Search results

No--it is relevant, because that is what the FAA's case hinges on. That holding out brings the activity under the auspices of 119. And if there is holding out, then 119 applies. So it is THE issue. The crux of the matter.

And how many non-ATP or non-commercial pilots have done so?

I posted the case later so you did not have to sign up--see my post immediately after. The payment of passengers vs. pilots was not the point. I gave a summary at the end of my post as to why the case was significant. I quoted extensively from the case to draw your attention to the relevant...

Exactly.

Check out the case I posted about members of a club.

Part 119 does not prohibit holding out. It is the exact opposite. If you hold out, part 119 applies. So, the FAA says that FlyteNow and Airpooler are holding out. Thus, part 119 applies. It's that simple. Plus--I have already advocated for changing the CFRs. Repeatedly.

The only reason the FAA took any action (writing the letters) was because AirPooler and FlyteNow asked them for an opinion. They didn't like the answer. No new law was made. The answer the FAA gave was not different than any other answers they gave in the past. So where is the new regulation?

But, that is not the case. I will merely refer you back to what I've posted before in this thread. I am covering the same ground here.

We keep circling back to the ground we've covered over and over. Here is how the FAA got there, whether or not you agree. MacPherson (Airpooler which was the first letter): A private pilot cannot provide transportation for hire under 61.113(c) except the few exceptions, one of which we all are...

I don't do Federal Litigation like this, but I have partners who do. This is appeals court since it is an administrative action. I'll ask Dawn over on the PB. Someone posted above when the Government's answer is due--I think they said February. The APA may have its own time-frame--I don't...

Right--and you think my insurance company is going to insure me if FlyteNow were legal and I participated in it?

;) It's federal law--and I practice aviation law before the FAA and NTSB. You do not have to licensed in any one state to do so.

I've already said that above. I like the amount of activity here on POA, but I think that most people are not able to read every post.

That stupid link is asking you to join, so I uploaded the Voyager case to the dropbox.

The case that came to mind is the one in the law journal I linked to earlier. Voyager 1000 v. CAB, 489 F.2d 792 (7th Cir. 1973), cert denied, 42 U.S.L.W. 3626 (U.S. May 13, 1974) (No.1033) What the court held in this case, then, is that it took nothing to become a member of Voyager. It takes...

Jesus--allow me to get to the office. I'm just a volunteer here. Or would you like to pay me for it?

Well, the cases relating to holding out and commercial pilot regulation have not been overturned before. In the wake of Colgan 3407, I doubt we will seer the court willing to strike down years of precedent to the contrary that supports air safety for the public.

No. It is safer when the pilot is not able to get an unlimited number of people from the general public to pay to fly with him/her. Brian already enumerated a long list of situations where that could be bad. Someone else also posted about a recent flight to California where they almost had to...

Wow! That is very illegal!! :D

I wasn't suggesting it.