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 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?
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
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
Umm. no.
A private pilot is forbidden from taking more than pro rata share of flight costs from passengers.
so if you were my friend, and we wanted to go to vegas for the weekend, i could allow you to reimburse me up to 1/2 the price i paid to rent the plane (but I could NOT accept more than 1/2 from you).
What the FAA didn't like about Flytenow is that they were "holding out", ie, offering air service to people, which requires a part 121 or 135 license for the "airline". The pilot would need to then be a commercial pilot or airline transport pilot.
All of the above has zero to do with weather.
ANY pilot (Private, Commercial, or ATP) can fly in the clouds if they have an "Instrument Rating". Regardless of how many people and dogs they have on board. You are forbidden to fly in the clouds without an instrument rating.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.