around, even if they are only paying half your costs, it's going to start looking like a business
Yes, and that's why there are two considerations. It's not just shares, but unrelated purposes.
Re: (Score:3)
After thought, I'm revising how I say this for accuracy.... Because flying to a business meeting where your employer pays for the operating costs IS clearly OK with the FAA and even taking people you work with along to the same meeting, while getting close to the grey, is still OK as long as it's not part of your job to fly folks and stuff around. The flying must not be part of your job but be incidental to your job, and you can accept reimbursement for expenses.
What you CANNOT do is operate a business wh
Re:No Profit...Ever! (Score:4, Informative)
The line here is "operate like a business" or "flying for compensation" not who's paying the costs. Your employer can say provide you an aircraft you can fly for free (thus paying all the costs) and you can take that aircraft on a business trip as a private pilot. However, they CANNOT pay you to take passengers or cargo places in the aircraft as part of your job function. If folks just happened to be passengers heading to the same meeting, it's starting to get into the grey area but as long as the flying is incidental to your real job it's likely going to be OK with the FAA.
This is one of the best answers here...
If you are an accountant and you happen to be a pilot, and the company wants three of you to go to Orlando for an accountants convention and the company is offering to pay your airline tickets, or gas money, or whatever to get there, and all three of you are going because ALL THREE OF YOU are accountants, then yes, the company can pay for the whole airplane rental.
But if you're Bob from accounting, and the company needs 3 lawyers to go to Orlando to a lawyer convention and you didn't need to go, then the company CAN'T rent a plane and have you fly there, even if they don't pay you anything for the flight.
Re: (Score:2)
So, makes me curious, if you have an instructor's license, can you "teach flying" on point-to-point trips, for a profit?
Re: (Score:2)
No, he cannot. He can pay a share of the costs, but not all of them. The reasoning behind that includes the fact that being able to log hours as PIC is a benefit to the pilot, and so is "remuneration" in part for the flight.
In short, if you're flying your friend to go fishing, you better be going fishing as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Law, courts, and prosecutors can almost NEVER prove reasoning. I believe this is why reasoning usually isn't part of laws. (Even intent is hard to prove, although that's usually part of laws. They use proxies to determine intent in court.)
While that is true, flying doesn't work the way you think it does.
You do not have the presumption of innocence before the FAA. They can just decide you're guilty and then you have to spend a lot of time and money to prove you're not.
Yes, I think it is unconstitutional as well, but that is how it is...
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect this is more about taking away a $250 fare from the airlines.
I doubt it. When I was flying I made all the calls about weather, etc. Add in a Cost sharing passenger and some pilots may decide to go when their gut says no, especially if the passenger is pressing the pilot because "there are no thunderstorms here..." In addition, who knows if the maintained ace is actually up to date or just "a bit" overdue? Or if the pilot has a medical condition but is still flying?In this case, the FAA is right in banning the practice.
Re: (Score:2)
In order to carry a passenger for hire and make a profit you have to have your commercial ticket. Period.
You use the word "profit". You'll be shocked to learn that profit has nothing to do with it.
And a commercial pilot certificate isn't enough in most cases, you need a Part 135 On-Demand Air Carrier certificate and a crap load of rules followed.
Private pilots ride sharing, not matter the circumstances, are not allowed to make a profit. Period.
Doesn't matter if you're losing money. You can't take $5 to fly someone anywhere. Profit is not the standard the FAA uses.
So the FAA's reason's are flawed.
Actually, the FAA is spot on the money here, at least in terms of following their own rules. Now you might disagree with those rules, but the F
Re: (Score:3)
I know plenty of private pilots who would love to have a passenger "split" their expenses with them (especially if the agreed upon split was the passenger paying 98% of the expenses) so they could get more flying hours without having to pay for the bulk of them.
What I think most people fail to appreciate until they try "general aviation commuting" themselves is just how much GA is at the mercy of the weather. If you are depending on a GA flight to get you somewhere, you should be prepared for weather delay
Re: (Score:2)
General aviation airports bring in jobs, taxes, tourists (if they are big enough) and commerce.
Re:Oh hell no (Score:5, Informative)
It depends.
If the pilot is a private pilot, they are not allowed to fly for money, period. The FAA has allowed a small exception to that, in that it is possible to split the immediate incidental costs (fuel, other consumables) for the flight with other passengers in the plane, provided everyone is paying their share.
So yes, you get less than half the trip cost - because you're only allowed to ask for effectively gas money (and oil - some engines chew through a quart an hour). You're not allowed to split costs like maintenance or other per-flight hour costs (e.g., if you rent the plane). So maintenance and other costs are borne completely by the pilot.
Where it gets tricky is the intent of the flight. Did the pilot make the flight plans and then asked if anyone wanted to come? Or did someone ask him to fly there and the pilot made up an excuse.
E.g., if the pilot was flying from LA to Las Vegas to spend the weekend gambling, and then a friend asked if he could come along as he has to attend a wedding there, that is OK. It is not OK if the friend asks if he could go to Vegas to attend the wedding, then the pilot makes plans to play some slots (excepting of course, if the pilot was to accept no remuneration - perhaps they just wanted to fly for fun and gave their friend a free ride).
The other part is that the person asking to come along must be known to the pilot in advance - i.e., a friend, associate already known. It can't be two random strangers who were matched up on a website, for example. This is the "tortured" part of the interpretation, but it's been around long enough and interpreted that way for years.
Note that all of this flies out of the window if no money changes hands - without remuneration, the pilot is free to do anything he wishes. This is how charities like Hope Air and the like work - they at most offer the pilot a tax credit for the portion of the flight, but most pilots will instead just fly the patient or animal for free.
Effectively, private pilots are not supposed to do it for money - it's just the FAA has allowed a very narrow exception to accommodate some common requests. The "Uber for the sky" companies are trying to take that exception and turn it into a commercial license alternate.
The FAA can just as well close the exception because it was created as a privilege for private pilots.
And of course, if you're a commercial pilot, then you won't be as cheap because you went through the extra training and want to make some money back as real income
Re: (Score:2)
Uber is explicitly not a ride sharing service. It's clearly a for hire service. Which translates to "You need your commercial license" for flying.
There's a reason why I chose to italicize the word 'sharing'.
That being said, it could still lead to more flying. With a general license, for example, I could hang out my offer every weekend, with the caveat that I cancel if there's nobody to split my trip with. Like say I want to spend a weekend vacationing, but am flexible on the dates.
Re: Oh hell no (Score:3, Informative)
You are, of course, lying very well. My license says "commercial pilot" and I was tested to higher standards than when I got a "private pilot" certificate. Further, the airplane I fly most certainly does not meet the standards for hire, as I have not complied wth the 100 hour inspection requirements in the last 100 hours of flight time, and additionally, the engine is beyond the manufacturers recommended overhaul, and legal for private flight but not commercial flight.
Additionally, there is another level of
Re:Oh hell no (Score:5, Interesting)
Small (especially single-engine) planes are SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more likely to crash than large jets, and pilot experience has very little to do with it.
Don't believe me? OK, search Google for the last single-engine plane crash within 100 miles of your home. Chances are, unless you live in the middle of nowhere, there's been at least one within the past 2-3 years. Now... when's the last time a commercial jet crashed within 100 miles of your home (9/11 doesn't count)?
I live in South Florida. We've had exactly THREE nearby commercial jet crashes within the past 50 years... ValuJet flight 592 in 1996, Fine Air flight 101 in 1997, and Eastern Airlines flight 401 in 1972. One was the result of criminal corporate malfeasance, one was the result of breathtaking stupidity (an overweight cargo jet whose contents shifted during takeoff), and one was the result of pilot error that modern flight control systems make nearly impossible. Both MIA and FLL average at least one jet taking off or landing per minute, for approximately 18 hours per day, every day. Literally millions of people fly to and from South Florida on commercial flights every day, with a 50-year fatality rate that averages out to almost zero.
Now, contrast that with crashes of single-engine private planes. FXE (Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport) has had at least 3 crashes since 2009. I used to work at an office adjacent to one of its runways, and LITERALLY heard a plane crash about a quarter mile away while sitting at my desk. Another plane ran off the runway and ended up in a nearby parking lot. Another crashed into a residential neighborhood a mile away. And that's just one airport in Broward County. I think both of Miami's general-aviation airports (Opa-Locka and Miami Executive) have had at least 3 crashes apiece in the past 5 years, too. And I'm not even counting the planes that fall into the Caribbean between South Florida and the Bahamas.
Compared to commercial jets, single-engine private planes are deathtraps, and the FAA knows it. It doesn't have the political capital to ban them outright, but it's not going to allow several times as many people to put themselves (and others) at risk by allowing an Uber-like service to encourage more private flights with more passengers on board. It's either going to rigidly enforce its ban on commercializing private planes, or increase the regulatory requirements ON private planes to compensate... and if it encountered too much resistance over maintenance and equipment regulations, it would move to severely restrict the operation of private single-engine planes in urban airspace.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what are the miles traveled per fatality comparing: pedestrians to bicycles to cars to taxis to private planes to commercial planes to the space shuttle?
http://journalistsresource.org... [journalistsresource.org]
Space shuttle actually does pretty well, per mile traveled, but those people were traveling a whole lot of miles.
Re: (Score:3)
Describing them as "death traps" is hardly fair. In truth, they are approximately as safe as driving a car. A certificated aircraft flying in VFR conditions has a death rate per hour of flight a little less than twice the death rate per hour of driving a car, and a death rate per mile of flight slightly better a car. This makes sense; they go significantly faster than a car.
And that compares a fleet of aircraft with an average age of 30 years or more, to cars with an average age of perhaps 5 years. And eve
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't be so negative about Uber (it's not like taxi drivers are particularly better drivers), but for airplanes the need is very clear for the different tiers of pilot licenses (there are a bunch).
Flying strangers for money is flying strangers for money. Existing airplane sharing services, while higher-end (e.g., Net Jets [netjets.com]) cope with this fine. The higher bar for commercial pilots isn't mere turf-protecting by an entrenched industry.
Re: (Score:2)
With NetJet, it seems that you're either "leasing" the plane, or you are a partial "owner" of it.
Doesn't matter who owns the plane or if you're leasing it, private pilots cannot be paid to fly you somewhere, with either money or even just loggable time.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no regulation dodging in the Net Jets case - their pilots have the same licensing requirements as any other commercial airline.
Re: (Score:3)
Those regulations are in place for a reason. Your Uber ride can be an unlicensed, uninsured deathtrap as it is: dropping out of the sky and killing innocents because you were too lazy to follow FAA regulations is an entirely new level of stupidity.
Your logic fails.
a) The pilots are making these flights anyway.
b) The pilots still need to comply with a myriad of safe flying regulations.
And by comparing it with Uber which is not a ride sharing service but rather an online taxi service you're also doing it a great injustice. This really is ride sharing. No pilot in their right mind would offer a commercial service for that price, it literally will be a convenience item like carpooling with your colleagues to work.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, sharing of flight costs is permitted for flights by private pilots. You just aren't supposed to PROFIT from it. As long as the passenger isn't paying more than half the costs (or third, or quarter, or whatever fraction depending on how many people go in the plane), it is within the rules. The way the FAA sees this situation is probably related to the "No Advertising" policy. The intent of flight-cost sharing is to allow friends and colleague to split the costs of a private flight. By adding the ap
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting notion. So, what you're arguing is that a General Aviation pilot, who is already going to fly from point A to point B, is more likely to crash and kill innocents if he is carrying passengers that help pay for the avgas? Seriously?
Or didn't you know that GA pilots already have to follow a myriad of FAA regulations? Just not the ones meant for large airliner
Re:Oh hell no (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, yes. GA pilots have a much worse safety profile that commercial carriers. Much worse.
That's because the FAA has long allowed you to take more risks by yourself than with paying passengers. The big issue (aside from the FAA's inability to cope with the modern world) is that there is definately a slippery slope between casual ride sharing and flying somewhere with passengers for a buck. You aren't supposed to make money flying passengers with the current ride sharing rules - but commercial airlines have lost money for years. Should we allow them to run unregulated passenger services because they don't make money?
Re: (Score:2)
You just completely blew past his point:
who is already going to fly from point A to point B
It matters not if you are carrying someone else other than increasing your fuel consumption. Safety factors do not change.
Re:Oh hell no (Score:5, Insightful)
"Weather's pretty marginal and normally I wouldn't go, but there's a guy willing to go halves in the cost soooooo...... just this once"
Re: (Score:3)
It matters not if you are carrying someone else other than increasing your fuel consumption. Safety factors do not change.
Yes, they certainly do. A public ride-share results in passengers who do not know the pilot and must trust his abilities based solely on the license he holds -- which is absolutely no indication of his abilities other than at specific snapshots in time. When he first gets it he has to pass a flight test, and then every two years he must pass a much less rigorous biennial "flight review" (BFR). To be "current" to carry passengers he must make three landings (to a full stop for night currency, touch-and-goes
Re: (Score:2)
Should we allow them to run unregulated passenger services because they don't make money?
If the passengers are paying less than or equal to their share of that particular flight's costs, and if the pilot is paying the rest from his own pocket, then yes we should allow it to be "unregulated" (if by "unregulated" you mean "slightly less regulated" since private pilots are already quite regulated).
Re: (Score:2)
The tin foil hat in me is saying that's obviously the real reason the FAA shot this down - not enough groping. The pragmatist in me says that's probably not true, but the result is the same.
Re: (Score:2)
My initial thought was to worry about the safety of the flight - more so than a car, where it's easier for you to get cold feet about the car or driver and change your mind.
And I suppose you can't do much about a lunatic thinking they can book it and then hijack it / blow it up.
But actually, in terms of airworthiness of the plane / pilot - well, you kind of hope that the pilot has a vested interest in making it to their destination safely too.
Re: (Score:2)
Those regulations are in place for a reason. Your Uber ride can be an unlicensed, uninsured deathtrap as it is: dropping out of the sky and killing innocents because you were too lazy to follow FAA regulations is an entirely new level of stupidity.
Years ago when I lived in Newport Beach, CA, in an apartment complex that was full of airline pilots who did hobby flying on the weekends, it was common practice for such pilots to recruit passengers from the complex to share expenses for 4 or 6-place light plane rides to the central coast, interesting parts of Mexico, or the Colorado River recreation areas. We had a great time, and everyone was aware of the risks of general aviation.
So now, 45 years later, there's app for that. Why is this any of the FAA's
Re: (Score:2)
So now, 45 years later, there's app for that. Why is this any of the FAA's concern?
Why would a group of friends and acquaintences who are all going someplace for the same reason and know the pilot personally need an app to hook them up? Answer: they wouldn't.
How does the app make all the strangers involved in the flight know the currency of the pilot and the airworthiness of the aircraft, and make them all aware of the risks involved and the requirements the pilot must meet to be legal? Answer: it doesn't.
That's why the FAA is right to have a concern. Public sharing requires an implicit
Re: (Score:2)
Because today's snowflakes have no ability to rationally assess risk and make cost benefit decisions for themselves. Probably we need a trigger warning for AIRPLANE MAY LEAVE GROUND DURING FLIGHT.
Re: (Score:3)
Because today's snowflakes have no ability to rationally assess risk and make cost benefit decisions for themselves.
I'm glad that you are able to assess the flying skills of someone you have never met before just by meeting him at the airplane, and the airworthiness of the aircraft by standing next to it, but it is not being a "snowflake" for most people to be unable to do the same things.
The fact is that the possession of a private pilot certificate is not and never has been a certification of currency or ability, and the fact that pieces are not dangling from the aircraft is not proof of airworthiness. An additional f
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
AND you need to vetted by a CFI within the last year PLUS have enough recent IFR flight experience to be "current"...
And an aircraft that currently carries the minimum IFR equipment which is currently certified for IFR operations.
AND have the necessary charts/maps on board.
AND have a filed IFR flight plan...
AND have the fuel on board necessary to reach your destination, proceed to the alternate and have a minimum reserve when you arrive.
AND have received clearance to fly the flight plan you've filed...
Ohh what? wait a sec..! (Score:3, Insightful)
Private pilots cannot possibly comply with the myriad regulations that apply to the large airlines.
And this is in the "land of the free."
And that includes coporations that are by law treated as a person.
Now, this were the approach in one of those eastern countries, we would be celebrating our approach as done in the "land of the free!"
Re:Ohh what? wait a sec..! (Score:5, Insightful)
There are several facets to this issue. First, I'm a licensed private pilot. The regulations for private pilot are rather different than for ATP (Airline Transport Pilot), so the phrase "Private pilots cannot comply with the regulations of the large airlines" is somewhat misleading.
Now, the question comes to be: Is this pilot doing a "For Hire" service. This really is the crux of the issue. If the pilot *truly* is going somewhere and you want to go with them and split the cost of the trip, this is perfectly legal. However once you (the pilot) cross the line of going places because someone wants to go somewhere, that would be a For-Hire service. This gets a little gray because the pilot can't charge the cost of the trip, but must "share" expenses, legally. This can get somewhat hard to prove. However, if you are a pilot that does for-hire transport, then you must have a commercial license (not ATP), which again has some different regulatory requirements (pilot performance, medical, etc) than a private pilot.
I think I'm on board with the FAA on this one. Uber drivers are for-hire, really - I don't think anyone could rightfully say you're just hitching a ride. "Uber for planes" is the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
True ride sharing (Score:3)
The economics of such a system prevent it from being an effective commercial sky taxi service. If the pilots are going to be doing the trip anyway then what's the difference as to whether or not there's a passenger?
I used to do this frequently while a friend was getting his license. He needed his hours up so was doing the trips anyway and I needed a quick vacation to some other city so I offered to split the fuel costs with him (a tiny fraction of the cost of his flight when you don't own your own plane, but he appreciated the extra money).
Re: (Score:2)
The economics of such a system prevent it from being an effective commercial sky taxi service. If the pilots are going to be doing the trip anyway then what's the difference as to whether or not there's a passenger?
The difference, as you point out yourself, is that you can recoup some of the cost by having a paying passenger. That's it.
No, it's not going to ever be as successful as Uber. The economics and the scale just aren't there. But why does every new business need to become a multi-billion-dollar c
Re: (Score:3)
The economics of such a system prevent it from being an effective commercial sky taxi service. If the pilots are going to be doing the trip anyway then what's the difference as to whether or not there's a passenger?
I used to do this frequently while a friend was getting his license. He needed his hours up so was doing the trips anyway and I needed a quick vacation to some other city so I offered to split the fuel costs with him (a tiny fraction of the cost of his flight when you don't own your own plane, but he appreciated the extra money).
Shazam man... When I was learning how to fly, the LAST thing I needed was a passenger to distract me from the task at hand. Besides, it was REALLY clear that I was NOT allowed to take passengers as a student. I could take my CFI, or fly by myself under my CFI's supervision, but that's all I could do. I could fly locally (take off and land at the local airport) once he said I could solo but No flying off to someplace, even on my own w/o getting my CFI to approve it, sign my log book saying he was OK with
My father flies for Copper Valley Air in AK (Score:5, Interesting)
He does the U.S. mail run to McCartney
He regularly takes sight-seeing tourists with him on the run, since it is allowed under their contract.
There are absolutely no regulation requirements for the travelers.
Pilots like my father are, of course, subject to all FAA regulations including medical, regular license renewal, insurance requirements, etc...
All of this information is available to anyone who asks, that would include Uber
In fact, there is far more oversight on a private pilot than on a cab driver. There is no way for Uber to know immediately if a driver with a suspended license gets into a car and picks up a fair.
In the case of nearly all private pilots, however, the moment they leave the runway they are on someone's radar. If they haven't filed a flight plan, the FAA will know within minutes.
There is absolutely no reason for this except airline influence. It's a convenience technology that should be covered by existing regulations, nothing more. Like Expedia for private pilots.
Re: (Score:3)
He does the U.S. mail run to McCartney
Just to clarify, your father, holder of a private pilot certificate, is employed or works for hire (i.e. receives compensation) to fly mail? If so, then that would seem to be a direct violation of 14 CFR 61.113 [cornell.edu]. Are you sure he isn't a holder of a CPL?
Re: (Score:2)
Private charter to a private mail depo, not a post office. It's covered under section b.) 1.) if I understand it correctly. The charter is a private charter for a private delivery by the town of McCarthy. He has to also be a US mail carrier to pick it up legally, but once it's picked up it's in a kind of legal limbo and not really the U.S. mail anymore. Not sure of all of the regulations though.
Probably has something to do with the fact that the US Mail no longer owns or operates small craft, and there
Re: (Score:3)
In the case of nearly all private pilots, however, the moment they leave the runway they are on someone's radar. If they haven't filed a flight plan, the FAA will know within minutes.
That doesn't exactly mean what you're implying. For VFR (non-instrument) flights you're not required to file a flight plan or talk to anyone in uncontrolled airspace. They might see you on radar, but with a generic transponder code of 1200 they have no idea who you are. There's actually a bit of controversy [ainonline.com] regarding this anonymity as it relates to a law which will require a new type of transponder (ADS-B) by 2020. The new transponders send what amounts to a MAC address which is unique, causing some privacy
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here, however, is safety. There's nothing stopping pilots from flying around in jalopies that are leaking oil all over the engine. And I'm not talking about just private pilots, but commercial operators too. My ex-wife flew for a guy who did exactly this; one of his pilots made an emergency landing in Manhattan because his helicopter ran low on oil: it was leaking in the engine compartment. The owner knew about this and refused to fix it. The FAA has no way of dealing with stuff like this.
Fuck No! (Score:5, Interesting)
The fatality rate for general aviation is 82 times that for commercial flight [nih.gov]. Are these people utterly insane?
Re: (Score:3)
82x of a low chance is still a low chance. Your source puts general aviation fatality rate at 1.31 per 100,000 flight hours.
In other words, you've got about a 0.001% chance of death when making the flight mentioned in the summary. Maybe not the best odds, but not really "utterly insane."
Re: (Score:2)
82 times an infinitesimal number is still pretty small and probably still much safer than driving.
Actually, no (Score:2)
In 2012, there were 0.55 deaths per 100 million road vehicle kilometres travelled. For business and private flying in GA aircraft, (which is mostly A to B, but does include a few riskier activities such as cattle mustering) the death rate is about 40 deaths per million flying hours, and if you assume that the average speed is something like 200 km/h, that comes out to 20 deaths per 100 million aircraft kilometres travelled.
GA
Let me choose (Score:4, Interesting)
If a flight costs me 1/2 the price of a commercial flight, and many, many hours of time saved (because I don't have to go three hours ahead of the flight time each way in case the TSA is having a bad day) why not?
Let me choose how I am willing to trade money and time for risk.
Re:Let me choose (Score:5, Informative)
that's why i'm becoming a private pilot, so I can take my family and I and avoid all that.
the plane i use flys slower than a 737 (about 1/4 the speed), but there I park 8' from the airplane, we don't have to get there early, and there is no security line/etc.
there's also no worry about being late and missing my flight. the plane will leave when we're all there and i'm satisfied it's a safe trip to take.
Pilots will generally tell you that for about 500 miles or less, private flying will beat commercial door to door. That's a rule of thumb, but gives you an idea. It depends how far your home is from your departure airports and how far your destination is from a GA airport and the commercially served airport.
It would never be cheaper to fly myself, but it can be cheaper to fly my family of 4. So let's say I want to go to Kallspel, MT. I could get a $200 ticket, but would need one for each family member ($800) or I could fly my private plane (say 5 hours each way at $80/hr) = the same money, but not TSA theater, no getting there early, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
The fatality rate for general aviation is 82 times that for commercial flight [nih.gov]. Are these people utterly insane?
How many of those fatalities are bush planes, operating in rugged terrain and bad weather? How many are training flights, or people sightseeing and getting stuck in box canyons, unfamiliar terrain, air show stunts, etc; not A to B travel flights at a safe altitude and heading. General aviation isn't just straight LAX-ATL flights at 40k feet, where not a whole lot can go wrong. I'm sure if you strip out everything but the mundane going-somewhere flights, the safety concerns of general vs commercial travel wi
Re: (Score:2)
I'd actually love to see that info.
and the west coast kind of is the mountains...
seattle to the cascades is 15 minutes in the plane, that seems awful close. maybe in NC you aren't by mountains, but much of the west if you're not in them, you're close.
Re: (Score:2)
At least my death would most likely be quick and painless.
Chances are you'd die a painful death actually. General Aviation aircraft are usually slow and carry a lot of very volatile gasoline and where "at cruse" accidents happen, most accidents are during landing and takeoff operations.
In general aviation, crashes are usually slow speed affairs and most survive the impact with just serious injuries like broken bones, internal injuries and severed limbs. Most die in the post crash fire before they can bleed to death. Your best hope is to be rendered unconsciou
Re: (Score:2)
actually, the vast, vast majority of forced landings (and i'd wager a majority of crashes) people are left with very minor to no injuries (bruises, sprains)
Re: (Score:2)
Economics (Score:2, Insightful)
Issue isn't safety - airplanes would be making the trip anyway.
Also note they let people do the cost sharing - they are just outlawing the wholesale version by outlawing using the internet to find share.
So effectively they are fine with people doing it, just not a LOT of it - with strangers.
Frankly it looks more like a protection for airlines rather than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the issue is safety.
To fly your yourself and your friends around, you need a visual flight rules private pilot's license that may only involve 40 hours of flight time.
To fly for compensation, you need a commercial license that requires A LOT more training.
Re: (Score:2)
> Issue isn't safety - airplanes would be making the trip anyway.
Not necessarily. If a non-wealthy pilot who'd normally be constrained by the cost of taking the plane up in the air can suddenly afford to fly it more often because he can easily find people to share the cost with, there WILL be more such flights.
Or, rephrased in terms of "freedom and liberty" -- the right of others to fly a deathtrap jalopy ends at my roof. The FAA has a duty to protect my rights as a non-passenger on the ground at least
Part 91 versus Part 135 versus Part 121 flying (Score:3, Informative)
It's a difference of Part 91 (non-commercial) operations and Part 135 (commercial non-scheduled) operations and Part 121 (common carrier) operations.
Under Part 91, pilots may share the operational cost of the flight equally with the passengers . The pilot shall not pay less of the share than any passenger and shall not be compensated additionally for their time and service.
Under Part 135 commercial but unscheduled flights (think charter), pilots and aircraft must pass a much more stringent set of requirements (such as crew rests and aircraft maintenance). Pilots and companies operating under 135 may be compensated for services.
Under Part 121 scheduled common carrier flights has even more stringent pilot certification, crew and aircraft maintenance requirements.
The FAA is arguing that once you post your flight intention, looking for passengers to join, you are now a Part 121 flight.
The FAA are arguing
Re: (Score:2)
Dyslexia (Score:2)
My first pass at reading the title came up with 'How The FAA Shot Down Planes For Uber'. Seemed a little extreme to me...
This is self-limiting in the long-term (Score:2)
So a non-CPL pilot who can only accept a split of the gas cost, they're going to (in theory) be racking up hours on a airframe faster than they normally would, which will lead to more frequent mandated inspection and overhaul events... events that their prior fares wouldn't have put any money towards. Not to mention defraying the cost of any hangaring or parking fees. I fail to see how "Uber for Planes" would work for the private pilot outside of purely opportunistic "hey, you're going my way?" one-offs.
All things considered.... (Score:2)
If you look at the circus that has popped up around ride sharing, with the miles of empty cabs and unused pricey medallions, I'm not surprised regulators are doing what they can to stop this before the same circus starts.. We keep aiming for "disruptive technology ideas" but you have to expect some push-back when your idea is a threat to an entire entrenched industry that employs MANY people, and gets some of them FILTHY rich. I'll bet the boardrooms and airline owners have been blowing up the FAA hotlines
Am I the only one (Score:2)
Tortuous logic? (Score:3, Informative)
Private pilots can't carry passengers for compensation - with a few, narrowly defined exceptions. These are on the written exam and part of the oral exam given on their checkride. Private pilots are NOT required to have insurance.
All non-ultralight planes get an annual inspection, but those planes used for hire need to be inspected every 100 hours of flight time.
The bar for a commercial pilot is not that high - 250 hours flight time, some additional instruction, a few extra maneuvers on the checkride and more stringent standards on the other maneuvers, but nothing that difficult. The only other change is that you need to have a 2nd class medical certificate, which I believe is required every year. Airline Transport Pilot (the license required to fly for the airlines) is much more difficult, and requires 1500 hours of flight time. They FAA stated that only the commercial certificate is needed for Flytenow.
This is not that difficult to understand. If you just went through basic ground school, or even read a book or two on learning to fly (which can be downloaded for free from the FAA), they would have known this.
I'm not sure why the Flytenow founders didn't bother trying to research this before starting, but it's spelled out in FAA Advisory Circular 120-12A (April 26, 1986). There is no tortuous logic, just defined regulations that they were in direct violation of. Just because Uber has temporarily gotten away with ignoring laws and regulations in some jurisdiction is no reason to think that the FAA would give them a pass. They didn't try to find out, or didn't like the answer that was clearly explained and went ahead anyway. Either way, their stupidity in their business planning isn't exactly being met with sympathy, except by those who don't know what they're talking about.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22647
It's not a dense document, it's 4 pages long in clear, non-technical English.
Relevant excerpts:
"A carrier becomes a common carrier when it "holds itself out" or to a segment of the public, as willing to furnish transportation within the limits of its facilities to any person who wants it."
"There are four elements in defining a common carrier; (1) a holding out of a willingness to (2) transport persons or property (3) from place to place (4) for compensation. This "holding out" which makes a person a common carrier can be done in many ways and it does not matter how it is done."
There are many examples given of "holding out", but the one that is most relevant in my opinion is:
"A carrier flying charters for only one organization may be a common carrier if membership in the organization and participation in the flights are, in effect, open to a significant segment of the public."
And the statement they really, really should have read before starting the business:
"Persons who have questions concerning intended operation of their aircraft are encouraged to discuss their proposed operation with the Regional Counsel of the FAA region in which it intends to establish its principal business office. Such early interviews will materially assist the applicant in avoiding many of the "pitfalls" which could result in illegal common carriage operations."
Re: (Score:2)
Yet somehow, drivers with non-commercial licenses can drive passengers for profit via Uber? Isn't there a big skill difference between commercial and private car license drivers? Why does Uber get to get away with it?
Their mistake (Score:2)
That's not how you build a Unicorn. Instead, you stick your fingers in your ears while loudly proclaiming, we are not a "bank|tax service|etc." until you are big enough that you can buy your own laws.
All our safety will be affected. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
then airlines will lobby to lower their compliance burden too.
Or the airlines will lobby to bring general aviation pilots and operations up to FAR Part 135 [nbaa.org] standards.
Ok, here is a topic that I'm an expert on (Score:2)
The FAA was right here, assuming you care about the law. Now we can discuss if the law is wrong (in some ways I'd agree it is), but that isn't the FAA's job, to decide if it is right or wrong.
Flytenow got it wrong by thinking that a lack of profit means there is no "common carriage". That isn't how it works.
You don't have to make a profit, or even have the goal of profit, from the FAA's point of view.
Non-pilots will have trouble with this one, and even many pilots get it wrong. I had many debates with ne
FAA is being rather reasonable (Score:3)
When someone starts acting as a provider of transportation to people they do not know other than for the purpose of the transaction, you start to get far more into the realm of people who sign up to purchase a service where there are not fully aware of the risks. Consider what knowledge you have about entering a friend's car, or a family member's car, versus a taxi driver's.
The philosophy is that, ok, private pilots have trained for this activity, and take on the risk themselves. If they share a ride (and split the costs) under the currently allowed rules with friends/family, those people tend to know the risks as well. And that is a relatively small set of potential passengers who could potentially engage in this activity.
When people start advertising to the broader public that they're available for flights, you start to get people who are unaware of the risks. And pilots who will engage in flights (each of which carries some incremental risk) that would not taken place otherwise. And that is the problem, considering that the FAA is mindful a certain acceptable level of flight activity and risk percentage.
The FAA is not being overly heavy handed in this matter. For all the semi-justified concern about Uber insurance requirements and background checks for cars -- for aircraft and pilots I would hold the bar at least 10x higher.
Totally reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
I am a private pilot and the only tortured thing here is how the service tried to get around "holding out" and "compensation". Obviously the FAA doesn't see it this way. If you are a private pilot you're held to a lower standard - of training, medically, during the examination, and for the aircraft - than a commercial pilot. Which is held to a much lower standard than an airline pilot. It's not really that safe, either - the GA fatal accident rate is comparable to motorcycles, and that doesn't include a bunch of PPL cowboys feeling pressured to go in marginal conditions, which this service would surely promote. Would you jump on the back of a random motorcycle with an unknown driver?
A bunch of people have said that you can't be paid to fly. It's worse than that - you can't receive any benefit in exchange for your flying. All you can do is offset your losses. The safest thing is to pay your own way, then everything's legal. If you split costs with your buddy and he buys you a steak dinner, the FAA will kick your ass. Yes, this has happened. So too did they punish the guy who ferried his bar-owning friend's customers to the bar "as a favor" when the charter flight fell through. Even though they couldn't find any direct compensation, they still won on the theory that "there's no way someone is out $2k without at least a quid pro quo, and in any case think of the passengers who were expecting a charter flight to commercial standards"
Most people are used to licenses - rights - that can't be easily taken away. Like your drivers' license - that's a court case if they want it. Being a pilot means you have a certificate and it can be taken away much more easily (i.e., no courts involved) if the FAA feels it is appropriate. And they have no trouble convincing the oversight (the NTSB administrative law judges are the highest you can go) that their interpretation of the "holding out" rules is the correct one.
Flytenow didn't shut down because the FAA said "no", at least not directly. They shut down because once the FAA publishes an opinion of how they see the regulations and intend to enforce them, you'd be stupid as hell to fly if they said "we think this is against the rules and will prosecute people for doing it". It'll stick, too, barring "arbitrary and capricious".
If you can find an example of people "lawyering" with the FAA and succeeding, I'd like to see it. There's plenty of examples of people thinking they've found a loophole and are smarter than the FAA lawyers - but they all forget that the FAA isn't bound by the letter of the regulations (they're not laws!) and that they're allowed to punish people for what they meant to say so long as it's reasonable regardless of whether it's explicitly written down. The FAA's intent is very clear - you can go camping with your buddy and split the costs, but you can't be a charter service. If they think you're basically being a charter service, they'll burn you regardless of how you try to wiggle out of it.
insurance issues for non common-carrier transport (Score:2)
Just to point out, that buried in many insurance policies have exceptions for non-common-carrier transport in things like boats and planes. This is why generally people on business trips aren't allowed to fly on their own planes (or planes flown by their collegues) because that render business insurance void.
The insurance industry hasn't caught up to this new sharing economy stuff yet...
Just like with small drones. (Score:2)
The elephant in the room - insurance (Score:3)
While uber and lyft and that ilk have managed to retrofit and cobb in insurance to cover people driving without commercial plates, I don't see the flight insurance industry being as lenient. Flying for pay, on a pre-arranged-contract-basis is a commercial venture (even if the passenger is taking advantage of an existing flight that was alaready going there). The insurance company will require the pilot to be properly licensed, insured, the plane the be properly rated, inspected and insured.
The FAA has probably looked at the lawsuit potential: Plane crashes with "uberplane" passenger- the pilot's estate is sued, the plane manufacturer is sued, the mechanic is sued, the airport is sued and the FAA is sued. The lawsuit would say: Improperly credentialed pilot was taking money to ferry people. It would be a mess, it would be in the papers, anyone who could would settle and the FAA would be caught holding the bag. The FAA would be hauled in front of Congressional hearings asking ugly questions about how the FAA allowed unqualified pilots to fly passengers in unqualified planes, the threat of additional over site and regulation, firings of FAA personnel.
Re: (Score:2)
When a government bureaucrat uses their authority to retaliate against a member of the public for having a bad attitude, clearly the member of the public is at fault. That's what they get for not groveling to their superiors properly.
Re:This is not a fair summary (Score:4, Informative)
Umm. no.
A private pilot is forbidden from taking more than pro rata share of flight costs from passengers.
so if you were my friend, and we wanted to go to vegas for the weekend, i could allow you to reimburse me up to 1/2 the price i paid to rent the plane (but I could NOT accept more than 1/2 from you).
What the FAA didn't like about Flytenow is that they were "holding out", ie, offering air service to people, which requires a part 121 or 135 license for the "airline". The pilot would need to then be a commercial pilot or airline transport pilot.
All of the above has zero to do with weather.
ANY pilot (Private, Commercial, or ATP) can fly in the clouds if they have an "Instrument Rating". Regardless of how many people and dogs they have on board. You are forbidden to fly in the clouds without an instrument rating.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think what's more scary is how unsafe a lot of small aircraft are because the maintenance is so shoddy. It's this way because the owners don't care (they're frequently not flying them) and don't want to spend the money, and the FAA doesn't actually do any enforcement of aircraft safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Trump will probably abolish the FAA. Anybody who can crawl into the cockpit gets to fly anybody else. For a fee, of course.
USA! USA! USA!