Slashdot Mirror
How The FAA Shot Down 'Uber For Planes' (fee.org)
SonicSpike quotes a report from the Foundation for Economic Education that first appeared at Forbes: Imagine traveling from Boston to Martha's Vineyard in under an hour and for less than $70. Believe it or not, this option was available from Flytenow's website or app, by looking for a general aviation pilot who was making that trip, and then splitting the cost with that pilot and whoever else was sharing the flight. Entrepreneurs were bringing private air travel to the masses until Flytenow's leadership met with members of the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure that they were complying with all laws and regulations. Instead of embracing this service, the FAA used tortuous logic to ban Flytenow and other online flight-sharing websites because it considered these to be "common carriers" (such as Delta Airlines). Private pilots cannot possibly comply with the myriad regulations that apply to the large airlines. In what follows, Flytenow founders Alan Guichard and Matt Voska explain why the federal government should make the FAA allow flight sharing to get off the ground.
Those regulations are in place for a reason. Your Uber ride can be an unlicensed, uninsured deathtrap as it is: dropping out of the sky and killing innocents because you were too lazy to follow FAA regulations is an entirely new level of stupidity.
Private pilots cannot possibly comply with the myriad regulations that apply to the large airlines.
And this is in the "land of the free."
And that includes coporations that are by law treated as a person.
Now, this were the approach in one of those eastern countries, we would be celebrating our approach as done in the "land of the free!"
The FlyteNow folks were your fairly typical Silicone [sic] Valley types, slick, young, arrogant in that patronizing fashion that we've all come to love, and that gives us an overwhelming urge to slap a kid silly, and just dripping with startup jargon.
This works great when dealing with powerful underpaid bureaucrats. </s>
The economics of such a system prevent it from being an effective commercial sky taxi service. If the pilots are going to be doing the trip anyway then what's the difference as to whether or not there's a passenger?
I used to do this frequently while a friend was getting his license. He needed his hours up so was doing the trips anyway and I needed a quick vacation to some other city so I offered to split the fuel costs with him (a tiny fraction of the cost of his flight when you don't own your own plane, but he appreciated the extra money).
He does the U.S. mail run to McCartney
He regularly takes sight-seeing tourists with him on the run, since it is allowed under their contract.
There are absolutely no regulation requirements for the travelers.
Pilots like my father are, of course, subject to all FAA regulations including medical, regular license renewal, insurance requirements, etc...
All of this information is available to anyone who asks, that would include Uber
In fact, there is far more oversight on a private pilot than on a cab driver. There is no way for Uber to know immediately if a driver with a suspended license gets into a car and picks up a fair.
In the case of nearly all private pilots, however, the moment they leave the runway they are on someone's radar. If they haven't filed a flight plan, the FAA will know within minutes.
There is absolutely no reason for this except airline influence. It's a convenience technology that should be covered by existing regulations, nothing more. Like Expedia for private pilots.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
The fatality rate for general aviation is 82 times that for commercial flight. Are these people utterly insane?
Didn't read TFA, but the summary is just so much garbage. There was no tortuous logic involved, and the Flytenow service was nothing like Uber. I think the FAA was rightly concerned that it could be become like Uber which is scary as heck given you could have unqualified pilots flying people around for hire in weather they shouldn't be flying in - which is how "The Music Died".
And then there's the FAA being the only thing stopping drone delivery as well. Another proof libertarianism is inherintly a force of good. Gary Johnson 2016. Red tape inhibits innovation "for your own safety" and yet in the meanwhile we allow cars to kill how many people a day?
In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
It's legal for them to fly passengers for free. But the minute they accept money for it, big government is there to wag their finger and say "No, no no!"
Issue isn't safety - airplanes would be making the trip anyway.
Also note they let people do the cost sharing - they are just outlawing the wholesale version by outlawing using the internet to find share.
So effectively they are fine with people doing it, just not a LOT of it - with strangers.
Frankly it looks more like a protection for airlines rather than anything else.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
It's a difference of Part 91 (non-commercial) operations and Part 135 (commercial non-scheduled) operations and Part 121 (common carrier) operations.
Under Part 91, pilots may share the operational cost of the flight equally with the passengers . The pilot shall not pay less of the share than any passenger and shall not be compensated additionally for their time and service.
Under Part 135 commercial but unscheduled flights (think charter), pilots and aircraft must pass a much more stringent set of requirements (such as crew rests and aircraft maintenance). Pilots and companies operating under 135 may be compensated for services.
Under Part 121 scheduled common carrier flights has even more stringent pilot certification, crew and aircraft maintenance requirements.
The FAA is arguing that once you post your flight intention, looking for passengers to join, you are now a Part 121 flight.
The FAA are arguing
So much for private contracts under the Obama administration and its radical application of regulations (monologue rules). Vote R.
The very act of them advertising their flight and the willingness to carry passengers is "holding out." To be considered a common carrier you have to meet four criteria. 1) Holding out (basically, advertising, word of mouth, etc). 2) For compensation. Doing it for flight hours and not charging a dime can (and has!) still be considered compensation. 3) Transporting a person or property 4) from point A to point B.
It's a commercial operation. Period. And a 135 operation at that. We always say "if it looks like a taxi and smells like a taxi... it's a taxi."
If a flight costs me 1/2 the price of a commercial flight, and many, many hours of time saved (because I don't have to go three hours ahead of the flight time each way in case the TSA is having a bad day) why not?
Let me choose how I am willing to trade money and time for risk.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't really understand what the big issue is... this currently happens. From what I understand it is not for profit but more of a split of fuel costs. If the pilot is going to some location just to bump up their hours why not take a full plane. The passengers must however take it upon themselves to understand the risks, as more than likely this pilot that is taking them is low on hours therefore an inexperienced pilot by international standards or just flying for fun/ a hobby and trying to make it cheaper. The pilot who is flying them must still be rated to take passengers etc. etc. etc. what is the big difference?
My first pass at reading the title came up with 'How The FAA Shot Down Planes For Uber'. Seemed a little extreme to me...
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
In order to carry a passenger for hire and make a profit you have to have your commercial ticket. Period.
Private pilots ride sharing, not matter the circumstances, are not allowed to make a profit. Period.
So their only reason for doing something like this is to cut their expenses. It would make no sense for a private pilot to start making daily runs to Chicago if they only broke even on expenses and actually lost money considering their time. And not many people are about to trade a nice comfy seat traveling at 5000 MPH for a cramped, drafty, noisy cockpit unless there is no service available or they are just a fan of small planes.
So the FAA's reason's are flawed. No one will start flying others around for profit...that's illegal. Many people DO make regular runs in their aircraft and allowing this service would have the benefit of boosting general aviation.
I suspect this is more about taking away a $250 fare from the airlines.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
So a non-CPL pilot who can only accept a split of the gas cost, they're going to (in theory) be racking up hours on a airframe faster than they normally would, which will lead to more frequent mandated inspection and overhaul events... events that their prior fares wouldn't have put any money towards. Not to mention defraying the cost of any hangaring or parking fees. I fail to see how "Uber for Planes" would work for the private pilot outside of purely opportunistic "hey, you're going my way?" one-offs.
If you look at the circus that has popped up around ride sharing, with the miles of empty cabs and unused pricey medallions, I'm not surprised regulators are doing what they can to stop this before the same circus starts.. We keep aiming for "disruptive technology ideas" but you have to expect some push-back when your idea is a threat to an entire entrenched industry that employs MANY people, and gets some of them FILTHY rich. I'll bet the boardrooms and airline owners have been blowing up the FAA hotlines since they first heard of this.
I understand this may not be as "safe" as flying a big faceless commercial airline, but I'll take dangerous freedoms over safe regulations any day. If we can find a way to cut all the extra cost down to reasonable, and I am allowed to book a private flight with less bullshit, groping, lost luggage, "random" searches and fake smiles, AND I can bring my own snack, sit next to the pilot, and have nobody kicking my seat- I say we go for it. Surely the big airlines can find a way to compete.
Momma mini-van and Pappa Windsor knot can still pay for the extra care when shipping their little snowflake off to Grandma old-schools house. I'm happy with hitchhiking onto some old puddle-jumpers spare seat for a fraction of cost. Don't be so scared people, some of us are OK with a little risk.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
Am I the only one who read the headline as " How The FAA Shot Down 'Uber Drone'?"
From a private pilot (though I have not read the regulations was just told them when testing).
You are not allowed to take money for transporting anyone with a private pilot's license, not even to split the cost of gas. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
However, with a commercial license (not an ATP needed to fly airlines) you can charge for flying people around. Flight instructors making $25 an hour have a commercial license as they work towards their ATP.
Not sure why the FAA has to be involved. If they have a commercial license, why wouldn't they be allowed to and why would the FAA stop it? Thats the POINT of getting that license. Having a private license only, there is no way it is legal under decades old regulations.
I haven't flown for a while and things "may" have changed, but I doubt it.
Private pilots can't carry passengers for compensation - with a few, narrowly defined exceptions. These are on the written exam and part of the oral exam given on their checkride. Private pilots are NOT required to have insurance.
All non-ultralight planes get an annual inspection, but those planes used for hire need to be inspected every 100 hours of flight time.
The bar for a commercial pilot is not that high - 250 hours flight time, some additional instruction, a few extra maneuvers on the checkride and more stringent standards on the other maneuvers, but nothing that difficult. The only other change is that you need to have a 2nd class medical certificate, which I believe is required every year. Airline Transport Pilot (the license required to fly for the airlines) is much more difficult, and requires 1500 hours of flight time. They FAA stated that only the commercial certificate is needed for Flytenow.
This is not that difficult to understand. If you just went through basic ground school, or even read a book or two on learning to fly (which can be downloaded for free from the FAA), they would have known this.
I'm not sure why the Flytenow founders didn't bother trying to research this before starting, but it's spelled out in FAA Advisory Circular 120-12A (April 26, 1986). There is no tortuous logic, just defined regulations that they were in direct violation of. Just because Uber has temporarily gotten away with ignoring laws and regulations in some jurisdiction is no reason to think that the FAA would give them a pass. They didn't try to find out, or didn't like the answer that was clearly explained and went ahead anyway. Either way, their stupidity in their business planning isn't exactly being met with sympathy, except by those who don't know what they're talking about.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22647
It's not a dense document, it's 4 pages long in clear, non-technical English.
Relevant excerpts:
"A carrier becomes a common carrier when it "holds itself out" or to a segment of the public, as willing to furnish transportation within the limits of its facilities to any person who wants it."
"There are four elements in defining a common carrier; (1) a holding out of a willingness to (2) transport persons or property (3) from place to place (4) for compensation. This "holding out" which makes a person a common carrier can be done in many ways and it does not matter how it is done."
There are many examples given of "holding out", but the one that is most relevant in my opinion is:
"A carrier flying charters for only one organization may be a common carrier if membership in the organization and participation in the flights are, in effect, open to a significant segment of the public."
And the statement they really, really should have read before starting the business:
"Persons who have questions concerning intended operation of their aircraft are encouraged to discuss their proposed operation with the Regional Counsel of the FAA region in which it intends to establish its principal business office. Such early interviews will materially assist the applicant in avoiding many of the "pitfalls" which could result in illegal common carriage operations."
Joe Smith, pilot, now finds a way to fly for a living 6 days a week with his Piper Cub, that is being maintained well enough to mostly not kill Joe as long as he doesn't fly constantly. So now he flies constantly, risking his life more than he expects.
Which is all good luck with that, unless I happen to live near a small private airport that suddenly has traffic like the big airports without having the equipment of the big airports. So it all ends when somebodies dreams come crashing down flaming onto my house.
So why should this be my problem, since I get no benefit? So just no. The FAA has it right.
That's not how you build a Unicorn. Instead, you stick your fingers in your ears while loudly proclaiming, we are not a "bank|tax service|etc." until you are big enough that you can buy your own laws.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
If you let private pilots undercut commercial airlines, by skirting safety regulations, then airlines will lobby to lower their compliance burden too. And they will exit the market. In then end all our safety, whether you use air uber or not will be affected.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The FAA was right here, assuming you care about the law. Now we can discuss if the law is wrong (in some ways I'd agree it is), but that isn't the FAA's job, to decide if it is right or wrong.
Flytenow got it wrong by thinking that a lack of profit means there is no "common carriage". That isn't how it works.
You don't have to make a profit, or even have the goal of profit, from the FAA's point of view.
Non-pilots will have trouble with this one, and even many pilots get it wrong. I had many debates with new pilots and even new flight instructors who wanted to read into the FAA regs what they WANTED to read.
If you are flying someone somewhere that you really don't know, and they so much as buy you lunch, it is common carriage and thus illegal without an air carrier certificate. In fact, lunch isn't even required, because they consider "quid pro quo" to be compensation.
Now you don't have to AGREE with this, but arguing with the FAA is like arguing with the cops when they pull you over for a speeding ticket. Pointless and a bad idea.
The FAA takes a VERY narrow view on this topic and it would take an act of Congress to change it.
---
Note: I actually DON'T agree with the FAA here, I'm not defending them, but they are correct according to the rules as THEY see it, and right now the FAA is largely the final decider here. (beyond the appeals courts which is expensive and fails more often than it works, but it does sometimes)
---
Source: My over 10 years in aviation, including running a Part 135 on-demand air carrier as well as working for another one as a pilot, plus my owning a half dozen aircraft some used for commercial operations.
Despite what the article, and perhaps sensationalists, is trying to imply -- the FAA is a rather reasonable organization on the scale of government agencies, and the approach they are taking is to minimize the risks of flying to uninformed or innocent people who may not be aware of all the issues. This is why as much as a pilot is free to joyride across open water or the desert wilderness, they are not free to do that over populated areas that did not consent to the risks of that activity.
When someone starts acting as a provider of transportation to people they do not know other than for the purpose of the transaction, you start to get far more into the realm of people who sign up to purchase a service where there are not fully aware of the risks. Consider what knowledge you have about entering a friend's car, or a family member's car, versus a taxi driver's.
The philosophy is that, ok, private pilots have trained for this activity, and take on the risk themselves. If they share a ride (and split the costs) under the currently allowed rules with friends/family, those people tend to know the risks as well. And that is a relatively small set of potential passengers who could potentially engage in this activity.
When people start advertising to the broader public that they're available for flights, you start to get people who are unaware of the risks. And pilots who will engage in flights (each of which carries some incremental risk) that would not taken place otherwise. And that is the problem, considering that the FAA is mindful a certain acceptable level of flight activity and risk percentage.
The FAA is not being overly heavy handed in this matter. For all the semi-justified concern about Uber insurance requirements and background checks for cars -- for aircraft and pilots I would hold the bar at least 10x higher.
I am a private pilot and the only tortured thing here is how the service tried to get around "holding out" and "compensation". Obviously the FAA doesn't see it this way. If you are a private pilot you're held to a lower standard - of training, medically, during the examination, and for the aircraft - than a commercial pilot. Which is held to a much lower standard than an airline pilot. It's not really that safe, either - the GA fatal accident rate is comparable to motorcycles, and that doesn't include a bunch of PPL cowboys feeling pressured to go in marginal conditions, which this service would surely promote. Would you jump on the back of a random motorcycle with an unknown driver?
A bunch of people have said that you can't be paid to fly. It's worse than that - you can't receive any benefit in exchange for your flying. All you can do is offset your losses. The safest thing is to pay your own way, then everything's legal. If you split costs with your buddy and he buys you a steak dinner, the FAA will kick your ass. Yes, this has happened. So too did they punish the guy who ferried his bar-owning friend's customers to the bar "as a favor" when the charter flight fell through. Even though they couldn't find any direct compensation, they still won on the theory that "there's no way someone is out $2k without at least a quid pro quo, and in any case think of the passengers who were expecting a charter flight to commercial standards"
Most people are used to licenses - rights - that can't be easily taken away. Like your drivers' license - that's a court case if they want it. Being a pilot means you have a certificate and it can be taken away much more easily (i.e., no courts involved) if the FAA feels it is appropriate. And they have no trouble convincing the oversight (the NTSB administrative law judges are the highest you can go) that their interpretation of the "holding out" rules is the correct one.
Flytenow didn't shut down because the FAA said "no", at least not directly. They shut down because once the FAA publishes an opinion of how they see the regulations and intend to enforce them, you'd be stupid as hell to fly if they said "we think this is against the rules and will prosecute people for doing it". It'll stick, too, barring "arbitrary and capricious".
If you can find an example of people "lawyering" with the FAA and succeeding, I'd like to see it. There's plenty of examples of people thinking they've found a loophole and are smarter than the FAA lawyers - but they all forget that the FAA isn't bound by the letter of the regulations (they're not laws!) and that they're allowed to punish people for what they meant to say so long as it's reasonable regardless of whether it's explicitly written down. The FAA's intent is very clear - you can go camping with your buddy and split the costs, but you can't be a charter service. If they think you're basically being a charter service, they'll burn you regardless of how you try to wiggle out of it.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
In 2012, there were 0.55 deaths per 100 million road vehicle kilometres travelled. For business and private flying in GA aircraft, (which is mostly A to B, but does include a few riskier activities such as cattle mustering) the death rate is about 40 deaths per million flying hours, and if you assume that the average speed is something like 200 km/h, that comes out to 20 deaths per 100 million aircraft kilometres travelled.
GA aviation is much riskier than driving a car, and comparable to riding a motorcycle.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Just to point out, that buried in many insurance policies have exceptions for non-common-carrier transport in things like boats and planes. This is why generally people on business trips aren't allowed to fly on their own planes (or planes flown by their collegues) because that render business insurance void.
The insurance industry hasn't caught up to this new sharing economy stuff yet...
When socialism and capitalism all fail at the same time due to croneyism.
This is the same administration that considers it necessary for a guy who does roofing repair to become an actual licensed general aviation pilot (and then file for a 333 exemption) in order to send a 2-pound plastic quadcopter up 20 feet in the air below tree tops to check out your gutters before he puts up a ladder. If he flies his toy copter for fun in exactly the same place in exactly the same way for fun, he's OK. The administration considers that to be perfectly safe. But if he does it to avoid putting up a ladder, he faces a $20,000 fine. Five minutes later, he can go back to doing it for fun, and he's fine. Thanks, Obama.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Are you lying or stupid? Pilot experience is a require,net to fly a jet. Don't believe me? Call your favorite insurance company and ask for insurance as for a Learjet with a 100 hour pilot. Almost every aviation mishap report includes pilot error, and it takes a bit of experience to get to the point where you're very safe and employable.
Simply put, the problem for small aircraft is that many of the pilots didn't have the required endorsements (commercial). They also didn't have the required insurance for that. It's one thing to share (fuel/Ass/Grass) for a road trip but I'd be quite concerned with anyone who's using an app such as this having the required level of hours and training.
while small aircraft do crash more often.. they are also much more survivable.
I'd rather crash a cessna152 over a boeing 737 any day... In the cessna, you'll only hit the ground at about 35mph... no biggie, ive crashed go-karts at higher speeds.
Let's discuss the Elephant in the room no one has mentioned: insurance.
While uber and lyft and that ilk have managed to retrofit and cobb in insurance to cover people driving without commercial plates, I don't see the flight insurance industry being as lenient. Flying for pay, on a pre-arranged-contract-basis is a commercial venture (even if the passenger is taking advantage of an existing flight that was alaready going there). The insurance company will require the pilot to be properly licensed, insured, the plane the be properly rated, inspected and insured.
The FAA has probably looked at the lawsuit potential: Plane crashes with "uberplane" passenger- the pilot's estate is sued, the plane manufacturer is sued, the mechanic is sued, the airport is sued and the FAA is sued. The lawsuit would say: Improperly credentialed pilot was taking money to ferry people. It would be a mess, it would be in the papers, anyone who could would settle and the FAA would be caught holding the bag. The FAA would be hauled in front of Congressional hearings asking ugly questions about how the FAA allowed unqualified pilots to fly passengers in unqualified planes, the threat of additional over site and regulation, firings of FAA personnel.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
> Imagine traveling from Boston to Martha's Vineyard
The Kennedy son did and he never arrived.
I think this may be a little different though. The economies of "splitting the cost" don't favor the pilot if they weren't intending on making the flight anyway. If an Uber driver was forced to pay for half the cost of the trip you would see a drastic reduction in the number of "ride sharing" (fake taxi company) drivers.
As long as there are mechanisms to prevent this from turning into "the uber of the sky", I think I'd be OK with it. But you know damn well that the number of pilot that happened to be flying between Chicago and Las Vegas three times a day would increase exponentially...
Let's be clear... the FAA is acting as a protection racket. There is absolutely no safety consideration here. They are saying licensed pilots can carry passengers, families, children, as much as they want... just not paying passengers.
It is like saying that licensed doctor's can perform all the surgeries they want, but to actually get paid for the service they need a special license.
Glareshield above control panel of my Cessna 150 has a decal. It reads, "No gas, no grass, no ass; no free ride."