Blackbird = Common Carriage

AggieMike88

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
20,804
Location
Denton, TX
Display Name

Display name:
The original "I don't know it all" of aviation.
We have discussed https://www.flyblackbird.com/ in past threads.

The FAA's chief counsel office has provided it's opinion that "...the pilots participating in BlackBird's platform and using its app are holding out and thus are engaged in common carriage. This conclusion does not apply to individual commercial pilots who are legally operating the flights for operators authorized to conduct operations under 14 C.F.R. part 135, or pilots who are legally operating under 14 C.F.R. §91.501"

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/safe_charter_operations/media/Blackbird_Letter.pdf

I recall our past threads questioning that Blackbird was providing a mechanism where pilots would get caught up in the holding out whirlwind. Looks like the FAA is saying just that.
 
I thought they'd fault Blackbird not the individual pilots. I can never predict how the Chief Counsel comes up with their stuff. Maybe they figure this way it heads off a never ending series of hopeful new business models.
 
I thought they'd fault Blackbird not the individual pilots. I can never predict how the Chief Counsel comes up with their stuff. Maybe they figure this way it heads off a never ending series of hopeful new business models.
Isn’t the FAA consistent in always holding the PIC responsible. Even when pilots are working for certificate holders they still go after the pilot.
 
Maybe they figure this way it heads off a never ending series of hopeful new business models.
Not really. Having been on the maintenance side of these types of "for hire" business models it's really not that complicated so long as you follow the guidance in Part 91 Subpart B or Subpart K, or per Part 119. The problem arises when someone tries to thread the needle between these three guidance methods.
 
Anybody remember Hertz Rent-a-Plane. Late 50's, you were supposed to be able to rent just the aircraft (if you were a pilot) or the plane with a pilot. CAA came down hard on them and made them stop.
 
I thought they'd fault Blackbird not the individual pilots. I can never predict how the Chief Counsel comes up with their stuff. Maybe they figure this way it heads off a never ending series of hopeful new business models.

I can’t imagine why the FAA would _not_ go after the commercial pilots participating in this scheme.

A large part of preparing for the commercial written and practical tests is (or should) be understanding what the regs and the FAA’s opinions say about carrying passengers for hire. A fairly big part of my oral exam was with the DPE probing my knowledge of this with various scenarios about could I accept payment for this or that. The flying portion of getting a commercial cert is fairly easy and straightforward. Understanding the regs is more involved.

Pilots participating in this Fly Blackbird scheme should certainly know better and pretty much deserve everything they get from such participation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Honestly, some one had to have an attorney write the FAA and ask it this was legal? Any commercial pilot should know it wasn’t.
 
I can’t imagine why the FAA would _not_ go after the commercial pilots participating in this scheme.
My reasoning would be there's just too many to track down. Easier to knock Blackbird out of business, which they should IMO.
 
I can’t imagine why the FAA would _not_ go after the commercial pilots participating in this scheme.

A large part of preparing for the commercial written and practical tests is (or should) be understanding what the regs and the FAA’s opinions say about carrying passengers for hire. A fairly big part of my oral exam was with the DPE probing my knowledge of this with various scenarios about could I accept payment for this or that. The flying portion of getting a commercial cert is fairly easy and straightforward. Understanding the regs is more involved.

Pilots participating in this Fly Blackbird scheme should certainly know better and pretty much deserve everything they get from such participation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
The last part of the letter sounds like this is only the beginning of the FAA’s investigation, which may well include obtaining the pilot database and taking certificate action against the pilots who have been holding out.
 
Honestly, some one had to have an attorney write the FAA and ask it this was legal? Any commercial pilot should know it wasn’t.

Such as all of those commercial pilots flying for the "134 1/2" operations?
 
Honestly, some one had to have an attorney write the FAA and ask it this was legal? Any commercial pilot should know it wasn’t.

Not sure that they wrote the FAA. I suspect that the FAA contacted them. Blackbird contacted me a year ago about renting my airplane with their app (I told them no way), and I posted that on this forum to the existing thread. Got a call from the FAA a few days later. Very interesting conversation. Blackbird has definitely been on the FAA’s radar for a while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
My reasoning would be there's just too many to track down. Easier to knock Blackbird out of business, which they should IMO.

I suspect that once they get the database, they’ll look for the pilots who have flown a lot of these flights. I would guess that a lot of the pilots in the database have flown only a few flights, but there are likely to be a few who have flown a lot. I’d bet that the FAA will go after those first and make an example of them.

Although, postage is cheap. Every pilot inthe database who’s flown at least one flight will probably get a letter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Not sure that they wrote the FAA. I suspect that the FAA contacted them. Blackbird contacted me a year ago about renting my airplane with their app (I told them no way), and I posted that on this forum to the existing thread. Got a call from the FAA a few days later. Very interesting conversation. Blackbird has definitely been on the FAA’s radar for a while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The FAA’s letter begins, “We have considered the June 10, 2019 letter from BlackBird Air, Inc. (BlackBird), that set out many aspects of its business model and operating assumptions. The information that BlackBird has presented leads us to conclude that the pilots participating....”
 
The FAA’s letter begins, “We have considered the June 10, 2019 letter from BlackBird Air, Inc. (BlackBird), that set out many aspects of its business model and operating assumptions. The information that BlackBird has presented leads us to conclude that the pilots participating....”

Alrighty then. My point is did Blackbird initiate the conversation, or was their June 10 letter a response to a previous FAA inquiry. The FAA has been investigating these guys for a while. I’m thinking the latter.
 
Anybody remember Hertz Rent-a-Plane. Late 50's, you were supposed to be able to rent just the aircraft (if you were a pilot) or the plane with a pilot. CAA came down hard on them and made them stop.

Late 50s? That was at least 60 years ago. Most the people who were pilots then are dead.
 
I am currently working on studying for my commercial. Didn’t get to this part of the lessons. but I thought it was fairly obvious something like this blackbird app is illegal. How are ppl perceiving this as legal?
 
I am currently working on studying for my commercial. Didn’t get to this part of the lessons. but I thought it was fairly obvious something like this blackbird app is illegal. How are ppl perceiving this as legal?

Well, if you don't own the airplane, as a commercial pilot you are legal to fly an airplane for hire if the customer is the one who rents it or owns it. That is not considered holding out.

The presumption is they tried to establish plausible deniability by acting as the bulletin board between the airplane, the customer and the pilots, so that the pilot was never put in the position of been seen as providing the airplane. Airplane owners put their airplane in a leaseback of sorts, which are to be flown by other people based on the request of the customers on the app, thus the pilot is not holding out as he doesn't own or rent the airplane. The FAA appears to have released the letter in order to strike down this attempt at exploiting the loophole provisions of the commercial certificate that allow for-hire work without the involvement of Operating Certificates.

Personally, I don't think it's reasonable put all pilots in the same basket. Only those who either flew their personally-owned aircraft or those who rented one themselves in order to conduct for-hire flight were knowingly breaking the rules. Those who flew non-owned aircraft should be in the clear, as I think plausible deniability can be established for them.
 
Meanwhile Boeing self certifies airliners

don-quixote-windmill.jpg
 
Meanwhile Boeing self certifies airliners

Took 20 posts but yes, you're now speaking the quiet parts out loud my overtly libertarian friend. They don't want you to point at that regulatory capture. They want you to keep looking at this small fry operation as the real demon. Remember what George Carlin said: "It's a big effing club...and you ain't in it!" Different spanks for different ranks abound.
 
I am currently working on studying for my commercial. Didn’t get to this part of the lessons. but I thought it was fairly obvious something like this blackbird app is illegal. How are ppl perceiving this as legal?


Well, if you don't own the airplane, as a commercial pilot you are legal to fly an airplane for hire if the customer is the one who rents it or owns it. That is not considered holding out.

The presumption is they tried to establish plausible deniability by acting as the bulletin board between the airplane, the customer and the pilots, so that the pilot was never put in the position of been seen as providing the airplane. Airplane owners put their airplane in a leaseback of sorts, which are to be flown by other people based on the request of the customers on the app, thus the pilot is not holding out as he doesn't own or rent the airplane. The FAA appears to have released the letter in order to strike down this attempt at exploiting the loophole provisions of the commercial certificate that allow for-hire work without the involvement of Operating Certificates.

Personally, I don't think it's reasonable put all pilots in the same basket. Only those who either flew their personally-owned aircraft or those who rented one themselves in order to conduct for-hire flight were knowingly breaking the rules. Those who flew non-owned aircraft should be in the clear, as I think plausible deniability can be established for them.

You are not legal to pilot the non-owned aircraft when someone advertises the service sets up the plane rental and your name is provided on a list for pilot services. As a commercial pilot they should have known this.
 
Well, if you don't own the airplane, as a commercial pilot you are legal to fly an airplane for hire if the customer is the one who rents it or owns it. That is not considered holding out.
Nope, you're confusing two things. What you're trying to describe is private carriage. This is where the customer obtains the aircraft and hires you to fly it.

Holding out is the offer of air transport to the public. It matters not (in the FAA opinion) whether the offeror directly provides the service or subs out to others.
 
They wrote to the FAA knowing full well that they would get a slapdown. The next step involves the purchase of a couple of congressmen who will harass the next candidate for FAA administrator about how the agency is 'stifling tech innovation with their antiquated thinking'. After that, the next round involves slipping a carve-out into the FAA reauthorization bill that forces the agency to 'study' their paymasters model.

This isnt the first chief counsel opinion on ride-share models in GA. The last company that proposed this hired the FAA attorney who authored the negative opinion they had received and made her part of their lobbying team. Just your standard revolving door DC swamp deal ;-)
 
Last edited:
I can’t imagine why the FAA would _not_ go after the commercial pilots participating in this scheme.

A large part of preparing for the commercial written and practical tests is (or should) be understanding what the regs and the FAA’s opinions say about carrying passengers for hire. A fairly big part of my oral exam was with the DPE probing my knowledge of this with various scenarios about could I accept payment for this or that. The flying portion of getting a commercial cert is fairly easy and straightforward. Understanding the regs is more involved.

Pilots participating in this Fly Blackbird scheme should certainly know better and pretty much deserve everything they get from such participation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Commercial oral, DPE to me: “ What privileges do you have with the commercial certificate?”
Me: “People can pay me to fly their planes.”
DPE: “Nice and simple - I like it. Let’s move on.”
 
I think there is an element of fraud involved here that the FAA is overlooking. Blackbird told pilots they were working directly with the FAA and that their pairing software is totally legal and approved by the FAA. Having someone call you up and say "hey I'm leasing this airplane and I was told you can fly it, can you fly me?" is essentially what was going on here and what Blackbird was selling was an app that makes that whole thing faster. It is my understanding a lessee wasn't limited to the list of pilots Blackbird provided. from the FAA “but each lessee needs to have the flexibility, every time they fly, in choosing a flight crew.” They could go find another pilot, as long as they met insurance reqs. This plays a huge part in the world of dry leasess where companies dry lease their plane out and most of the time the person opts to just use their pilot. I know one guy who actually called the FAA and asked if it was legal and they did not give him a straight answer. They simply told him they stop illegal activity. Well a year later, that particular character is looking to go to the airlines and worried about the FAA pulling his ticket from doing a couple of these flights. If the holding out thing was so obvious to the FAA , as stated in this letter, why did this go on for literally years? And why isn't Blackbird facing criminal charges for fraud?
 
Last edited:
They wrote to the FAA knowing full well that they would get a slapdown. The next step involves the purchase of a couple of congressmen who will harass the next candidate for FAA administrator about how the agency is 'stifling tech innovation with their antiquated thinking'. After that, the next round involves slipping a carve-out into the FAA reauthorization bill that forces the agency to 'study' their paymasters model.

This isnt the first chief counsel opinion on ride-share models in GA. The last company that proposed this hired the FAA attorney who authored the negative opinion they had received and made her part of their lobbying team. Just your standard revolving door DC swamp deal ;-)

And the revolving continues. Out of curiosity, I looked her up. She's back with the FAA and is the Great Lakes Regional Administrator.
 
I think there is an element of fraud involved here that the FAA is overlooking. Blackbird told pilots they were working directly with the FAA and that their pairing software is totally legal and approved by the FAA. Having someone call you up and say "hey I'm leasing this airplane and I was told you can fly it, can you fly me?" is essentially what was going on here and what Blackbird was selling was an app that makes that whole thing faster. It is my understanding a lessee wasn't limited to the list of pilots Blackbird provided. from the FAA “but each lessee needs to have the flexibility, every time they fly, in choosing a flight crew.” They could go find another pilot, as long as they met insurance reqs. This plays a huge part in the world of dry leasess where companies dry lease their plane out and most of the time the person opts to just use their pilot. I know one guy who actually called the FAA and asked if it was legal and they did not give him a straight answer. They simply told him they stop illegal activity. Well a year later, that particular character is looking to go to the airlines and worried about the FAA pulling his ticket from doing a couple of these flights. If the holding out thing was so obvious to the FAA , as stated in this letter, why did this go on for literally years? And why isn't Blackbird facing criminal charges for fraud?

And that was essentially the devil's advocate point I was making earlier. Blackbird clearly was trying to argue their app was a communication facilitator, not advertising, thence could be shoehorned into 'private carriage'. That's the whole loophole that was being tried here. The FAA clearly disagreed.

But to suggest point blank all commercial pilots could see that distinction, when it took the FAA themselves a proverbial minute or 10 to make up their minds on the matter, is not really a fair assessment to all the pilots involved in this. I think a line can be drawn between those pilots who flew their personally-owned airplanes for compensation under the fog of this app, and those who flew non-owned airplanes. The latter have a ton of plausible deniability in my eyes; the former didn't need the Blackbird grey area to know flying your own airplane for money without a operating certificate is a no no, so that would be wanton by comparison.
 
Although, postage is cheap. Every pilot inthe database who’s flown at least one flight will probably get a letter.

I’m wondering if every pilot in the database would get a letter? Do you have to actually fly to violate the “holding out” test, or is it the mere act of looking for passengers/planes?
 
I suspect the reason the FAA didn't go after Blackbird is that there is no certificate that Blackbird holds that the FAA could revoke/threaten. Sure they might be able to go to court and get a cease and desist. On the other hand the FAA does have 100% authority over the Commercial Pilot certificate holders, so it's trivially easy to go after them,
 
I suspect the reason the FAA didn't go after Blackbird is that there is no certificate that Blackbird holds that the FAA could revoke/threaten. Sure they might be able to go to court and get a cease and desist. On the other hand the FAA does have 100% authority over the Commercial Pilot certificate holders, so it's trivially easy to go after them,
One does not need to hold a certificate to be subject to civil penalty, but the FAA’s normal course is to go after the pilots.
 
I suspect the reason the FAA didn't go after Blackbird is that there is no certificate that Blackbird holds that the FAA could revoke/threaten. Sure they might be able to go to court and get a cease and desist. On the other hand the FAA does have 100% authority over the Commercial Pilot certificate holders, so it's trivially easy to go after them,
The letter says they are investigating further. And one doesn't have to have a certificate in order for the FAA to take action. In addition to the certificate enforcement actions that most of us have at least a little knowledge if, there is a parallel administrative enforcement process involving financial civil penalties.

We see it most often when a major airline violates the rules, but it also applies to those who have no certificate at all. If the FAA, for example decided it had a case Blackbird violated FARs, it could bring a civil penalty action against them.
 
Last edited:
Commercial oral, DPE to me: “ What privileges do you have with the commercial certificate?”
Me: “People can pay me to fly their planes.”
DPE: “Nice and simple - I like it. Let’s move on.”

Simple but wrong.

People can pay you to fly your own plane e.g. §119.1 (e). There are also instances not listed in §119.1 where people can pay you to fly your own plane. e.g. limited number of contracts.

There are also occasions when if they pay you to fly their plane, you will get in trouble e.g. operations where it is obvious that the FAA would determine that it was part 135. An operator can fly their own clients to remote vacation lodges, but can’t offer to fly people to random vacation lodges.

I think Blackbird is operating in the letter of the regulations, but not the spirit. That’s why the FAA is going after the pilots. The FAA has always defined “holding out” very expansively—just like it has defined “for compensation or hire” to include things like goodwill or logging flight time.
 
I am currently working on studying for my commercial. Didn’t get to this part of the lessons. but I thought it was fairly obvious something like this blackbird app is illegal. How are ppl perceiving this as legal?
I think there's a little (wishful?) thinking in here. EASA and the UK aviation authorities have given these types of operations a green light. Another piece is the mandate in the 2018 reauthorization act that the FAA submit a report to Congress this coming spring "analyzing Federal policy with respect to pilots sharing flight expenses with passengers."
"The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include an evaluation of- (A) the rationale for such Federal policy;
(B) safety and other concerns related to pilots sharing flight expenses with passengers; and
(C) benefits related to pilots sharing flight expenses with passengers.​
 
Simple but wrong.

People can pay you to fly your own plane e.g. §119.1 (e). There are also instances not listed in §119.1 where people can pay you to fly your own plane. e.g. limited number of contracts.
Problem is, that's not really correct either. Limited contacts means not common carriage. But private carriage also requires an operating certificate.
 
Simple but wrong.

People can pay you to fly your own plane e.g. §119.1 (e). There are also instances not listed in §119.1 where people can pay you to fly your own plane. e.g. limited number of contracts.

Problem is, that's not really correct either. Limited contacts means not common carriage. But private carriage also requires an operating certificate.
That doesn't sound right either. "Limited contracts" means "not considered 'holding out'" [EDIT: After reviewing AC 120-12A para 4.d., I guess that's a distinction with no difference], IIRC, and private carriage only requires an operating certificate if the aircraft seats more than 19 passengers or a payload of more than 5,999 lbs.
 
Last edited:
@midlifeflyer You are correct. I was thinking of Mills (2011) where they stated that the company (Paramount) would not be holding out if:

Consequently, so long as Paramount is not holding itself out to the public generally, the contracts with governmental entities are not as the result of a direct or indirect holding out to provide services and the total number of contracts is limited, such services may be viewed to be non-common carriage or private carriage.

However, it didn’t register that they were already a Part 125 operator and wanted clarification of whether they would be acting as a common carrier by accepting a government contract.

The interpretation in Wagner (2010), where he wanted to fly cargo in his Bonanza for his employer, applies
Although the flights you propose do not constitute common carriage operations, they fall within the definition of on demand operations and are subject to the certificate rules of part 119 and operating rules of part 135.
 
The interpretation in Wagner (2010), where he wanted to fly cargo in his Bonanza for his employer, applies
Although the flights you propose do not constitute common carriage operations, they fall within the definition of on demand operations and are subject to the certificate rules of part 119 and operating rules of part 135.
That makes no sense to me. Are they saying small aircraft 135 operations are "private carriage"? No way, in my mind. Have you a link to that interp?
 
FAA Safety Team | Safer Skies Through Education

Important Charter Guidance for Pilots and Passengers
Notice Number: NOTC9901

Today, booking a charter flight can be as easy as tapping a few buttons on your mobile device. But that doesn’t mean the flight is legal or safe.

The FAA’s top priority is ensuring the safety of the traveling public, and it’s critical that both pilots and passengers confirm that the charter flights they’re providing and receiving comply with all applicable Federal Aviation Regulations.

If you pay for a charter flight, you are entitled to a higher level of safety than is required from a free flight from a friend. Among other things, pilots who transport paying passengers must have the required qualifications and training, are subject to random drug and alcohol testing, and the aircraft used must be maintained to the high standards that the FAA’s charter regulations require.

The FAA recently sent a letter about this issue to a company called Blackbird Air that created a web-based application that connects passengers with pilots. The letter emphasizes an FAA policy about the requirements for pilots who are paid to fly passengers. The policy states that pilots who are paid to fly passengers generally can’t just hold the required Commercial or Airline Transport pilot license – they also must be employed by the company operating the flight, which must hold a certificate issued under Part 119 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Or the pilots must themselves hold a Part 119 certificate.

Any pilot who provides charter flights without complying with the Part 119 certificate requirement would be violating the Federal Aviation Regulations – even if they possess a Commercial or Airline Transport Pilot license. The FAA’s determination has been upheld in federal court.

A current listing of FAA-licensed charter providers is available here.



Q&A

Q: I have a Commercial/Airline Transport Pilot license. Why can’t I simply sign up on a web-based app as a pilot for hire and get paid to fly passengers?

A: The FAA has determined that pilots who participate in a for-hire service are holding themselves out as providers of common carriage. As such, they must be employed by the company operating the flight that holds a certificate issued under Part 119 of the Federal Aviation Regulations or must themselves hold a certificate issued under Part 119. The FAA expects to issue additional written guidance on this issue soon. Pilots who have questions about the legality of a planned operation should contact their local FAA Flight Standards District Office.

Q: I’m a pilot who has conducted flights through Blackbird but I don’t work for a Part 119 certificate holder nor do I have a Part 119 certificate. What’s going to happen to me?

A: At this time, the FAA is reminding pilots and alerting passengers about the requirement that Commercial pilots and Airline Transport Pilots must also conduct charter flights under proper Part 119 certification. The FAA does not plan to take enforcement action against pilots who have conducted prior flights using the Blackbird app without a Part 119 certificate. However, any pilot who doesn’t meet these requirements and conducts for-hire flights going forward could face enforcement action from the FAA.

Q: I was a passenger who paid for a charter flight through Blackbird and the flight was not operated under a Part 119 certificate. Do I face any sanctions?

A: At this time, the FAA does not plan to assess sanctions against any passenger who paid for any such flight. We note, however, that if a passenger accepts operational control over a flight, which means accepting responsibility for the safety of the flight and that it complies with all applicable regulations, that passenger may be responsible for any regulatory violation related to the flight. This could include violations related to the failure to comply with part 119 certification requirements. The FAA strongly encourages passengers to ensure their charter flights meet all applicable regulations.

Q: Is the FAA saying that all flights conducted through Blackbird could potentially violate the Federal Aviation Regulations?

A: No. Flights piloted by properly certificated pilots who are conducting the flight for companies that hold Part 119 certificates, or flights flown by pilots who themselves hold a Part 119 certificate, may comply with the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Q: As a passenger, what should I look for when making arrangements for a charter flight? How can I know if my flight is legal?

A: A current list of FAA-certificated charter providers is available here.

Pilot certificate information is available here.

Passengers also should ask the pilot if their specific flight is conducted under a Part 119 certificate.

Q: When did the FAA determine that pilots who sign up with on-line for-hire services are holding themselves out as engaged in common carriage requiring a Part 119 certificate?

A: This has been the FAA’s longstanding policy consistent with the regulations that govern common carriage operations. The FAA issued determinations in 2014 to companies called Flytenow and Air Pooler that apply this longstanding policy to web-based initiatives. Blackbird’s platform is similar to those companies’ platforms.

Q: When was the court ruling that upheld the FAA’s determination?

A: In 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the FAA’s determination in the case Flytenow, Inc. v Federal Aviation Administration.
 
Back
Top