Slashdot Mirror


New Service Lets You Hitch a Ride With Private Planes For Cost of Tank of Gas

v3rgEz (125380) writes "A new service, Airpooler, matches pilots with passengers looking to head the same way. Since it's not an officially licensed charter service, prices are limited to roughly the passengers' share of the gas, giving pilots a way to share the expense of enjoying the open blue and flyers a taste of their personal pilot."

269 comments

  1. Just don't fly.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Over the ocean

    1. Re:Just don't fly.. by JustOK · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's better than into the ocean

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
  2. Sounds scary by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I live near a municipal airport and based on the landings I've seen I'm not sure I would entrust my life to a private pilot certified on only a puddle jumper.

    1. Re:Sounds scary by QuasiSteve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Out of curiosity... do you feel differently about cars? (e.g. through services such as Uber and Lyft)

    2. Re:Sounds scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No great love for taxis but that does seem like a business that should have some regulation and oversight.

      If you happen to be driving from one town to another and arrange for a passenger that's one thing. Letting the passenger influence the destination, beyond a short distance from where you were going anyways, and hoping for a tip. Well that does seem to have crossed the line and commercial oversight would be fair.

    3. Re:Sounds scary by geekmux · · Score: 0

      I live near a municipal airport and based on the landings I've seen I'm not sure I would entrust my life to a private pilot certified on only a puddle jumper.

      I live near a major airport and based on the baggage inspections I've seen I'm not sure I would entrust my life to a major airline certified "safe" by the TSA.

      You choose where the larger risk is, but let's not be delusional in our thinking that one is much safer than the other..

    4. Re:Sounds scary by Entropius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The real question is: does anything go badly wrong if things like Uber and Lyft are *not* regulated?

      Turns out: not really. There isn't a plague of Uber drivers hauling passengers off to the boonies and robbing them. In my experience they're a lot friendlier and saner than the local cabbies.

    5. Re:Sounds scary by timeOday · · Score: 1

      You are dead wrong. Commercial aviation is FAR safer than civil aviation. The difference is so large that baggage inspections and terrorism in general aren't even significant to the discussion.

    6. Re:Sounds scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real question is: does anything go badly wrong if things like Uber and Lyft are *not* regulated? Turns out: not really. There isn't a plague of Uber drivers hauling passengers off to the boonies and robbing them. In my experience they're a lot friendlier and saner than the local cabbies.

      And in the early days of the Internet security was not a big issue either. We are way too early to draw any conclusion. However history does offers a lesson. I'm sure the first taxis had friendly and sane drivers too, and regulation and oversight was eventually found to be necessary.

      Plus there are the lawyers. Lets see what happens with passenger injuries and lawsuits too.

    7. Re:Sounds scary by spmkk · · Score: 1

      I live near a municipal airport and based on the landings I've seen I'm not sure I would entrust my life to a private pilot certified on only a puddle jumper.

      Honest question: have any of these landings that you've seen actually not been successful? Has there been even one that didn't end with the plane either taking off again or taxiing back to the ramp and its occupants getting out uninjured?

    8. Re:Sounds scary by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      To be fair, terrorism isn't significant to any discussion.

      Except spending government money. Then it's great!

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    9. Re:Sounds scary by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure I would trust the opinion of someone that thinks the TSA is the main regulatory body of civilian aviation.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    10. Re:Sounds scary by mi · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I would trust the opinion of someone that thinks the TSA is the main regulatory body of civilian aviation.

      They aren't — they are just the agency, that makes flying such a miserable experience... Regular air-travel would've been just fine, had it not been for TSA's routinely degrading treatment of passengers.

      And I doubt, they'll let these flights alone for long — not if the idea catches on.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    11. Re:Sounds scary by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Yep, lawyers... Uber already has a lawsuit against it for someone killed while getting a ride.

      It will only get worse...

      If we had national driver licence rules and national standards, it would be easier to put something in place like a middle licence, such as a "part time taxi" licence that was somewhere in-between a full one and a private driver.

      But with 50 states to work with, it is very hard to get that sort of thing done.

    12. Re:Sounds scary by DaHat · · Score: 1

      If we had national driver licence rules and national standards, it would be easier to put something in place like a middle licence, such as a "part time taxi" licence that was somewhere in-between a full one and a private driver.

      But with 50 states to work with, it is very hard to get that sort of thing done.

      So lets repeal the Constitution and implement a new one with a national (vs federal) governmental system.

      Oh right... we rather have that today and not quite through legal means...

    13. Re:Sounds scary by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Cabbies no doubt occasionally hurt people too -- the question is whether or not you're substantially more likely to get hurt taking an Uber than driving yourself. I imagine Uber is safer -- any Uber driver likely knows the roads and how to drive on them in whatever urban hell you're in better than you do.

    14. Re:Sounds scary by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      Does this make you feel more or less safe flying in heavy metal? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    15. Re:Sounds scary by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      We already have ignored so much of the Constitution, why not?

      States rights were trampled a long time ago, why not get on with it and just make us a federal republic without states rights, that is what we have anyway.

      It would save a crap load of money by doing away with 50 different versions of everything.

    16. Re:Sounds scary by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Cabbies have insurance for that... Do Uber drivers have such insurance?

    17. Re:Sounds scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live near a municipal airport and based on the landings I've seen I'm not sure I would entrust my life to a private pilot certified on only a puddle jumper.

      So you don't have a pilot's license yet you are somehow an expert.

      And you got modded up to "5, insightful" ?

      That speaks volumes about the people who spend time on Slashdot these days.

    18. Re:Sounds scary by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

      You might want to flip through some of the youtube videos of commercial aircraft landing in even moderate weather conditions, you might be surprised how hair raising their landings are when seen from the right angle.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    19. Re:Sounds scary by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      you seen a lot of fatal crashes then? no? so why not trust?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    20. Re:Sounds scary by mmell · · Score: 1

      UID's went up. IQ's went down. Simple math.

    21. Re:Sounds scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live near a municipal airport and based on the landings I've seen I'm not sure I would entrust my life to a private pilot certified on only a puddle jumper.

      You should also keep in mind that for the private pilot to be able to collect any type of funds they must be rated as a commercial pilot. This rating takes many hours and lots of training and is not held by many pilots.

      DC

  3. um... by edibobb · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't think I want to get into an unknown plane flown by an unknown pilot who needs to share the fuel bill.

    1. Re:um... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Admit it, you're just looking for an excuse to get crotch-groped again. ;-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:um... by Bobberly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a pilot, I'm not sure how to take your remark. I'm pretty sure the rigorous training and medical certifications I've completed will have you in much safer hands than the trip you take to the grocery store from your house. What are the requirements for driving a 3 ton vehicle these days, heartbeat and visit to the local DL office?

    3. Re:um... by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 2

      I don't think I want to get into an unknown plane flown by an unknown pilot who needs to share the fuel bill.

      And you personally know all of the pilots before you board any plane?

      --
      I8-D
    4. Re:um... by schlachter · · Score: 2

      I allow Delta to vouch for their pilots, based on their domain expertise and interest in preserving their billions in capital.

      I wouldn't trust your average yahoo who has a plane and license.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    5. Re:um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aircraft mech here. I'd kick in on the avgas or jet fuel bill.

      Aviation fuel is expensive. This isn't like pitching in for gas money when you are a teenager.

    6. Re:um... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Something goes wrong in a vehicle, the vast majority of the time you end up stuck on the road.
      In a plane you are likely to die.

      I've know a lot of pilots. Some a great, others are barely maintaining min standards, and their safety checking is...less then one would like.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:um... by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Informative

      And you personally know all of the pilots before you board any plane?

      On a commercial air carrier flight, I know that the pilot has been to recurrent training within the last six months (I think it is, maybe 12), has had a check pilot evaluate his performance within the same time frame, and has a second fully qualified pilot sitting in the other seat. He's had intensive simulator training to deal with a vast number of potential in-flight emergencies. I know both of them are fully IFR qualified in a fully IFR capable aircraft in case the weather deteriorates enroute. Both have 1st Class medical certificates which involve a lot more than "kicking the tires and peeing in a cup".

      On a private flight, I'm pretty sure the pilot has had an hour of flight sometime in the last two years (a biennial flight review) and has made three landings that he could walk away from in the last 90 days (or heals really quickly). The airplane has probably been inspected sometime within the last year for airworthiness. But there is little overview by the FAA for those requirements. If he owns his own plane nobody really checks until the NTSB does the investigation after the crash. If he's renting then the FBO will probably make sure he's met the legal minimums. There's no easy way to tell rental vs. owner. And the medical? The last time the pilot may have seen any doctor was a decade or more ago*.

      I fear this kind of ride-share is going to make the FAA look closer at the requirements for private pilots, not simplify them.

      * sport pilot rules. All a pilot needs for a "medical" is a driver's license as long as he's not had an application for a medical certificate denied, revoked, suspended or withdrawn.

    8. Re:um... by mrsquid0 · · Score: 2

      > I wouldn't trust your average yahoo who has a plane and license.

      Fortunately your average yahoo does not have a plane and a license. In Canada and the US (I can't speak for anywhere else) getting a pilot's license is not easy. It requires significant training, studying, and testing. Your average yahoo simply would not be able to cut it.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    9. Re:um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't funny. That's actually insightful. I know more than a few pilots that I would never fly an airplane with even though I am a pilot myself.

      I have seen my share of stupid pilot tricks over the years. Unless these service participants are held to commercial standards with at least part 135 compliant aircraft, I would just say no.

    10. Re:um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm a pilot too. I know all too well how "rigorous" that training is and how arbitrary and silly the medical certificate can be.

      I know multi-kilo hour pilots who have no clue how to handle hard IMC, inflight ice, over-water flights, soft/short field landings, or even do a weight and balance.

      I also know some idiots who I will not allow at the controls of any airplane I am in, regardless of what certificates they hold. I have been flying for 25 years. There is a lot of deadly ignorance out there.

    11. Re:um... by Entropius · · Score: 3, Informative

      They probably let Dick Cheney drive, so you don't even need a heartbeat. (He's also prone to shoot people in the face, too.)

    12. Re:um... by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Informative

      What are the requirements for driving a 3 ton vehicle these days, heartbeat and visit to the local DL office?

      You forgot massive and unnecessarily burdensome documentation of your identity to help make sure college students, the elderly, and the working poor don't vote.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    13. Re:um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the requirements for driving a 3 ton vehicle these days, heartbeat and visit to the local DL office?

      In the US or in other countries? In France, for driving cars it's minimum 20 hours of driving lessons on dual command cars + a 30 minute exam.

    14. Re:um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They probably let Dick Cheney drive, so you don't even need a heartbeat. (He's also prone to shoot people in the face, too.)

      Hell, we KNOW they let Ted Kennedy and his whole damn clan drive.

    15. Re:um... by Hobadee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod parent up!

      As an armchair pilot, and aviation enthusiast, I've seen some "pilots" do some stupid stuff! Listening to ATC and hearing private pilots who barely know how to tune their radio is a little scary. While I'm sure GP is a great pilot, and lots of pilots are great pilots, the entry level for a private pilots license is fairly low. (If it weren't so expensive, I would have my license already - that's a *really* scary thought that someone would trust me with an airplane!)

      --
      ...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
    16. Re:um... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      In fact getting a PPL in USA and Canada (and for that matter in Australia or south Africa) is very easy.
      Try to get one in France or Germany, that is hard work and expensive.
      For me it is cheaper to get a british PPL in the USA both in terms of money (including my travel to the school and my stay there) and time than doing the same in Germany. And: I may fly more planes!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:um... by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Something goes wrong in a vehicle, the vast majority of the time you end up stuck on the road.

      Things go wrong much less in a plane, and when they do the plane has backups for most systems that have any likelihood of failing. Also, all of those systems undergo thorough inspection every year (even more often for rentals). So yes, when something serious goes wrong in a plane, it is far more difficult to safely "pull over" but the level of rigor preventing those bad things from happening more than makes up for it. On top of all that, it's not like anyone is stopping you from asking the pilot to show you his logbook prior to the flight.

    18. Re:um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having seen some of it from the inside, I think I'd pass on random private pilots*.

      *sport pilots are not even in the running. Nothing keeping someone from running a puddle jumper service out of their backyard with little more skill or oversight than your local DMV office. For one, I'd qualify with a few hours work.....

      My dad used to give a similiar offer to his student pilots. They could get needed flight time in a twin if they came along on his sales calls and paid for gas. NO instructor fees! made for a good deal. Doesn't make you feel much better when you try and fill two 55 gal tanks with avgas ;)

      Anyone willing to pay for this has enough of a need for speed that they should be paying for a real charter. Not like this would ever get you to point B really cheaply! In fact, I can't see this being an issue as it would be expensive, risky, AND inconvient enough there simply won't be enough people doing it to worry about.

    19. Re:um... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      In a plane you are likely to die.

      You and bussdriver are idiots.

      40,000 people a year die in cars in the US alone.

      700 people a year die in airplanes, in the whole world.

      http://www.thewire.com/nationa...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    20. Re:um... by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      I don't think getting the license is particularily difficult in the US.

      It can be very expensive and take time to get those hours...but a crazy person who wins the lottery (or an insurance settlement) wouldn't have much trouble making it into the air.

      --
      Bottles.
    21. Re:um... by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      How many man-hours are spent driving?

      How many man-hours are spent flying?

    22. Re:um... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      About the same.

      AKA. figure it out yourself.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    23. Re:um... by nblender · · Score: 1

      How do you know when there's a pilot in your slashdot thread?

      He'll tell you.

      (sorry, couldn't resist).

    24. Re:um... by rnswebx · · Score: 1

      The stats for non-commercial flying do not support your assertion that flying is somehow safer than driving. GA Flying vs driving uses 2004 numbers, but you can see the updated data with similar numbers over at AOPA

    25. Re:um... by edibobb · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're wrong. Flying in a light plane is about as dangerous as riding a motorcycle. Check NTSB stats. And, as a pilot, I know several private pilots I would prefer not to ride with. Professional pilots do get a lot more training and should be safer.

    26. Re:um... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      As a professional pilot with many thousands of hours of flight time, I'll say there are two factors...

      1. The quality of skill and knowledge of the pilot and how current those are.

      2. The quality and technology in the airplane itself and how well it is maintained.

      The pilot is easy enough to figure out if you know what you're doing, problem is, people using this service won't know that.

      The airplane? There are vast differences between different airplanes. A 1970 Cessna Turbo 210 is a nice airplane, if you spend all the money required to make it that way and safe. It is horrible when flown on a tight budget. A 2013 Cirrus SR-22? Great airplane, much safer than most of what is flying, but it also costs over half a million dollars, so not that many of them out there.

      And there is a lot in-between those two.

      I've flown a lot of junk, I've also flown brand new and nice. One of my favorite flights was the delivery flight of a brand new 2004 King Air 350, fresh from the factory with 9 hours of time on it. I flew the first 94 hours in that airplane, what a beautiful nice airplane... I've also flown a 1982 King Air 90 that needed... well, everything... it more less needed to be scrapped, the cost to overhaul and update it was more than the airplane was worth.

      Your average person doesn't know or understand any of that. This is why commercial flights are regulated and the inspections and maintenance required are higher.

    27. Re:um... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      You sir, are totally correct in all respects.

      Some pilots know what they are doing, others are a hazard. You're right at how much of a joke the medical really is, the basic training isn't all that much better.

      Having been the chief flight instructor for a Part 141 school and a check pilot for a 135 outfit, I know all too well how many "experienced and certified pilots" have no idea what they are doing.

    28. Re:um... by schlachter · · Score: 1

      I've known plenty of people who I wouldn't trust to fly me around who got their pilot's license. I would say it's pretty easy from what I've seen. Isn't expensive either. Maybe $10-15K?

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    29. Re:um... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      You ought to explain to the general slashdot population what Part 141 & Part 135 are. Unless you're a pilot you probably don't know.

    30. Re:um... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      You're not comparing like with like.
      You can't lump GA ridesharing along with the airlines. The airlines are indeed safer than driving over pretty much any metric you choose. However, this is not true with light GA (general aviation). When you make a fair comparison, you will find that light GA has roughly the same safety level as riding a motorcycle on the road.

      The thing is people like you don't know this and will sign up for this service and jump in with some low hours pilot who's trying to build time with the notion that the drive to the airfield was the most dangerous bit when it most assuredly is not.

    31. Re:um... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      No, but I know that the airline standards:
      - train crews for multi crew operation and CRM
      - the crews get simulator training and regular emergency training actually doing things in the sim that would be too dangerous to do in a real plane, so they can handle it if it happens for real.
      - the crews get a lot of recurrent training
      - the crews fly a lot of hours
      - the crews have a very high equipment standard
      - the aircraft mostly operate above the weather and spend very little time in it

      But in light general aviation this is not the case. For instance, I have to see an instructor once every two years for a one hour ground and one hour flight review. This is entirely proportionate for personal flying when you're accepting the risk for yourself. It's not enough for holding out to the public who believe flying is safer than driving. The aircraft I fly will be 70 years old next year. Most of the instruments it has were surplus World War II parts. This is fine for personal flying, but I don't think it's fine to fly antiques when holding out to the public who may be ignorant that the aircraft they are sitting in is as old as their grandfather and believe flying is safer than driving.

    32. Re:um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congrats. The stupidest fucking comment I've read on /. in years.

    33. Re:um... by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      As a pilot, I'm not sure how to take your remark. I'm pretty sure the rigorous training and medical certifications I've completed will have you in much safer hands than the trip you take to the grocery store from your house. What are the requirements for driving a 3 ton vehicle these days, heartbeat and visit to the local DL office?

      I've looked into this over the years, you're safer in the car. Turns out GA as a group is almost identical to a motorcycle. If you fly a lot, maintain the plane well, actually check the gas before you leave and have enough gas to get to where you're going you are probably slightly better than the car ride.

    34. Re:um... by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      General Aviation results in 9x more fatalities per mile traveled than driving (link). I'll take my chances on the ground, thanks.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    35. Re:um... by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      You can't compare nominal numbers like that because there are many, many more vehicle miles traveled by auto than by airplane. Also, the air travel numbers include commercial planes, which comprise the vast majority of air miles traveled, and have different standards than General Aviation, which is what TFA is talking about.

      General Aviation has 9x more fatalities annually than cars per vehicle mile traveled (link). I'll take my chances on the ground, thanks.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    36. Re:um... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Good data, with one exception.

      Makes a HUGE assumption that the average GA speed is 150 mph. Given that most business class jets (which are in GA) can cruise at about Mach .5+, that seems very low.

      Make it 250mph.

      Now GA rates are only 4x driving.

      Make it 350mph.

      Now GA rates are 3x.

      And you're still only talking about ~5 fatalities for every 100,000,000 miles flown. You know, four thousand trips around the equator. Somebody dies every one thousand laps around earth. Not surprising.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  4. are the pilots allowed to group you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    otherwise, how will it be safe from terrorists?

  5. Potential FAA issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are some severe legal questions surrounding this service. In a nutshell, the FAA considers anyone who advertises at all ("Holding out" as a provider in their terminology) as a charter service. The fact that it's limited to the passenger's share of the costs is not relevant as far as the FAA is concerned -- you need a valid commercial pilot's license and a 121 license to do this legally in the opinion of many.

    1. Re:Potential FAA issues by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Agreed. For non-commercial flights, you are not allowed to accept more than a share of the costs but there is more to the rule than just that and this service is swaying into murky waters.

    2. Re:Potential FAA issues by Richy_T · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sorry, cloudy skies :D

    3. Re:Potential FAA issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. When I was flying, I understood I could charge for the portion of gas, but not for anything on top, which made sense. I had never heard anything about the advertising aspect - but it'll really open the door on what is advertising? I mean, if I'm in a hanger, and I tell some folks I'm headed from KSEA to KLAX, and open to accept anyone who wants to chip in on gas, is that advertising? What if I'm at a party and I tell some friends were headed down to wherever, and they say they'd love to do that some time and I say well chip in for gas and you can do it this time! Is that advertising?

      Advertising is spreading a message, and I think that there's no other way to do the gas share thing than to advertise. The FAA should stick with the not-for-profit rule. If I'm headed some way, and I want to let some strangers chip in for gas why shouldn't I be allowed to?

      Probably the better thing though is to put some better rules around it... For example, requiring full disclosure about ones piloting history, air craft history, and certification status. E.g. "I just got my PPL last week - let's go fly into the clouds" yeah erm uhm no.

      That said, given what happened with Asiana 214 and Malaysian 370, you might just be better off with an enthusiastic young pilot than the alternative... :-)

    4. Re:Potential FAA issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are some severe legal questions surrounding this service. In a nutshell, the FAA considers anyone who advertises at all ("Holding out" as a provider in their terminology) as a charter service. The fact that it's limited to the passenger's share of the costs is not relevant as far as the FAA is concerned -- you need a valid commercial pilot's license and a 121 license to do this legally in the opinion of many.

      What are, some kind of big government communist?

    5. Re:Potential FAA issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      move the 'service' to Canada, tell FAA to go autofelatiate.

    6. Re:Potential FAA issues by bobbied · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are some severe legal questions surrounding this service. In a nutshell, the FAA considers anyone who advertises at all ("Holding out" as a provider in their terminology) as a charter service. The fact that it's limited to the passenger's share of the costs is not relevant as far as the FAA is concerned -- you need a valid commercial pilot's license and a 121 license to do this legally in the opinion of many.

      I would agree. As a private pilot, I can share costs with passengers, but I personally would limit that to people that I know and routinely associate with. NEVER am I going to haul somebody someplace for their benefit only, but if we are heading out on a weekend trip together and they want to help out with the fuel costs, seems that would not be a 121 situation and my private pilot license would be good enough.

      I can NOT imagine how a smart phone app arranged ride would be OK with the FAA. Taking strangers up in hopes of getting reimbursed for a fraction of the fuel cost seems to be a problem to me. First off, DON'T go flying with some yahoo you don't know who agrees to this because if they are stupid enough to take strangers up in a light aircraft for fuel shares you don't want them as a pilot. Second, many people I've taken up in a smaller aircraft have been uncomfortable with experience. I cannot imagine how anybody would hop into an C172 with a stranger as the pilot. Finally, I'd hate to see the insurance claims and lawsuits should some private pilot ball one up while carrying "paying" passengers who are strangers.

      Drive, or take a commercial fight, or if you want to take some one as a private pilot, make it a gift and pay the costs yourself.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:Potential FAA issues by joe_frisch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a private pilot the legal issues worry me. The pilot training, aircraft maintenance, and operating requirements are very different for different types operations. The "sharing costs" is based on the concept that you can fly your friends to Las Vegas and split the costs. It is assumed that you have reasonable informed your friends of the risks. If you are taking other "passengers" for some form of compensation, have they *really* been informed of the risks - which are dramatically higher for private flights than for air carriers.

      If there is an aircraft malfunction and someone is injured, what are the insurance / lawsuit issues? what happens if a passenger damages your airplane - stepping in the wrong place, can do thousands of dollars of damage to some planes. What if you can't reach the intended destination due to weather - does the passenger get a refund? What if you are delayed? It is legal for private flights to operate under weather conditions that are not legal for commercial flights -what happens here? Fuel is less than 1/2 the total operating costs for my plane - do I get to split all costs, or just fuel?

      We are also talking a lot of money here. A Bonanza or Cirrus total operating cost is probably ~$200/hour, so a "quick flight" from San Francisco to Las Vegas is $1000 round trip, close to 2X that in my Baron. Non-pilot passengers may expect a level of service and performance that just isn't reasonable for small planes.

      Its a nice idea, and I'd love to participate, but there are too many possible problems.

    8. Re:Potential FAA issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm thinkin this little project is gonna go down in flames.

    9. Re:Potential FAA issues by plover · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, it's still murky waters if random-pilot-of-the-day does it wrong...

      --
      John
    10. Re:Potential FAA issues by slew · · Score: 2

      One potential loophole is to attempt to use the exemption (91.321 Carriage of candidates in elections)...

      Say, have any potential passengers sign up to be candidates in an election for some public office (create a town in the middle of nowhere called 'Airpool' and everyone who signs up to run for mayor is now part of the club where they can access flight sharing).

      Of course these folks aren't doing that, but there are of course probably some more realistic loophole in the code...

    11. Re:Potential FAA issues by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      The next insurance renewal will almost certainly forbid such activities. They'd be fools not to. I'm a little surprised there isn't a clause in auto insurance contracts about it (unless current laws require coverage of any passenger).

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    12. Re:Potential FAA issues by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I'm not certain, but I believe offering 'gas cost sharing' flights in Germany without an commercial (there are various levels of it, like cargo transport or letters/post and passengers) pilot license is simply illegal.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re:Potential FAA issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some severe legal questions surrounding this service. In a nutshell, the FAA considers anyone who advertises at all ("Holding out" as a provider in their terminology) as a charter service. The fact that it's limited to the passenger's share of the costs is not relevant as far as the FAA is concerned -- you need a valid commercial pilot's license and a 121 license to do this legally in the opinion of many.

      What is the reason for this regulation? What does it prevent or accomplish? Is there more to it other than some antiquated commerce control? Otherwise, it seems to be just a rule for the sake of having a rule for an authority to enforce.

    14. Re:Potential FAA issues by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      That would never fly with the FAA, they have no sense of humor at all.

      Keep in mind that you have no right to fly, the FAA has the right to suspend your pilot certificate (it isn't a licence, it is a certificate), at any time they deem necessary for the safety of the public, then you have to go to court to try and get it back.

      The FAA actually looks at the spirit of the law more than most government agencies, but in that regard it is towards the "don't do it" side of things.

      They believe in the "if it looks like a duck, quakes like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it's a duck, regardless of anything else."

    15. Re:Potential FAA issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct, and you can be sure FAA will be sending enforcement letters to every pilot who signs up to provide this service -- which is the first step to having their ticket yanked.

    16. Re:Potential FAA issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is in most auto insurance. Have you read yours? It'll say "Not for hire or reward". Which means if you got paid, your insurance was invalidated for that journey or set of journeys and you're now driving illegally.

      Companies like Uber have their own insurance which they say covers the gap. So getting paid by Uber trips out your private insurance, but should (if they got it right) mean you're covered by their insurance, and so you're legal again.

      If these people are at all serious they too will have obtained insurance to cover the gap. But, that's a small consideration next to the obvious problem of having private pilots (who get a relatively easy ride because hey, it's mostly their lives they are risking) doing commercial work.

    17. Re:Potential FAA issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      121 is for people who offer flights with published schedules. 135 is for on-demand charter services.

    18. Re:Potential FAA issues by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Well, that is basically the only reason needed for regulation in Europe. Just keep in mind that they never really overthrew the king in most of Europe, they just kind of faded out to be replaced by elected, multi-headed kings.

    19. Re:Potential FAA issues by kc7rad · · Score: 1

      Back in 2001 when I was training for my PPL I thought of this exact same idea... A pool of pilots with planes that would be willing to ferry folks around for the price of gas. After researching all the possible problems the inevitable became obvious... This wouldn't work, all because of the reasons joe_frisch mentioned. The FBO operators and trainers I spoke with mostly liked the idea but told me it just "wouldn't fly." Think about how much more insurance would cost!

  6. Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best part is NO TSA!!!

    1. Re:Awesome! by Subgenius · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never been 'ramp checked'

      --
      Toil is Stupid. Don't be Stupid.
  7. So, how much does it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Cost of a tank of gas" means nothing to me. I don't fly or maintain aircraft. So for me, "a tank of gas" is $60, but I'm pretty sure I'm not getting on a plane for $30...
    Anyone more familiar with flying care to estimate the flight cost of a 4-6 seat plane on a 200 mile trip?

    1. Re:So, how much does it cost? by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      My memory is that a small plane costs about twice as much ($) in fuel for the same point-to-point distance.

    2. Re:So, how much does it cost? by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

      Figure a 4-seat Bonanza or Cirrus costs $200/hour to operate and flies at ~200mph. A Cessna 172 is considerably less, maybe $120/hour, flies at maybe 130mph, but can't carry as much, and has much more limited weather capability. (vague 1/2 of the total cost is fuel)

      These are very rough costs, depends on how you count fixed costs, how fast you fly, etc etc.

      Small aircraft are NOT a cost efficient way to get around in most cases.

    3. Re:So, how much does it cost? by Subgenius · · Score: 4, Informative

      ROUGH numbers (and yes, I know GPH not MPG).

      Typical Cessna 172 flown by a decent pilot, not a speed-demon, will see a burn of about 10-12 gallons per hour in calm skies. 100LL (avgas) is running here at Montgomery Field in San Diego (Gibbs FBO) $6.19/gallon. Assume a full 56-gallon fill ($346), you are are looking at 5-hours runtime @ 105kts, or about 500 miles before refueling.

      Not the cheapest way to get there, your plane/burnrate/mileage WILL vary.

      --
      Toil is Stupid. Don't be Stupid.
    4. Re:So, how much does it cost? by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      For $200 / hour a proper commercial flight will be much less expensive.

    5. Re:So, how much does it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Flight from Phoenix to Durango vs Driving? 2 hours in a small plane vs 7 hours driving. 1 Person, ~$200 commercial. Add 2-3 people, in that small plane, no difference in gas burned, far cheaper than commercial without the bullshit of 8 hours of check in / gate time. If you value your time, small plane far faster and most likely cheaper too, if more than 1 person going, depending on distance. Anything long distance, faster plane necessary than a 182.

    6. Re:So, how much does it cost? by PRMan · · Score: 2

      How much to rent a car in Durango or Phoenix? Because they sure as heck are not going to have public transportation worth anything.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    7. Re:So, how much does it cost? by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

      It varies. Between major airports, commercial will usually win in speed and cost. There are some trips that are faster and /or cheaper in a small plane than by other means, but in my experience (20 years of private flying), it isn't really all that common. I fly myself because I enjoy it, and I like the flexibility, but I can rarely justify it as an efficient means of transportation.

    8. Re:So, how much does it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grumman Yankee 6 GPH at 90 kts (105 MPH) is about 17 mpg, which is pretty reasonable for anything going that speed. Oh, and it's straight line.

    9. Re:So, how much does it cost? by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Phoenix AZ and Durango CO both have a plethora of car rental options and a level of public transport that still comes out well ahead of the 5 hours saved.

      Even "lowly" Durango has Avis, Herz, Budget, National and Enterprise at their airport - although I suspect at least 2 of those are DBA one of the others under a shared banner.

  8. risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is the minor issue that small planes crash 10 times as often as commercial airliners.

    1. Re:risk by stox · · Score: 2

      Which is still minuscule when compared to the chances of dying in an auto accident.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    2. Re:risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If by minuscule, you mean that general aviation has 15 times as many fatalities per mile, or five times as many fatalities per passenger mile than auto travel...

    3. Re:risk by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Nope. I know people love to quote that, but all it seems to do is indicate someone can't do statistics.

      That number comes form just comparing number of deaths.
      When you look at comparing miles moved, number of people operating the vehicles, I don't think it's safer.
      Aircariers 1.9 deaths per 100 million planes, auto 1.3 deaths per 100 million cars.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  9. "taste of their personal pilot." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eww

  10. I don't think this is going to fly... by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

    ... I'm a pilot, and I wouldn't fly as a pax with most of the other pilots I know, especially not under circumstances they are unfamiliar with - like loading down the plane with people and luggage close to gross weight and doing a cross country with it.

    Also, this is in some pretty serious gray area. A pilot may not "hold out" for passengers to share fuel on a trip he/she is planning to take. Any kind of "if someone else is going, I'm not going" makes it a Part 121 charter. If pilots start deciding not to go if they don't get a full plane, or if they wait around for an hour for the person who is late, I think they might find themselves violated.

    1. Re:I don't think this is going to fly... by Wookact · · Score: 1

      Really you couldn't wait for an hour for someone who is running late? Thats a bit excessive.

    2. Re:I don't think this is going to fly... by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      People use aircraft to travel because their time is valuable.

    3. Re:I don't think this is going to fly... by spmkk · · Score: 1

      ... I'm a pilot, and I wouldn't fly as a pax with most of the other pilots I know, especially not under circumstances they are unfamiliar with - like loading down the plane with people and luggage close to gross weight and doing a cross country with it.

      Really? That hasn't been my experience at all -- for me and most other private pilots I know, cross-country fully loaded makes up at least half of our non-training time. I mean, I've done a bunch of local scenic stuff too, but loading up and going places is kind of what this sport is about.

      Also, FWIW I've only ever met 1 or 2 guys that I wouldn't go up with, and in those cases it was their personality more than their flying skills (honestly, I have yet to come across a pilot who got their ticket but couldn't handle a plane).

      ...or if they wait around for an hour for the person who is late...

      I don't know if there's a single pilot under FAA jurisdiction who has never waited an hour for a late passenger/companion to show up for a flight before taking off.

    4. Re:I don't think this is going to fly... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      People use aircraft to travel because their time is valuable.

      Who are we fooling with this?

      If that were true, the TSA would have destroyed commercial flying years ago.

    5. Re:I don't think this is going to fly... by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

      Point was, if you look like a charter, and act like a charter, chances are the FAA is going to look at you and see a charter.

    6. Re:I don't think this is going to fly... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's"s still faster for most flights.

      I don't fly much, but I have never waited more then 20 minutes in line to get past security.
      Total time for 'flying' on my last 1000 mile trip. 7 hours.
      That included getting to the airport with enough time for four people to eat a nice dinner, security, and air flights. PDX has a good steak house in it.
      I could cut 2 hours by losing the meal.

      Good luck doing that in a car.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:I don't think this is going to fly... by gwstuff · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't you fly with pilots you know, who are presumably qualified and licensed?

    8. Re:I don't think this is going to fly... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Because being licensed and qualified is not the same thing as being proficient. In fact there is absolutely no correlation between being "qualified" and being "proficient."

    9. Re:I don't think this is going to fly... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Qualified and licensed isn't equal to proficient.

      Further upthread someone was overblowing the risk of engine failure so I picked a reasonably recent month from the NTSB accident list and found this. Out of the 20 fatal aviation accidents in the US in April 2011, every single one was fatal due to either pilot misjudgement (flight into instrument weather conditions when not equipped and colliding with terrain) or simple loss of control of the aircraft (in other words, a lack of basic stick and rudder skills). In only four was mechanical failure was a factor, but subsequently the pilot just lost control of an aircraft that was perfectly capable of gliding to a positive outcome.

      I knew the owner of a flight school/aircraft rental when I lived in Houston, and the maintenance standards of his aircraft fleet was pretty awful to say the least (it was all done very much on the cheap). Yet despite the fact he sailed awfully close to the wind maintenance-wise, and everyone predicting his fleet would start falling out the sky due to mechanical or airframe maintenance problems, none of the incidents involving his aircraft were mechanical in nature - every single incident was caused by judgement errors or basic lack of stick and rudder skills.

  11. Tried to start this in 1987 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    We tried to do something similar in 1987 -- reservation system for the charter airline industry to fill the "dead" legs (return flights). Prototyped on Tandy 6000 (8MHz 68K, 1M RAM) and PCs with IBM EGA cards (yes, EGA, not VGA).

    Never did get it off the ground....

    1. Re:Tried to start this in 1987 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The founder of AOL also tried doing AOL on the Atari 2600

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameLine

      Maybe it wasn't the time yet.

  12. Passenger can not influence destination ... by perpenso · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My understanding is that this is treading on very dangerous grounds with respect to FAA guidelines.

    A "share" of the cost includes all expenses of the flight. Rental, fuel, etc. The pilot and passenger must each pay half of total expenses.

    The passenger can have no influence on the destination. If the pilot is flying from A to B and the passenger tags along, OK. But if the pilot just wants hours and goes to B because the passenger needs to go there then I think there is an FAA regulations problem and the FAA will consider the flight commercial.

    That said I am not a lawyer nor a FAA guidelines expert. All I know is what my instructor told me many years ago in ground school. "The person showing you their FAA ID is never ever there to help you. Never hand your license to the FAA official to help them read / inspect it, that can be considered surrendering your license if the FAA official wishes to interpret the act as such. Keep the license in your hand and move it closer to their face if they are having a hard time reading it, pull it away if they reach for it. If they ask for it tell them you will be handing it to your attorney and they can speak with him/her."

    1. Re:Passenger can not influence destination ... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      I can't really post it easily enough here, but the FAA has issued a letter in the past confirming what you've said.

      If the pilot didn't need to go, then it is a commercial operation and requires a 135 certificate and all that goes with it, period dot the end.

      There is indeed no gray here at all, pilots are busted for this all the time, just don't do it.

      If the pilot was going anyway and was going to pay the full bill, and a friend wants to come along and pays for his/her share of the gas, that's fine.

      If the pilot wasn't going unless the passenger comes, it is 135.

      It is as black and white as that.

    2. Re:Passenger can not influence destination ... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Well, not quite as black and white as that since the FAA does make some allowances for outfits like AngelFlight.

    3. Re:Passenger can not influence destination ... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Yes, they do, but that is because the FAA actually has some human beings there who have decided to accept such flights as a "Good Thing" (TM).

      I assure you, the average person doesn't get that option. :)

  13. Having a private pilots license by bussdriver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cars are forgiving, the sky is NOT. If as many people flew small planes as people drive it would not be as safe in terms of fatalities. It is true when you compare apples to oranges driving is more dangerous; but if you want to even get close to a fair comparison you would compare jets to buses and you'd compare fatalities and injuries separately... since car accidents are far less likely to result in fatalities.

    The FAA has strong rules about flying others around and the FAA never changes the regulations, they only add, never remove. The exchange of money at all for any connected reason is going to cause trouble.

    Besides, if you thought the taxi lobby was a problem for ride sharing; you'd never even dare to mess with the airline industrial complex (which is so heavily subsidized, it is more of a scam than a market.)

    1. Re:Having a private pilots license by Immerman · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know, aside from a few mountains that mostly stay put there's nothing to hit in the air except other planes, and there's a LOT more room to maneuver than on the street. The riskiest part of a flight is typically the take-off and landing, other than that the only real risk is equipment (or pilot) failure, which shouldn't be dramatically affected by the number of other planes in the sky. Obviously if you had 1000x as many planes in the air you'd need to get a little more aggressive about adhering to flight lanes, but adding additional lanes is almost free. The only thing you'd really need to change is increasing the number of airports to avoid creating dangerously dense spots of air (and runway) traffic.

      It'd probably also help if we updated the antiquated and error-prone air-traffic control systems. I know there's several far more intuitive systems that have been designed, but I think they mostly haven't seen widespread deployment yet.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Having a private pilots license by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      The point is still valid: if something on a car fails, there is a very good chance you'll walk away from it. On an aircraft, not so much.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Having a private pilots license by bradorsomething · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you do not hit something at the end of your flight, you have either been abducted by aliens or achieved orbit. Neither are good. It's how controlled that strike is that concerns people.

    4. Re:Having a private pilots license by mopower70 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know, aside from a few mountains that mostly stay put there's nothing to hit in the air except other planes, and there's a LOT more room to maneuver than on the street.

      You'd think that... but I imagine it's a lot like sailing. I sail on the ocean and even if there's only a handful of boats out there, there's a good chance you're going to come near one of them. Every airplane is dealing with the same flying conditions and a fairly limited number of destinations. You're generally going to want to take the shortest, most fuel-efficient path - along with every other craft up there. In theory there's lots of room to maneuver, but the odds of you occupying the same space as another craft going or coming the same direction are actually pretty good.

    5. Re:Having a private pilots license by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      Unless your boat is a submarine, there is a whole other dimension of avoid ability with air traffic - you can pass through the same X,Y as long as Z is different.

      Is that a very good idea? No, but it will definitely do in an emergency.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    6. Re:Having a private pilots license by spmkk · · Score: 2

      Cars are forgiving, the sky is NOT.

      99% of the time that I'm flying a plane, I'm more than a mile from anything else in the sky and at least 1000 feet from anything on the ground.

      99% of the time that I'm driving a car, I'm within 50 feet of another car and less than 10 feet from something else I can hit. And my car's not going all that much slower than a Cessna.

      If as many people flew small planes as people drive it would not be as safe in terms of fatalities.

      Well...that's kind of the point, isn't it? There AREN'T as many people who fly small planes as there are people who drive, and those people are generally far better trained/qualified. So sure, if general aviation was totally different than it actually is, it might not be as safe.

      Besides, if you thought the taxi lobby was a problem for ride sharing; you'd never even dare to mess with the airline industrial complex (which is so heavily subsidized, it is more of a scam than a market.)

      Meh. IMO this really isn't a threat to commercial aviation - not even private/charter commercial operators. I think this service is going to be brought down by a lack of adoption (insufficient demand) and a deficit of pilots (insufficient supply). There just aren't very many of us, even fewer who own planes, and fewer still who fly regularly. The aviation industry doesn't need to worry much about this.

    7. Re:Having a private pilots license by bussdriver · · Score: 2

      Well, I wasn't intending to talk about MORE flying. I'm not one who supports heavy flying and don't think there should ever be flying cars either. (By the time any such thing is realistic-- if it would ever be-- robots should be doing it all for us. Unless energy is free, land transport is a cheaper use of energy.)

      The point is, flying is really dangerous stuff. This is why so much care and precaution is taken and I think the pilot's exam includes enough complexity to double as an IQ test as well. As you likely have noticed, we let any moron drive a car. If we were as strict with cars they would be much safer. Regulation makes flying as safe as it is - but IT IS extremely dangerous by nature. Hell, before requiring checklists the pros made errors and the accident levels dropped 30-40% lower after adding them! No, we'd not have that impact with car checklists; it seems silly to consider it... that is because cars are simple.

      In the air, plenty of things can go wrong. If something does, a landing will be attempted if at all possible-- in which case that crash will be during landing.

      They've been working on new traffic control since I was a teen. It never moves forward; I don't know why... We could have computers take it all over today with probably fewer problems but then we'd wipe out a lot of jobs...

    8. Re:Having a private pilots license by jeffmeden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know, aside from a few mountains that mostly stay put there's nothing to hit in the air except other planes, and there's a LOT more room to maneuver than on the street. The riskiest part of a flight is typically the take-off and landing, other than that the only real risk is equipment (or pilot) failure, which shouldn't be dramatically affected by the number of other planes in the sky. Obviously if you had 1000x as many planes in the air you'd need to get a little more aggressive about adhering to flight lanes, but adding additional lanes is almost free. The only thing you'd really need to change is increasing the number of airports to avoid creating dangerously dense spots of air (and runway) traffic.

      It'd probably also help if we updated the antiquated and error-prone air-traffic control systems. I know there's several far more intuitive systems that have been designed, but I think they mostly haven't seen widespread deployment yet.

      Run out of gas in a car? Put put put putttt.... walk. Run out of gas in a plane? AerrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRR... CRASH! And that's the consequence of a benign failure mode. Imagine the swift and merciless outcome of a more dramatic failure like a spun bearing or broken crankshaft. Powered planes and gliders have basically nothing in common, even though the public likes to imagine that running out of gas in a plane means soaring gently until you land on a convenient 4-lane road or meticulously preened grass field.

    9. Re:Having a private pilots license by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Your post is basicaly nonsense from top to bottom.
      Perhaps you should attempt to make a PPL (private pilot license) first befire giving suggestions how to improve flight lanes and air traffic control.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:Having a private pilots license by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      even though the public likes to imagine that running out of gas in a plane means soaring gently until you land on a convenient 4-lane road or meticulously preened grass field

      Ok, I get that a plane isn't going to glide as well as a glider that's designed for, well, gliding; but it's not going to drop like a stone either, unless you suck at buying planes and vetting designs. You control your airspeed with your pitch, and so long as you don't let it drop below the minimum airspeed to generate lift, you can keep a dead plane in the air for a while. Long enough that you can find someplace to put down where you'll get minimal damage for the area. Keep your head about you and keep from stalling the lift, always have an emergency landing target in mind, and so long as you haven't been hit by a missile you should be ok. Granted, it's probably not going to be the most gentile landing, and the likelihood that the plane will be able to fly again isn't too good unless you really get lucky on finding the perfect field/road/clearing to put down on, but that's why you keep emergency supplies on board for first aid, flares and rations... right?

    11. Re:Having a private pilots license by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      since car accidents are far less likely to result in fatalities.

      Except for the ~40,000 every year.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    12. Re:Having a private pilots license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Run out of gas in a plane? AerrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRR... CRASH!

      You're an idiot.

      The plane becomes a glider.

      the public likes to imagine that running out of gas in a plane means soaring gently until you land on a convenient 4-lane road or meticulously preened grass field

      Having done so, yes it does.

    13. Re:Having a private pilots license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why airplanes, even small ones have redundancies wherever possible and have rigid service schedules. For the most part if someone failed on a plane the plane will be able to safely land by switching to the backup.

    14. Re:Having a private pilots license by Aeonym · · Score: 4, Informative

      Aircraft injuries/fatalities are only better than cars because the vast majority of traffic is on commercial airlines that are rigorously maintained, with pilots who must pass (relatively) stringent qualifications.

      Little private planes are much more dangerous, mile for mile, than cars

    15. Re:Having a private pilots license by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      I don't know, aside from a few mountains that mostly stay put there's nothing to hit in the air except other planes, and there's a LOT more room to maneuver than on the street.

      You forgot about the weather. We had TWO Cessna crashes with fatalities in my state in since February. Both may have been weather related.

      You can always pull over in a car when the weather gets rough.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    16. Re:Having a private pilots license by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "my car's not going all that much slower than a Cessna."

      A Cessna 172 cruise speed is 143 miles/hour. Remember kinetic energy formulae states it goes to the square of speed and you'll see that yes, you are going all that much slower than a Cessna (and that's cruise speed, if you are uncontrolably heading to the ground you'll probably go faster than that).

    17. Re:Having a private pilots license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For example see the Gimli Glider (hopefully less than 10 others have already posted this). Commercial planes aren't well behaved by glider standards, but they can successfully glide.

    18. Re:Having a private pilots license by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      "Twenty-three percent of road crashes—nearly 1,312,000—are weather-related. On average, 6,250 people are killed and over 480,000 people are injured in weather-related crashes each year." - www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/weather.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    19. Re:Having a private pilots license by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      Yep, a light airplane will glide for miles and miles with just a few thousand feet of altitude.

      When I was actively teaching in 172s, one of the things I'd do on a cross country was to pull the power back to idle and tell the student the engine has "failed" and they need a place to land. I'd do this at about 4,000 feet above the ground and within gliding range of 2 or 3 small airports.

      About half the time, the student would freak out and aim for the nearest highway, when they actually have 10 to 15 minutes of time in the air at that point and plenty of glide range to reach an airport.

      Powerful learning experience that should be done more often to new pilots.

    20. Re:Having a private pilots license by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      Actually, it was 28,000 last year, it has dropped by almost a third in the past 10 years.

      All that safety technology is starting to make a difference. People crap and required airbags and antilock brakes, but they do save lives.

      Required auto emergency braking, adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning, blind zone alert, electronic stability control, traction control, and the like will reduce it even further.

      Auto driving cars will reduce it to nearly zero. Those can't get here fast enough...

    21. Re:Having a private pilots license by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember reading that the Boeing 747 has a glide ratio of 1:17. Meaning it can get 17 feet of forward motion for every foot of altitude. Honestly that kind of amazes me.

    22. Re:Having a private pilots license by neonKow · · Score: 1

      That's is because the drivers didn't stop driving and pull over when the weather got bad. While that delays your trip, the maneuver is perfectly safe and takes just a few seconds (or minutes if you need to find a motel).

      Now try deciding that you underestimated the weather and you want to land your plane. It's much harder and takes much longer and you can't just land anywhere you please. Your safety margin is greatly decreased. Anyone who doesn't respect that fact that driving is not like flying hasn't been in a situation where you don't have the option to bail at a moment's notice.

    23. Re:Having a private pilots license by jratcliffe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Granted, it's probably not going to be the most gentile landing

      So I should look to land on a nice cushy Rabbi?

    24. Re:Having a private pilots license by DaHat · · Score: 1

      All that safety technology is starting to make a difference. People crap and required airbags and antilock brakes, but they do save lives.

      Required auto emergency braking, adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning, blind zone alert, electronic stability control, traction control, and the like will reduce it even further.

      Compared to similar vehicles without... yes... compared to the generation of ultra small vehicles we see more and more of on the road? God no. Physics doesn't care what kind of safety features you have in your vehicle, it does care when you start replacing stronger materials for lighter alternatives and reducing overall size.

      As a 6'5" individual, I will never drive many of the new small/economy cars today, not just because I value my life, but also because I also value my knees & head in case of a collapse of ANY of the passenger compartment in a collision.

    25. Re:Having a private pilots license by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      So sorry.

      It's only averaged ~40k deaths per year for the last 50 years.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    26. Re:Having a private pilots license by spmkk · · Score: 1

      A Cessna 172 cruise speed is 143 miles/hour.

      In all my hours in a Cessna 172, I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've hit 124 knots (143mph) without a tailwind.

      Typical real-life cruise TAS in a C-172 -- remember, these are mostly rust buckets from the '60s and '70s, so don't go by the published specs -- is 100-110 knots, or about 115-125mph. Which yes, is certainly faster than a typical car (I was exaggerating a bit to make a point), but in general unless something goes wonky on takeoff or short final, you have much more time and space to react to situations in a plane than in a car.

    27. Re:Having a private pilots license by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Size differences are indeed an issue. Many people don't read the fine print, the SmartCar that gets the 5 star rating gets it because they only compare crashes into similar size cars.

      A Suburban hitting a SmartCar will flatten it, a SmartCar hitting a Suburban? The Suburban might not even notice.

      That being said, crumple zones, airbags, etc. all help, and now Auto Emergency Braking is an optional feature in Suburbans, within 5-10 years I expect it will be standard and that will help.

      Note: I drive such a truck for the very concerns you list, I have three kids, I consider the 5,900lbs of steel to be armor for my family.

      My current truck doesn't have all those safety features which is why I just ordered a 2015 model, and yes that one includes auto crash braking, lane departure warning, blind spot warning, and it has the haptic vibrating seat to warn you of all that in case you miss the lights.

      I figure it has to prevent just a single crash with my family in it to be worth every single penny.

    28. Re:Having a private pilots license by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was at 40K in 2006, give or take a few... It has been dropping ever since...

      All the safety technology is starting to make a difference as it has worked its way down to cheaper cars...

      That same technology will only become cheaper by mandating it in everything. I'm no liberal, but I do like my family and want safe roads, so I have to accept some level of government oversight in this regard.

    29. Re:Having a private pilots license by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      but in general unless something goes wonky on takeoff or short final, you have much more time and space to react to situations in a plane than in a car.

      One of the benefits of cars is that they seldom get picked up by a sudden gust, flipped over, and slammed into the ground during takeoff, killing the pilot and passenger. Mostly because they don't have a takeoff phase.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    30. Re:Having a private pilots license by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Physics doesn't care what kind of safety features you have in your vehicle, it does care when you start replacing stronger materials for lighter alternatives and reducing overall size.

      Physics cares very much what kind of safety features you have in your vehicle if it permits you to utilize physics to not have the collision in the first place, or to absorb more of that energy before any of it reaches the driver.

      As a 6'5" individual, I will never drive many of the new small/economy cars today, not just because I value my life, but also because I also value my knees & head in case of a collapse of ANY of the passenger compartment in a collision.

      Yes, just as big boys wear big boy pants, big boys need to drive big boy cars. I'm retiring my W126 300SD and moving into a D2 A8, from one full-size car to the next. Even into a big-bodied one. It's actually 400lb heavier, in spite of being all-Al, but it's around 600lb lighter than my car's successor while still having inspiring collision resistance. It has a fairly broad collection of airbags while my benzo has zero. There's full-size cars around, they just cost more. But then, my clothes need to be in tall sizes, or my shirts show my belly and my pants fall down. I have to pay more for those. I'm not surprised to pay more for cars as well.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:Having a private pilots license by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, we'd not have that impact with car checklists; it seems silly to consider it... that is because cars are simple.

      Cars are frankly not all that much simpler than airplanes. It's just that the energy expended is so very much less when the relative masses are compared. An airplane has a high-output engine and is made out of sheet Aluminum, glue and rivets. A car usually has a mediocre-output engine and is made out of much sterner stuff than an airplane.

      What I notice is that the technology that goes into making a better racing tire makes its way down to a street tire in a basically timely fashion, but the technology that goes into making a better interface between the plane and the air doesn't seem to make it into civilian air very rapidly at all. Shouldn't private planes have winglets and computer assistance and so on by now?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:Having a private pilots license by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      99% of the time that I'm flying a plane, I'm more than a mile from anything else in the sky and at least 1000 feet from anything on the ground.

      99% of the time that I'm driving a car, I'm within 50 feet of another car and less than 10 feet from something else I can hit. And my car's not going all that much slower than a Cessna.

      It's that other 1 percent you have to worry about.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    33. Re:Having a private pilots license by minkie · · Score: 1

      The article says, "Airpooler’s legal counsel is a former Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulation at the FAA", so I suspect they have a reasonable idea of what's legal and what's not. On the other hand, as they saying goes, "We're the FAA. We're not happy until you're not happy", so, yeah, anything's possible.

      That being said, having been a flight instructor myself, I've seen a lot of amazingly scary aviation being committed. You are truly taking your life in your hands when you jump into an unfamiliar plane with an unfamiliar pilot. And I'm not sure if the mechanical condition of the average GA plane or the skill of the average GA pilot frightens me more.

    34. Re:Having a private pilots license by citab · · Score: 1

      One of the benefits of cars is that they seldom get picked up by a sudden gust, flipped over, and slammed into the ground during takeoff, killing the pilot and passenger. Mostly because they don't have a takeoff phase.

      yeah ... that also doesn't happen to planes very often either... only idiots take off in that kind of weather.

    35. Re:Having a private pilots license by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Cars are forgiving, the sky is NOT.

      Those are not mutually exclusive if you are rear-ended in a Pinto.

    36. Re:Having a private pilots license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the benefits of cars is that they seldom get picked up by a sudden gust, flipped over, and slammed into the ground during takeoff, killing the pilot and passenger. Mostly because they don't have a takeoff phase.

      You have NO idea what you are talking about, you don't have a license to pilot an aircraft, yet
      you are pretending you know about the dangers of flying.

      I wish I could reach out and smash your face.

    37. Re:Having a private pilots license by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Only two orders of magnitude from airplanes!

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    38. Re:Having a private pilots license by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Powered planes and gliders have basically nothing in common,

      Other than wings, flaps, elevators, ailerons, rudder, wheels. Notice that none of those items requires engine input to function. The major difference between powered aircraft and glider is the powerplant.

      If you look at this POH (pilots operating handbook) for a Cessna 182T, you'll see on page 3-23 the power-off glide as slightly more than 11 nm from an altitude of 8000 feet AGL. Yes, that's not as good as for a glider, but it is hardly the " AerrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRR... CRASH!" that you seem to think it is.

      That kind of ignorance about airplanes is not uncommon. It's exacerbated by bad science in movies where crashes are exciting and safe landings are not. I surprised the heck out of a friend of mine who was obviously worried about our flight over the local mountains -- if something went wrong we'd certainly AerrrrrrrRRRRRRRR CRASH! I pulled the power back and he noticed that there was no significant change in the flight other than a slight downangle.

      even though the public likes to imagine that running out of gas in a plane means soaring gently until you land on a convenient 4-lane road or meticulously preened grass field.

      Well, "meticulously preened" is rare, but roads make good landing spots, as do regular fields. And even when the airplane catches a wheel and flips it isn't unusual for everyone to walk away from it.

    39. Re:Having a private pilots license by Wintermute__ · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember reading that the Boeing 747 has a glide ratio of 1:17. Meaning it can get 17 feet of forward motion for every foot of altitude. Honestly that kind of amazes me.

      That's because of the speed that they'll likely be starting the glide at. Doesn't take long to go 17 feet when you're doing several hundreds of knots.

      If you were to slow a 747 down to Cessna 172 speeds, you'd likely already be stalling out and dropping like a rock depending on your weight, flaps, etc.

    40. Re:Having a private pilots license by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      yeah ... that also doesn't happen to planes very often either... only idiots take off in that kind of weather.

      It happened to a friend of a very close friend, who many hours in acrobatics, taking off in weather which was not apparently of that kind. But I notice that you, and the idiot next to you, and some moderator all felt very strongly that they know better despite the fact that it does in fact happen.

      Also, there will be idiots.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    41. Re:Having a private pilots license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My instructor did this to me while I was flying under the hood. He chopped the throttle and had me take off the hood and told me that the engine failed and asked me what my plan was. I looked around and mentioned several places I could try to land and each time he shook his head in disappointment before he took control of the aircraft, lowered the nose and asked me how about landing on the runway in front of us seeing how we were already on final approach. That day I learned that I could be a little more observant of my surrounding's.

    42. Re:Having a private pilots license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're generally going to want to take the shortest, most fuel-efficient path - along with every other craft up there.

      To a point. People seem to think that aircraft can simply go wherever they want. But there are actual highways in the sky, paths to take and altitudes to maintain depending on where you are going and what your direction of travel is. All enforced by Federal regulations. Every military base, nuclear reactor, government building, etc. all has large areas of restricted airspace above them. For example: a large portion of southern Nevada (north of Las Vegas) is restricted airspace, forbidden to civilian air traffic due to Nellis AFB.

    43. Re:Having a private pilots license by Dereck1701 · · Score: 2

      Thats starting to change, ballistic parachutes are becoming more common place on small private aircraft giving a pretty significant margin of safety. Even with a complete failure of the airframe passengers can walk away from the remnants of the aircraft.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    44. Re:Having a private pilots license by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I don't know, aside from a few mountains that mostly stay put there's nothing to hit in the air except other planes

      Well, and the ground.

      In fact hitting the ground is not really optional unless you're going 11 KM/s in which case, you're probably going to have bigger problems.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    45. Re:Having a private pilots license by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Note: I drive such a truck for the very concerns you list, I have three kids, I consider the 5,900lbs of steel to be armor for my family.

      Except larger cars have a higher risk of killing the occupants (as well as the people they hit due to their propensity to roll. This causes massive head and neck injuries (the big killer in car accidents). Even the yawing in an accident will be enough to injure your kids necks.

      Your biggest problem in modern cars isn't penetration, it's rolling. Your armour is pretty useless against that.

      BTW, if you want to avoid crashes, forget all those safety buzzers, haptic warning massagers and lane detectors, just take a defensive driving course. Relying on technology to save you is the gamble of a fool, the best way to avoid accidents is to spot potential hazards before they become real hazards. Remember that everyone else out there thinks that the technology will save them and doesn't bother correcting their own driving... being a defensive driver on todays roads makes you the one eyed man in the land of the blind.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    46. Re:Having a private pilots license by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

      To put those number is perspective:

      There are 253,108,389 vehicles registered in 2012 and there were 5,870,000 (~2% of registered vehicles) accidents with 25,580 of them having a fatality. (0.44% of the accidents had fatalities).

      There are 109,870 personal fixed wing aircraft registered 2012 and there were 1,020 (~1% of registered aircraft) accidents with 206 of them having a fatality (20.2% of the accidents had fatalities).

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    47. Re:Having a private pilots license by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      While that is true, I can control my own driving and my wife can control hers, and frankly we're pretty boring drivers.

      Yes, in single vehicle accidents, large trucks will roll over more often and cause more injuries than smaller cars will. However, in multiple vehicle accidents, the larger vehicles are much safer.

      I have more control over a single vehicle accident than I do a multiple vehicle one.

    48. Re:Having a private pilots license by Scutter · · Score: 1

      You have no idea what you're talking about.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    49. Re:Having a private pilots license by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      The number of miles driven by private cars and the number of miles flown by private planes are also many orders of magnitude apart.

      Private airplanes are not as safe as cars in general and are FAR more dangerous than airlines.

      Of course, the averages don't tell the whole story, not everyone is "average". :)

    50. Re:Having a private pilots license by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can directly compare those second numbers in a meaningful fashion. Consider: in a non-catastrophic accident many/most fatalities will be due largely to bad luck - flying debris, unfortunate angle of impact, etc, and will thus scale roughly linearly with the number of passengers. If for the sake of argument we say that the chances of any given person involved in a non-catastrophic accident dying is 1%, then we'll only have one in 100 single-occupancy car accidents resulting in a fatality, and most land vehicles are single-occupancy most of the time. Meanwhile an airliner has hundreds of passengers, so virtually every accident could be expected to have at least one or two fatalities. I'm not sure what the average private aircraft occupancy is, but my guess is that it still tends to be considerably larger than one - after all, considering the expense even if you're going out for a joyride you may well invite a few friends along to share the sky.

      A more meaningful metric might be to compare accident fatalities as a percentage of total accident victims (participants?), not that I have any idea what those numbers are.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    51. Re:Having a private pilots license by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I think the main factor in timeliness is product lifespan. The average middle-class person buys a new car what, every few years? And thus the collective volume is immense, quickly diffusing the up-front design costs. For aircraft on the other hand... well I don't honestly know much about the market. Certainly airliners are only rarely replaced, and I know the market for 30+ year old Cessnas in good condition is still going strong. And I would suspect that given the high cost of even a small new aircraft that the volume is quite small, meaning that any new design (i.e. with computer control systems) would incur a high per-unit marginal cost. Not to mention the much tighter testing and safety certification which I suspect exist for any new consumer aircraft.

      Plus, IIRC computer assistance is largely a result of the fact that modern fighters are *extremely* unstable (stability and maneuverability being inversely related), and literally can't be kept in the air by human reflexes, it requires a computer to make the hundreds of corrections per second needed just to fly in a straight line. Meanwhile it comes at the cost of making the plane considerably more vulnerable to cosmic rays and electrical interference. Not so much of an issue when your chances of being shot down are far better than falling to an "unknown equipment malfunction", but for a craft expected to see decades of use without ever being shot at it's something worth considering. Especially if that plane is nice and stable and flies just fine under human control.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    52. Re:Having a private pilots license by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      You forgot about the weather. We had TWO Cessna crashes with fatalities in my state in since February. Both may have been weather related. You can always pull over in a car when the weather gets rough.

      In an airplane, you just don't fly when the weather is rough or might get rough. Unfortunately, some people choose to take off anyway. Even then, in most cases, a 180 degree turn is enough to get you out of trouble. These days, many accidents are caused by people trying to use in-cockpit weather systems to try to navigate around active weather cells, rather than using them to avoid taking off at all.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    53. Re:Having a private pilots license by mmell · · Score: 1
      Uh - most pilots know better than to fly into storms. Those who do so intentionally have almost certainly got information telling them about the severity of the storm.

      Unlike automobile drivers, aircraft pilots are required by FCC regulation to obtain weather data for the course of their planned travel. Any pilot who flies into weather that exceeds his or his aircraft's ability is an idiot (or got caught by a ridiculously unlikely set of circumstances).

    54. Re:Having a private pilots license by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      One of the benefits of cars is that they seldom get picked up by a sudden gust, flipped over, and slammed into the ground during takeoff, killing the pilot and passenger.

      That's one of the benefits of planes, too. In fact, this probably happens more frequently in trucks than in airplanes. In fact, I can only recall zero instances of this happening in an airplane.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    55. Re:Having a private pilots license by mmell · · Score: 1
      So your friend was a highly experienced idiot - wind shear (which is what you're referring to, I think?) is something we know how to predict nowadays. This isn't the age of the Sopwith Camel, y'know. We do all sorts of really cool stuff with weather prediction, computer modelling, weather monitoring - even radar.

      Yes, wind shear can still occur without warning. So can a hood fire (had one of those myself, once). So can a blowout at 65MPH on a highway somewhere. Ever had your automobile suddenly decide to go left because the front tire on that side is suddenly a rubber band stuck to your rim? I have. Scary.

      I've only got ten hours experience, not even a pilot; but I've never encountered wind shear.

    56. Re:Having a private pilots license by mmell · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah. Damned little happens during normal operation of an aircraft. It's takeoffs and (even more so) landings which get the ol' ticker really pumpin'. If you've done your homework before leaving the ground, just another task to complete. If not, sure - it's easy to fly right into the earth - hard to miss. But you have to disregard basic pilot training (and be pretty damned reckless) to do it.

    57. Re:Having a private pilots license by mmell · · Score: 1

      Your biggest problem in modern cars isn't penetration, it's rolling.

      .

      You got a citation for that? I've driven pickup trucks (arguably second only to vans in being considered unsafe) and never even gotten close to a rollover incident. Couple accidents, sure. No rollovers.

      Incidentally, wouldn't seat belts tend to mediate most of the harm a rollover accident can cause? My understanding is that the bulk of rollover fatalities occur due to ejection.

    58. Re:Having a private pilots license by mmell · · Score: 1

      Hell, you probably risked your life training me. I'm still working toward my private license, but my first few attempts at landing scared me. Too bad I wasn't smart enough to just firewall the throttle and try again - but thankfully, my instructor was!

    59. Re:Having a private pilots license by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      computer assistance is largely a result of the fact that modern fighters are *extremely* unstable (stability and maneuverability being inversely related), and literally can't be kept in the air by human reflexes

      Sure, but what about helicopters? They can be kept in the air by human reflexes, but if you put digital avionics into the mix you can make them trivial to fly. Why not do the same thing for all airplanes? What year is it, anyway?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    60. Re:Having a private pilots license by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, wouldn't seat belts tend to mediate most of the harm a rollover accident can cause? My understanding is that the bulk of rollover fatalities occur due to ejection.

      At a lecture on physics education I heard a former police officer, now physics instructor, talk about how he uses traffic accidents to help students learn about kinematics and various other aspects of physics, and he mentioned one of the dangers of rollovers that is not significantly mediated by airbags and seat belts is a Traumatic aortic rupture. Strap a body to a a car seat and subject it to high acceleration in the correct direction, and the body does all right, but unfortunately the heat is not held in place very well and can rip apart from the major blood vessels. The lecturer spoke of being present at at least one accident where the victim seemed to be untouched, but quickly lost consciousness and died after a rollover due to this happening. I don't know how often this happens, but good seat belts could actually make it worse. Probably safer than being ejected, but rollovers are not a good thing to be involved in even without being ejected.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

    61. Re:Having a private pilots license by spmkk · · Score: 2

      I've only got ten hours experience, not even a pilot; but I've never encountered wind shear.

      Um. With all due respect, when you're coming in with 10 hours of experience, you could go easy on calling another /.er's dead friend an idiot for dying. If nothing else, recognize that bad things do happen to good and experienced pilots - and sometimes to great and very experienced pilots.

      If you keep flying, you WILL encounter wind shear. And it will scare the hell out of you. Yes, we've gotten pretty good at predicting shear...at a macro level. At the micro level it's still unpredictable and unavoidable, and probably always will be because wind gusts are chaotic. There is no such thing as "that kind of weather"; sure, there are days when it's more likely than others, but it can and does happen at any time. It's happened to me on both takeoff and final approach on fairly calm days...it's a quick and very effective refresher on respecting safety margins and keeping your wits about you.

      That said, the kind of gusts/shear that cartwheel a plane and smash it back into the ground on takeoff are EXTREMELY rare. As in, maybe double digits in the entire NTSB database. A catastrophic blowout on the highway is indeed much more common.

    62. Re:Having a private pilots license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The riskiest part of a flight is typically the take-off and landing

      Yes, the riskiest parts of a flight are the phases involving the ground.

      When we are in air, everything is allright.

    63. Re:Having a private pilots license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My hovercraft is full of eels!

    64. Re:Having a private pilots license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When my dad was taking his exam in a 172, he was about 10 miles from the airport when the examiner chopped the throttle and told him to find a place to land (I don't recall his altitude.) My dad said "I'll pick the airport." The examiner looked skeptically and said, "ok, prove it." My dad greased it in for a perfect dead stick landing at the airport. The examiner's response was, "well, you sure know your plane!"

      Oh, and my dad passed the exam.

      I took my lessons in a 7ECA Citabria. No flaps so it won't glide nearly so far as a 172. But it would descend at 500 feet/minute at its best glide speed of 70 mph. So from 4000 ft above the ground, that gives 8 minutes of glide time, so over 8 miles.

      And when my instructor pulled the throttles once, the first thing I did was look straight down...and saw a runway! I was ready for that trick.

    65. Re:Having a private pilots license by Immerman · · Score: 1

      How long have we had such digital avionics? It seems to me I've only recently heard of such systems being deployed (last 5-10 years?). I would be hesitant to put such immature technology into civilian hands (again, the considerations on a battlefield are different)

      There's also the fact that we're talking *military* technology, which they traditionally keep rather close to their chest - after all you don't want the enemy being able to exhaustively research the exploitable corner cases. Unlike car racing, which is explicitly designed as a competitive testbed for new automotive technologies.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    66. Re:Having a private pilots license by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Nope. I'm a pilot so I spend a bit of time studying why others have come to grief so I can try to avoid the same problem.

      There's this big thing to hit called "the ground". OK, so I'm being a bit flippant, but there are many more causes of colliding with terrain other than just you had to dodge something and hit a mountain while doing it. Consider the following which are vastly less likely to cause a fatal car accident

      - icing (can very rapidly overwhelm a light aircraft's ability to carry the ice - in the wrong icing conditions, this can happen in seconds)
      - pilot flying into weather they aren't competent to operate in
      - pilot flying into weather that the aircraft is not equipped for
      - operator error causing one or more engines to stop, pilot not having glider experience botches the forced landing
      - navigation error leading to hitting a mountainside when mountains are obscured by clouds
      etc.

      Air traffic control is extremely seldom the cause of aviation accidents. GA accidents are most often caused by a judgement error by the pilot in command. Most of the time GA aircraft don't even talk to ATC. Around 95% of airports in the US don't have a control tower, and most flights by light aircraft are under visual flight rules in class E or G airspace where there's no need to talk to anyone.

      The actual safety record of light non-business aviation is roughly equivalent to the safety of riding a motorcycle on the roads. The public using this service are probably by and large ignorant of this, thinking that flying is far safer when it's driving when this is only true when you're talking about turbine powered aircraft operated by an airline.

      The typical light aircraft that will probably get involved in this (before the FAA stomps on it) will probably be non-deiced and there's a 50% chance that the pilot isn't certified to fly in the clouds. The public will probably have the unreasonable expectation that the aircraft can fly in most weather just like a jet operated by the airlines when this isn't even remotely close to being true, and this will put pressure on the pilot to fly in weather they probably ought not to.

    67. Re:Having a private pilots license by Alioth · · Score: 1

      If the engine stops because the pilot ran out of fuel the outcome really isn't any different than if it stopped because a bearing failed or the lubrication system failed or a crankshaft sheared. The end result is the same - no power, and you have to glide.

      But few light plane fatalities are caused by an engine stoppage in a single engine aircraft. The vast majority of injury and fatality accidents occur to light aircraft with engines that are running fine and an airframe that (until the point of impact) was undamaged.

      As an example: I picked April 2011 from the NTSB monthly list of aviation accidents (it's long enough ago that all the fatal accidents will have a probable cause listed, but recent enough to be relevant to today's aviation environment).
      In April 2011 there were 20 fatal aviation accidents:

      Out of these, the causes were:

      2 caused by pilot incapacitation
      1 caused during flight testing with one engine deliberately shut down
      1 caused by the pilot selecting the wrong fuel tank then losing control of the aircraft
      2 controlled flight into terrain in poor weather
      2 caused by engine failure but the pilot lost control of the aircraft
      6 caused by a straightforward loss of control of a perfectly good airplane
      1 caused by a drunk pilot losing control during a night landing
      1 caused by loss of control of a multiengine aircraft with partial power loss in one engine
      1 hit the ground while performing low altitude aerobatics
      3 flight in instrument meteorological conditions and subsequent loss of control

      Only 4 of these 20 had anything to do with loss of power (I'm not counting the one where they deliberately flew with an engine inoperative), and in all 4 of these incidents, were most likely fatal because the pilot lost control of the aircraft, the loss of power was merely what set everything in motion. Had the pilot remained in control, the odds are far better than even that the outcome would have been nonfatal. So engine failure shouldn't be the first thing on your mind when flying in a light general aviation aircraft, the first thing on your mind is can the pilot actually fly the plane with any degree of competence. And in the case of this service (which is very definitely against the spirit of 14 CFR 91) the passenger may be mislead into thinking it's only a little bit less safe than an airline because well there's only one engine, while not realising if anything's going to kill them it'll be more likely that the pilot just loses control.

    68. Re:Having a private pilots license by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I try not to hit anything at the end of my flights, I try to gently touch down.

      To know the difference, have someone hit you in the face, then contrast it with someone gently stroking your cheek.

    69. Re:Having a private pilots license by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Okay, yeah, I did forget about icing, but I'd say flying into weather you're not equipped (in skill or hardware) to handle generally counts as pilot failure, if not necessarily the catastrophic kind I had in mind. With mountains though - isn't a GPS and elevation map pretty standard equipment these days? Even if not legally required I would think it would be easy enough for someone to make something for a couple hundred bucks that could warn you when you had a mountain in front of you. I could see a serious lightning storm interfering with reception, but my understanding is that if you're flying through a lightning storm you probably already have some serious pilot issues.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    70. Re:Having a private pilots license by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      The fatality numbers are the number of accidents with fatalities not the total number of fatalities. So if you are in a van or plane and 5 people die, it still only counts as one accident with fatalities.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    71. Re:Having a private pilots license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet people still fly their planes into inclimate weather. The US Gulf Coast presents an interesting set of challenges for the small craft pilot. Weather conditions can change very rapidly due to the high temperatures and high humidity during late spring and summer. Local pilots who fly during the weekend for fun usually don't have a problem, but pilots flying to the region are usually caught off guard.

      The smart ones land at the nearest landing strip until it blows over. The far more adventurous ones will try to navigate around the system not realizing that severe turbulence and sudden direction change in wind can happen at large distances from the storm. They tend to think of weather as a discrete dot on a radar map and not an area where storms are being generated around them.

    72. Re:Having a private pilots license by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Also the statistics from the NTSB were specific to personal fixed wing aircraft which do not carry a large number of passengers (avg. 3).

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    73. Re:Having a private pilots license by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Exactly my point. All else being equal, with a 1% per-person fatality the rate of fatalities in accidents involving single occupancy vehicles will be ~1%, while the rate of accidents with fatalities in accidents involving vehicles carrying hundreds of passengers will approach 100%. Those statistics say absolutely nothing about the relative danger of being in an accident.

      To take your original numbers, and assuming an average of 200 people per plane and 1.5 people per car we get:
      0.44% of car accidents had fatalities / 1.5 people = 0.293% chance of fatality per person in accident
      20.2% of plane accidents had fatalities * num_fatalities / 200 people = 0.101%*num_fatalities chance of fatality per person in accident
      Which presents a very different picture. Rather than plane accidents being being 46x as dangerous as car accidents, they're somewhere in the same neighborhood, depending on exactly how many fatalities there are in the average plane crash.

      Granted you mentioned personal fixed-wing aircraft which changes things dramatically, but I think my point should be apparent. Given the personalities involved in flying personal aircraft I wouldn't be all that surprised if fatal accident rates were comparable to motorcycles, which I suspect appeal to many of the same personality types.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    74. Re:Having a private pilots license by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "You can always pull over in a car when the weather gets rough."

      And you can always _land_ and wait it out if you see you're coming up to shitty weather, or turn back. I've done both.

      VFR flying means staying away from such stuff if possible and staying the hell out of clouds. If you're caught in weather bad enough to cause problems then you're most likely outside your license conditions anyway (IFR pilots are a different ballgame but in GA you _must_ take account of the weather no matter which conditions you're observing)

      I've known 3 pilots who got themselves killed in bad weather. All three exemplified the saying about there being "no old, bold pilots"

    75. Re:Having a private pilots license by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Bill said the avg number of passengers in the stats he posted was 3. Not 200.

      So your numbers are:
      0.44% of car accidents had fatalities / 1.5 people = 0.293% chance of fatality per person in accident
      20.2% of plane accidents had fatalities * num_fatalities_per_accident / 3 people = 6.73%*num_fatalities_per_accident chance of fatality per person in accident

      2% of cars and 1% of aircraft in this class have accidents, Bill also claimed. And I would think that a small aircraft accident that kills 1 passenger would kill most or all passengers. So per_accident fatality rate is likely to be close to 100%, but let's say 2.3rds.

      Then you get:

      2.93 fatalities per 1000 registered road vehicles.
      134 fatalities per 1000 registered aircraft in this class.

      "Which presents a very different picture."

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    76. Re:Having a private pilots license by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Wasn't quibbling over the claim that small aircraft are more dangerous than driving (see my reply to immerman). Only with the claim that weather isn't a danger to road users. It's clearly a major factor in road crashes, just as it's a major factor in air crashes.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    77. Re:Having a private pilots license by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Cars are forgiving, the sky is NOT. If as many people flew small planes as people drive it would not be as safe in terms of fatalities. It is true when you compare apples to oranges driving is more dangerous; but if you want to even get close to a fair comparison you would compare jets to buses and you'd compare fatalities and injuries separately... since car accidents are far less likely to result in fatalities.

      Actually, the odds are about identical to riding a motorcycle. Driver or a passenger. I've never had an accident on my motorcycle nor my airplanes. It is a great idea to watch how a pilot flies before you fly with them. A good reference will do as well. I never take someone up on bad days and I try to avoid it if I think it will be even a bit rough. Good flight. When you run into trouble is with people that don't fly that often or people that skimp on maintenance. I always keep my aircraft in good repair. Reduces what I call excitement.

      The FAA has strong rules about flying others around and the FAA never changes the regulations, they only add, never remove. The exchange of money at all for any connected reason is going to cause trouble.

      Ok, don't comment on things you know nothing about. Paying for your portion of the cost for gas is actually in the regulations and it is allowed. http://www.faa.gov/news/safety... In the past decade they allowed light sport aircraft where you don't even have to have a pilots license. Just a drivers license. Right now it is looking like you won't need a 3rd class medical any longer for aircraft under 7500 lbs. There are other examples I can give. Not to say the FAA is all a bowl of cherries. They aren't. As with most things they generally do a good job though I have read of cases of some real scum bucket FAA people. I haven't had a problem. I also follow the rules. That could have something to do with it.

      Besides, if you thought the taxi lobby was a problem for ride sharing; you'd never even dare to mess with the airline industrial complex (which is so heavily subsidized, it is more of a scam than a market.)

      This is funny. GA pilots like me are never going to be a threat to those guys. Sure, I can take up to 3 people in my Bonanza. Big deal. I generally don't fly if there is bad weather, nor that often. They also don't service where I go. They can't. The airports simply can't support them. On the other hand I can go wherever they can go, just not as fast. Even JFK. Some places I can fly the nearest commercial airport is at least a couple of hours or so away. Some places even more driving time.

      Sure, if I had access to something like this, I'd love it. I need to keep the aircraft flying and right now I take up friends when I do that. Often I'm alone enjoying the incredible view. Really is a wonderful place that we live in, that most people don't get to see. I'd think it is great to give someone that needs a lift a ride.

    78. Re:Having a private pilots license by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Depends on the plane. Cessna 140 or 172 I can do wonders with. Beechcraft Bonanza is not so bad. Piper arrow is more like a rock. Some are just a powered rock. Especially when you get into jets. Have to be, they go so fast. A Cessna 140 you're doing good to do 115 MPH.
      Not sure where this myth about the public comes from. I can tell you if your engine does anything other than that prrrrrrrr, it scares the SHIT out of them. Even an instructor when I'd drain the aux tank to dry, then switch to another tank, he's like - cut that out man. You know when it's out of gas so don't do it.

    79. Re:Having a private pilots license by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Nope. A panel mount certified GPS isn't standard equipment because of the cost.

      While many people have a handheld GPS, the typical VFR pilot into IMC type of accident the pilot is maxed out simply keeping control of the aircraft, and has nothing left over to interpret much more than their rough track from even the nicest GPS display. If you've never experienced spatial disorientation you may believe the mantra "Oh just look at the artificial horizon" as if it were easy. While training for my instrument rating I did actually experience spatial disorientation for real. By then I was very close to taking the checkride so I had a good instrument scan but even so the feeling of your brain screaming at you "You're in an 80 degree bank, you're gonna die!" when actually you're straight and level is immensely distracting - it literally took every scrap of willpower to maintain instrument scan and fly according to the instruments, and every time I had to look away to do something like tune a radio I would find I would have started banking the plane towards what my senses were erroneously telling me. A pilot with little experience flying in the clouds will quickly become overwhelmed. You've been alive for however many years and your senses have never failed you, so it's incredibly difficult to ignore them when they are actually flat out wrong and trying to overwhelm you with their opinion of what the situation is. Of course you get better at avoiding spatial disorientation the more experience you have flying in the clouds or at night, but you have to get that experience in the first place.

      Distracted pilots have forgotten to put the wheels down for landing despite an obnoxious warning buzzer going off for the last two minutes. A pilot being distracted by incredibly powerful feelings of spatial disorientation while trying to simply maintain the aircraft on an even keel may not even notice a fancy EGPWS system yelling "Too low! Terrain! Pull up!"

    80. Re:Having a private pilots license by rioki · · Score: 1

      Actually modern airliners have computerized avionics since about two decades. Airbus (I honestly don't know to much about Boing) has more and more implemented systems where the pilot's input is filtered though a computer and only taken as "suggestion". If for example you yank on the stick, the airplane will react in a smooth fashion, gauged by the computer, the result being the optimal fastest response. This in addition that most aircraft are flown most of the time "hands off", that is purely through inputs into the autopilot. The trouble only begins when the computer switches from "normal law" to "alternate law" and gives the pilot more and more direct control of the airplane. This happens when the computer is "confused" and does not trust it's inputs and as a result requires the pilot to actually fly the airplane.

    81. Re:Having a private pilots license by rioki · · Score: 1

      Interestingly even helicopters can be landed in a controlled fashion through autorotation.

    82. Re:Having a private pilots license by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Sounds like there could be a market there. I wouldn't want to trust my life to a consumer-grade terrain warning system, but as a backup when flying with poor visibility it would be better than nothing.

      I've done instrument flying in a simulator, and that's bad enough. What would cause the sensation of being that far off level though? I could see when getting hit by a gust of crosswind, but I wouldn't think it would take that long for your airspeed to normalize to a sustained crosswind, and even adjusting for it your inner ear should return to reporting "down" once acceleration has stopped, though as with drowning people swimming down I suppose it can get thoroughly scrambled. Or is it more a matter of feeling the responses of the plane?

      I can easily see a landing gear buzzer getting ignored - any continuous stimulus tends to quickly fade from awareness, so if you're too busy to put down the gear in the first 10-20 seconds the effectiveness of a continuous buzzer will rapidly fade towards zero unless you get some breathing room to re-assess your situation. The EGPWS system is probably somewhat more intrusive, but if it keeps repeating the same thing I can easily see it getting tuned out as well. I would want it to escalate the warning as the situation became more urgent myself, preferably in a predictable and informative fashion. And does it not have an "Watch Out!!! Mountain dead ahead!" warning? I would think that would be a situation calling for a somewhat different response than being in a dive towards the plains.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    83. Re:Having a private pilots license by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      You say that as if it was easy. Try having a 3rd party online service handle the gas cost splitting and drawing the scrutiny of the FAA towards the online service. Something I'd not want to happen to me personally even if I'm not doing anything wrong. (especially if it's informal and we round numbers etc. some stickler could make that a pain.) Plus if the 3rd party online service includes fees for the service I'm sure some lawyer can make an issue out of it no longer being strictly fuel. (but if the pilot doesn't get paid extra it should be ok.) Some people break rules; if you have communications between people on such a service would the FAA want to monitor it to catch people breaking the rules? We know it happens somewhere sometimes but how much?? xmas gift... larger than usual... card... "thanks for the lift"...

      Ultralites are for crazy people; why have an age limit or license? it'll help the gene-pool.

      I like the idea of the service. I still think there are organizations that will oppose it even if it doesn't pose a realistic threat.
      Taxi's would be hurt but they'd not die from ride sharing apps either (they might finally get with it and serve you better instead of make you wait so a Taxi far away can get their share of customers instead of the one a block away.)

    84. Re:Having a private pilots license by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Are you joking?

      200+ million Americans drive somewhere - DAILY. look it up.
      Flying? I bet it is around 200,000 per day.

      That is 1000 times more people fly. Concept doesn't sound big enough.... In better words: 199,800,000 Americans drive more than fly every day.

      Miles traveled is a bad metric for comparison; hours traveling would be better. but my point is that car accidents are minor because few result in death. Something like 5+ million accidents and only 40,000 are fatal. I wish more things were that safe... cancer... 50% ...fatal cancer... 25% (men)

    85. Re:Having a private pilots license by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      I failed to mention earlier that the NSTB safety data was limited to personal fixed wing aircraft which have the same occupancy as a personal vehicle.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    86. Re:Having a private pilots license by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Agree. My input to the discussion was that weather is a factor that immerman didn't take into consideration. He only spoke of fixed obstacles.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    87. Re:Having a private pilots license by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      It's not for everyone. If you aren't comfortable doing it, don't do it. Just like flying into IMC. There's this site - https://www.sharemysky.com/ . Been around for years. It's generally none of the FAA's business what you're doing as long as you're not doing commercial stuff and they stay out of it. It's only when there's an accident or someone complains. Then you've got some explaining to do. Did you keep records? How much did you pay, they pay, etc.. I always pay about $5 more so even an idiot can't take issue with it. Not that this matters of course. If they want to screw you good, they'll do it.

      I just like the idea that if I'm going to be up there anyway and I can help someone, I'd like to do that. Hope that the good deed doesn't go punished.

  14. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mmmm..... tasty pilot, when you're stranded in the middle of desert for the 6th week :)

  15. FAA/TSA Crackdown in 3...2... by sexconker · · Score: 1

    FAA/TSA Crackdown in 3...2...Cavity Search.

    We can't have people moving about freely. This is AMERICA.

    1. Re:FAA/TSA Crackdown in 3...2... by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      TSA doesn't give a shit. Go charter a private jet and you can skip all that silliness and they won't care. They want us to feel safe, not be safe.

      FAA on the other hand will not be amused.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  16. Hey Samsenpuz by dale.furno · · Score: 0

    How about a link to the fucking site instead of this shitty betaboston website.

    https://airpooler.com/

    1. Re:Hey Samsenpuz by j-beda · · Score: 1

      How about a link to the fucking site instead of this shitty betaboston website.

      https://airpooler.com/

      Thanks for the link!

  17. Re:No thanks by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    I thought it was "grass" like as in pot. Maybe in French airports, foie gras is a currency you can use to pay for transport. Or do you mean "generally recognized as safe?" Because I'd take safety over... uh... ass or gas.

  18. 9/11 by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 0

    Sometimes Forget.

    1. Re:9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're powerful enough to tell NORAD to stand down, you're powerful enough to get away with it.

    2. Re:9/11 by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      but pointing that out makes you a "crazy" "truther"

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  19. When are the commercial airlines going to protest? by ZZ-Type · · Score: 1

    When are the commercial airlines going to protest this service, like the cab industry protested Lyft and Uber?

    --

    Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
    Those who forget the past are doomed ... oh
  20. Please proof your post by azav · · Score: 1

    > passengers share of gas

    passenger's* share of gas

            passengers = more than one passenger

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  21. If you are using your CC to buy gas, by Marrow · · Score: 1

    then the pilot never touches the money and you are a friend/passenger.

    1. Re:If you are using your CC to buy gas, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my early 20's I had a friend that was in his early 20's learning to be a pilot. He was single engine rated and was able to carry passengers. He was going for his cross country rating. He was too poor to afford the gas by himself.

      I enjoyed flying at the time and getting out of the city I was in (Atlanta) for the day. I split the gas bill with him and we would fly to Memphis for a hamburger.

      I got a great burger and he got flying time and a rating. What more could you ask for.

  22. My opinion as a pilot by RockyMountain · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have lost four of my friends to airplane accidents. Two were pilots -- in one case the it clearly his own fault, and in the other it was extremely bad piece of luck. The other two deaths were the direct result of naively trusting the wrong pilot.

    I see two flavors of comment so far. Non-pilots saying they think the idea is scary, and pilots saying "aw, pshaw, I am well trained, what is the problem?". Well, I am a pilot myself (commercial pilot and certified flight instructor), yet I strongly agree with the "that's scary" crowd. I've flown many thousands of hours in all sorts of locales, weather, and equipment. I've handled numerous emergencies, with never a scratch. I've taught hundreds of other pilots to fly. But, in all that time, by far the scariest moments I have ever had in the air were occasions where I made the mistake of riding as a passenger with the wrong choice of pilot!

    Those who place their faith in the FAA's training standards, simply fail to understand that the ratings indicate compliance with the bare legal minima -- essentially they mean nearly nothing.

    Nor does safety correlate with pilot rating. I've met some mere student pilots that I'd sooner trust with my life than many commercial pilots. The variation from one individual pilot to the next, regardless of qualifications, by far exceeds the variations from one rating to another. That variation comes from preparedness, attitude experience and common sense. Bottom line, with the exception of airlines (where I have no choice!) I will NEVER ride with a pilot whose experience, skills, and attitude I do not personally know first hand. And, I'd never advise friends or loved ones to ride with "just any old pilot".

    1. Re:My opinion as a pilot by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Actually, the scariest part I'm seeing is all the PILOTS saying, "No way would I do that. Have you SEEN those other pilots?"

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:My opinion as a pilot by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Hear hear... as I stated in another post (and was promptly vilified for), I wouldn't fly with most of the pilots I know. Too many pilots think that having gone through the training makes them a good pilot, when in reality, walking away from your checkride with your signoff means you are just barely good enough to pass the government's very very low standards. It certainly does not mean you are a "good" pilot, and absolutely does not mean you are a "safe" pilot.

    3. Re:My opinion as a pilot by joe_frisch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Private flying is dangerous.
      NTSB statistics (2012 is what I have).

      General avaiation (small planes and some business flights): 6.8 accidents, 1.24 fatalities / 100,000 hours
      Commercial aviation. 0.155 accidents, 0 fatalities/ 100,000 hours.
      There really is no comparison in the safety record.

      For cars I see 1.1 deaths / 100M passenger miles. If we assume a 30mph average speed, that is something like .03 fatalities / 100,000 hours.

      You can play with the statistics all sorts of (perfectly valid) ways, but by almost any reasonable analysis, general aviation is substantially more dangerous that either commercial or driving.

      These and other safety statistics at NTSB.

    4. Re:My opinion as a pilot by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      This...

      You can get a private pilot certificate with 35 hours of training in a 141 school, you don't yet have a clue as to everything you could run into, but you're legal to take off from California and fly to New York, by yourself, at night, with 35 hours of total flight time.

      I strongly disagree with that, I think it is unsafe and stupid, but that's the law.

      As I always tell new pilots, that pilot certificate is a licence to learn, you'll always learn new things as a pilot and the day you think you have it figured out, is the day to hang it up.

    5. Re:My opinion as a pilot by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      the minimum qualifications are basically just "we are now pretty sure that you are unlikely to do something so dumb that you land in someone's living^H^H^H^H^H^Hdying room"

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    6. Re:My opinion as a pilot by mmell · · Score: 1
      Really? I heard it was forty - or more if your instructor doesn't feel like your ready for your check ride yet.

      I don't know how firmly FAA enforces rules about ten hours training before operating in mountainous areas. Or ten hours before going out over an ocean. Or ten hours to qualify for instrument flight - but I'm pretty sure the guy renting the Cessna will insist on all of those things if they're appropriate to your flight plan.

      By the time yon pilot owns his own aircraft, I'm going to guess there's a lot of flight experience to go with it (not a rule, just an assumption - but I think, a reasonable one).

    7. Re:My opinion as a pilot by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      It is 40 hours per Part 61 of the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations), but if you go to a school that has Part 141 school certification, they can do it in 35 hours.

      I've been a chief flight instructor at a 141 school responsible for all signoffs, I wish I could say I insisted on more training for everyone, but money is involved and it is a business, so one has to be flexible about such things. People don't have an unlimited budget, so instead when giving stage checks I made a point to talk about what a licence to learn is (actually a certificate, but whatever).

      As for the requirements for mountain time or water time, those aren't enforced at all for anyone flying under Part 91 (the general aviation part of the rules), the only time anyone looks is after an accident. Likewise with maintenance, if you own your own plane in your own hanger, you can more or less do whatever you want, until you crash.

      We like to say the rules are written in blood, they weren't put there for no reason, aircraft need regular inspections to remain safe, not everyone wants to pay for those, and a logbook entry means little, you can buy those from the less reputable shops.

      I would love to say that rental shops check all the pilot records, but the truth is, they don't. For a few reasons, one of which is liability. If they make you sign something that says you're current with all the rules, that is good enough for the legal side, since you can write anything in your logbook that you want.

    8. Re:My opinion as a pilot by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      By the time yon pilot owns his own aircraft, I'm going to guess there's a lot of flight experience to go with it (not a rule, just an assumption - but I think, a reasonable one).

      I have trained multiple people in their own airplane, those can be the most interesting and fun, but also the most dangerous, since they sometimes confuse their ability to write a large check with having above average abilities. Some of them are good, some are downright unsafe. You really need a CFI who is experienced and who isn't enamored with a nice pretty brand new airplane to teach such pilots, someone who isn't blinded by someone with tons of money, who understands the teacher/student relationship.

      I have had more than one student over the years whom I have refused to fly with again, they simply don't belong behind the controls. They'll find someone to teach them, I can't control that, but I don't have to be there.

      I remember one nurse, a 51 year old male, whom we tried to teach... Three different flight instructors flew with him, I flew with him 3 times, finally I privately talked to him and told him that this wasn't for him, he just couldn't do it, didn't get it, and wasn't going to get it. That is one of three students I kicked out of school over the years for being unsafe. And no, there really isn't any way to report them, at least that would have any effect.

  23. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gras isnt necessarily Foie Gras (from a goose) it can mean anything fatty... just imagine rapper Rich Boy giving a "Dat Gras" approval...

  24. An FAA Interpretation by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Informative
  25. Hitching a Ride by warren.oates · · Score: 1

    I had a friend, years and years ago, would go out to an airfield and "hitch a ride" on a private 'plane going to either somewhere he wanted to go, or (sometimes) to just anywhere the pilot was going that sounded interesting. He would have been about 19 years old then, like me. I was too nervous to try it on my own, and it wasn't the sort of thing that two guys could do in a small 'plane, so I never did it.

    --
    Doh.
  26. in your heart, you know Mojo is right by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    "You gotta be insane to fly in small private planes"

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  27. 134-and-a-half FAIL by deadweight · · Score: 2

    I am a commercial pilot. This scheme will fail because the FAA really really does not want anything like this going on. Flying people as paying passengers falls under part 135 or part 121 of the regulations. People have been trying there "134.5" scams for decades now and getting busted for decades as well.

  28. Not sure this is entirely legal... by mmell · · Score: 1
    IIRC, a private pilot is not permitted to accept compensation for carrying passengers or cargo. Arguably, this includes allowing passengers to pay for fuel or other operational costs.

    I haven't made it to my private pilot's license yet, so I may very well be wrong. Could somebody confirm or deny this for me, please?

    1. Re:Not sure this is entirely legal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you've forgotten the exemption in cases where the pilot really wants to do it under the subclause "But I Could Make a Lot of Money".

    2. Re:Not sure this is entirely legal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's an exception that allows passengers to chip in a pro rata share of operating costs with a private pilot. But, the catch is that the pilot has to be making the trip regardless of whether the passengers join in or not.

  29. That's Scary/What About/etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article:

    "But Lewis says that Airpooler, at the outset, is only working with pilots who are members of flying clubs like East Coast or Associated Pilots. “They have processes in place for vetting pilots, and ensuring the airworthiness of the planes,” he explains. They also have insurance policies for the pilots who rent their planes, which typically cover the passengers as well as damage to the airplane,"

  30. No, No, No. by sirwired · · Score: 1

    The chance of dying with a commercial airline flight is miniscule. The mortality statistics for private pilots are about on par with motorcycling; that's a huge difference.

  31. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which might again lead to an "airborn" incident.

  32. 10:1 glide ratio is typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if you're up at 5000 ft, you've got an easy 6-7 miles gliding range to find somewhere to land. Assuming you can see.
    Over clouds, where you can't see the ground? Better have a good handle on dead stick landings in instrument conditions.
    At night, over mountains? That's a bit more nerve wracking.. you might want to use the "IFF - I follow freeways" approach to pilotage. Or carry a parachute

  33. Re:No thanks by squeegee_boy · · Score: 1

    Avgas or grass?

  34. General Aviation is dying, somthing needs to chang by Stonefish · · Score: 1

    General Aviation is dying, unless something changes it will dissappear completely. This may assist in reversing the trend, much as the commercial lobby may not like it. Unfortunately FAA has nannied the GA field into the ground, planes are too expensive to certify so the field is dominated by expensive dinsaurs, the average ages of GA planes is so old that if it were alive it would have flaps of loose skin and wrinkes.
    In short this is about user choice, be clear about the risks, let people provide reviews of the pilots skills and get on with it.
    I don't really think that the 15% margin is justified, 1% should cover costs here and another 4% for lobby expenses, the rest is greed.

    As far as the commercial pilots saying this will fail,
    1 You have a professional bias, get over it
    2 FAA is under pressure to ensure that GA doesn't fail
    3 If this is demonstrably "non-commercial" it should succeed

  35. Only if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only if you are circumcised, or want to be shortly thereafter.

  36. Reply to EmagGeek by RogueLeaderX · · Score: 1

    Wish I had mod points.

    If posting to FB can be 'holding out' I imagine that using an app to publish publicly puts this in the illegal territory.

  37. Re:General Aviation is dying, somthing needs to ch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2 FAA is under pressure to ensure that GA doesn't fail

    Why do you say this? I've been flying off and on for about 10 years now, starting while I was in High School. I've never seen anything to make me think the FAA gives two shits about GA. In fact, I'm actually pretty sure they would absolutely love it if GA just disappeared entirely.

  38. Don't see much economic appeal... by jbwolfe · · Score: 1

    Avgas is about $6 a gallon so unless you were going somewhere close enough to drive anyway, it would not likely be cheap. Further, a real airline ticket is still historically VERY cheap (just aggravating to use sometimes), and a great deal more safe compared to civil accident rates.

    --
    Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
  39. Re:General Aviation is dying, somthing needs to ch by jbwolfe · · Score: 1

    As far as the commercial pilots saying this will fail, 1 You have a professional bias, get over it 2 FAA is under pressure to ensure that GA doesn't fail 3 If this is demonstrably "non-commercial" it should succeed

    Citation needed...

    As for statement number 1, don't confuse industrial expertise for "professional bias". After 20 years in the field I'd say it will draw unwanted attention from the FAA. I'd also say it's not economically feasible with Avgas at $6 a gallon.

    --
    Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
  40. Re:General Aviation is dying, somthing needs to ch by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    1) The vast, overwhelming majority of commercial pilots fly in the GA industry.

    2) The FAA is under immense pressure from the major airlines to get rid of GA entirely

    3) This is demonstrably commercial

  41. Former commercial pilot here by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    In Canada the rules are pretty much iron clad. You can't accept a piece of gum for so much as saying the word, "Airplane". This might be an exaggeration but not by much. If I have a private plane and am flying it around the rules are about what you would expect or maybe even less. But once you cross that magical threshold of taking money for flying all kinds of insurance, regulations, plane requirements, and changes in maintenance requirements.

    While I am speaking about Canada, I suspect that the rules for most western countries aren't going to be that different. Basically you will have trouble finding a more regulated industry than the aviation industry, and where these regulations might have gaps the insurance companies will be standing right there.

    These guys might be on a sounder footing if they were to start selling a DIY brain surgery kits.

  42. how will they stop terrorists from useing this??? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    as private airports / small airports / the private gates don't have as much security and some can use this get on to a plane and take control.

  43. When the FAA chimes in by lmalinofsky · · Score: 1

    As a private pilot for many years I can tell you this will be shut down so fast by the Federal Aviation Administration your head may spin. Don't make any plans!

  44. Private Aviation is Surprisingly Approachable by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Since I started skydiving and hanging out at the grill down at the airport, I've been surprised at how approachable private aviation is. If I wanted another 5 digit hobby, I could wander in to the office at the local airport and start pilot lessons immediately. As it stands,a jump ticket only sets me back about $25. The trip's only one way, but if you're sitting next to the door in the summer time, it's a hell of a view -- they open it at 2000 feet to cool the plane off and close it again at 8000 feet when it starts getting kind of chilly. I was the first out the door for night jumps last July and looking out the open door of the plane on the ride to altitude was one of the more amazing things I've ever got to do in my life.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Private Aviation is Surprisingly Approachable by RPI+Geek · · Score: 1

      If you're interested in learning to fly, see if your area has any glider operations. It is usually significantly cheaper to fly a glider than a power plane. The club I joined last fall gets me in the air for less than half the cost of flying a power plane (depending on weather) and in my opinion, I am getting a better education than I did in power planes.

      --

      - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
  45. Feds by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

    Federal (FAA) banning of this service for "safety" reasons in 3....2.........1.................

  46. Hey, just thought I'd ask . . . by mmell · · Score: 1
    Ever get stuck up there?

    (not arguing with you - backing your play. I've gotten stuck in automobiles before, never once in a small airplane)

  47. Uncontrolably (your word, not mine) . . . by mmell · · Score: 1
    . . . but even with no engine, the aircraft is (presumably) under the control of a pilot. Full flaps, back-pressure on the control yoke to maintain altitude - you'll be doing roughly 50-60 knots before the airplane falls out of the sky. If you have had any serious training as a pilot, you'll wait until you're almost on the ground anyway before you let that much airspeed be lost to drag.

    Oh, wait - that's how you land a small airplane. Dopey me - I thought having engine failure would change that. Guess not.

  48. Please take your own advice. by mmell · · Score: 1

    That is all.

  49. THE GROUND!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You cant evade the ground.
    At the end you always crash into it! (Well, besides exploding in a flaming ball of kerosene)

  50. if it means no TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i am not a pilot it sounds scary as hell to me to let some person fly the plane by reading the comments.

    But i suspect that some people will pay the higher price to get out of the TSA bullshit.

  51. Re:When the FAA chimes in by deadweight · · Score: 1

    As a commercial pilot for many years I can tell you day 1 of "how to be a commercial pilot" class was why this scheme is totally illegal and that is before you hurt someone. Do so much as shut the door on someone's hand and lawyers will rip you so many new assholes you will be farting in 5 part harmony!

  52. Re:When are the commercial airlines going to prote by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Not much of the need, the FAA will smash this ignorance fairly quickly.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  53. If you don't want to fly, drive a car... by flier101 · · Score: 1

    No FAA problems with this at all as long as the accounting is good. Any [private] pilot can share expenses with anyone, with each person paying the same percentage of the expenses (typically only gas cost, not indirect operating costs). Generally, stats say that private flying is about equal in risk to motorcycle riding. And the bottom line is, if you want to fly then use this, otherwise, drive a car...

  54. Re:how will they stop terrorists from useing this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right. Transporting an atomic attaché case specifically targeted for an ideal location is easier this way. It's the suicidal suitcase nuke scenario I'll see in my lifetime. Sayonara citizen -- Kamikazi Banzai, FTW!