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.
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.
There are several facets to this issue. First, I'm a licensed private pilot. The regulations for private pilot are rather different than for ATP (Airline Transport Pilot), so the phrase "Private pilots cannot comply with the regulations of the large airlines" is somewhat misleading.
Now, the question comes to be: Is this pilot doing a "For Hire" service. This really is the crux of the issue. If the pilot *truly* is going somewhere and you want to go with them and split the cost of the trip, this is perfectly legal. However once you (the pilot) cross the line of going places because someone wants to go somewhere, that would be a For-Hire service. This gets a little gray because the pilot can't charge the cost of the trip, but must "share" expenses, legally. This can get somewhat hard to prove. However, if you are a pilot that does for-hire transport, then you must have a commercial license (not ATP), which again has some different regulatory requirements (pilot performance, medical, etc) than a private pilot.
I think I'm on board with the FAA on this one. Uber drivers are for-hire, really - I don't think anyone could rightfully say you're just hitching a ride. "Uber for planes" is the same thing.
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.
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."
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.