"FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies"

[David7700]

You spoke of offering "the unlimited opportunity to fly somewhere that you weren't going anyway to the general public or a subset of the general public". My point is that these sites don't do that. They offer an opportunity to fly when and where the pilot IS going to fly anyway.

You need to read my full post above. Offering an unlimited opportunity is not the only thing that could get you in trouble.

The pilots on the flight sharing sites hold out as follows:

61.113 is specifically designed as an exception to the rule that a private pilot cannot receive compensation for flying. In that event, the common purpose test must be met. There are letter rulings setting forth acceptable situations.

Mills

Stating that holding out is a fact-specific determination, and that holding out is holding out to the general public at large.

Haberkorn

The holding out can be accomplished by any "means which communicates to the public that a transportation service is indiscriminately available" . . . There may also be a holding out without advertising, where a reputation to serve all is sufficient to constitute an offer to carry all customers. Whether or not the holding generates little success is not a factor

This includes the public at large or a segment of the public, like Facebook friends. Asking a friend to go on a trip, then, may not be telling a segment of the public that transportation services are indiscriminately available.

See the Article, Come Fly with Me, in the Sept/OCt 2010 issue of FAA Safety Briefing, mentioned in Haberkorn.

Hold the Line on Holding Out

“Holding out” can be as complex as publishing a flight schedule for a major airline or as simple as posting a notice on an FBO bulletin board (or the Internet) telling everyone you’re the one who will fly them to that prime vacation resort and make their dreams come true. Many FAA inspectors also like to fly for pleasure, and they read those bulletin boards, too. They might not be too happy with your advertisement for Old Bessie’s “charter service” when they find out you don’t have a part 135 certificate, but at least they won’t take you to task for promising to make your prospective client’s dreams come true.

Many pilots believe that they can easily avoid the compensation or hire restrictions of the regulations by making other arrangements. The FAA, however, interprets “compensation” very broadly. For example, the FAA has long held that logging flight time for the conduct of a flight is compensation. Most of us, and especially those of us seeking that coveted left seat at a major air carrier, know how valuable flight time can be. So, if someone requests that you use your superior piloting skills to take them to that resort of their choice and you decline any monetary payment, but still log that flight time while not paying the costs of operating the aircraft, you’ve received compensation.

Goodwill obtained from providing a flight has also been determined to be compensation. Everyone knows how valuable a favorable news article or celebrity endorsement can be. Bartering can be considered compensation, too. You may want to think twice before you take someone flying in exchange for spending a weekend at their beach house.

 

[cirrusmx]

I rode a Lufthansa 747 from Chicago to Frankfurt that had 7 passengers on it, 4 of them were my family. It was also loaded with cargo down below that still made the flight money. The seats aren't the only things that get filled with revenue.

thats the holy grail of transoceanic flight, an empty plane!!

 

[dans2992]

I think it's probably a good thing to restrict these sites, simply because the first time one of these planes goes down, it might be WORSE for GA than had they not been permitted to begin with.

The general public has no clue about GA and generally expects the government to protect them from stuff they know nothing about.

 

[Lindberg]

Not so. "Common purpose" and "holding out" are two entirely separate issues.

On the contrary, the common-purpose test is what determines whether or not you are holding out.

[A] private pilot may not rely on that narrow exception [in 61.113(c)] to avoid the compensation component of common carriage. For this reason, the FAA has required a private pilot to have a common purpose with his or her passengers and must have his or her own reason for traveling to the destination [to avoid holding out, because all the other elements are met].^1
​

This letter says that, as do the other letters cited by David. If you lack a common purpose with your passengers, and you carry them for compensation, you are a carrier. There's no exception that would allow a private pilot to fly such a flight for compensation.

OTOH, if you have a common purpose with your passengers, and you carry them for compensation, you're not a carrier. As long as the compensation is no more than the passenger(s) pro-rata share of expenses, the exception in 61.113 applies.

I see nothing that contradicts the above in the previous letters linked in this thread, and the new letter follows this logic. I note that the letter discusses only the issue of compensation in the section on "Pilot Privileges" and both compensation and holding out in the section on "Commercial Operations." (I trust those who disagree will be specific with pointing out what I've missed.)

This letter lays out the above rules just fine. For example,

As such, although sec. 61.113(c) contains an expense-sharing exception to the general prohibition against private pilots acting in pilot in command for compensation or hire, a private pilot many not rely on this narrow exception to avoid the compensation component of common carriage.
​

All this means is that compensation is compensation, even if you are legally allowed to accept it, and for the purpose of Part 119, compensation permitted to a PP under 61.113(c) is still compensation for the purpose of determining if one is a carrier. The next paragraph just says that even if the pilot has a comm. certificate, he still needs a part 119 certificate to operate a carrier.

So far so good.

But the letter falls apart in the application. Without any discussion, the author assumes that the pilots and the passengers lack a common purpose. She doesn't say that, but she says they're holding out, and she's already acknowledged that if there's a common purpose there is no holding out. Ergo, if there's holding out, there is no common purpose. (I agree with the author that there's compensation.)

What she should have said was that if a pilot posts a flight that he wouldn't otherwise make without the passenger, then he'd be holding out, and that the service in question seems to encourage this behavior. Of course, that wouldn't have satisfied the FAA's desire to flatly state these services are illegal.

So what the letter seems to be missing is what attributes exactly of the airpooler service it is that the author believes constitutes "holding out." It can't be simply stating that "I'm going from A to B and you can come too," because that's only holding out if there's no common purpose.

NB: The letter concludes that the pilots in question would be in violation of part 119, not part 61.

^1 Before you point out that I added all the important parts, in my defense I had to because she left them out, but it's the only reasonable interpretation. There are only four elements of common carriage (1 holding out, 2 transport, 3 from place to place, 4 compensation), and three of them are not in dispute.

 

[Lindberg]

61.113 is specifically designed as an exception to the rule that a private pilot cannot receive compensation for flying. In that event, the common purpose test must be met.

The 61.113(c) exception has nothing to do with holding out AFAICT. Holding out is about whether or not you're operating a carrier.

 

[Henning]

I think it's probably a good thing to restrict these sites, simply because the first time one of these planes goes down, it might be WORSE for GA than had they not been permitted to begin with.

The general public has no clue about GA and generally expects the government to protect them from stuff they know nothing about.

It doesn't really "get worse" for GA, we're already viewed very poorly.

 

[dtuuri]

Hey all,

Matt from Flytenow here.

We analyzed their response, it's quite the weak argument and agree it's confusing.
It certainly harms all pilots looking to share costs, regardless of whether it's through social media or not.

Here is our response: http://blog.flytenow.com/missed-approach-faa-says-flytenow-go-around

Hey Matt,

It's as I thought it would turn out here and here.

For those of us pilots who aren't also lawyers, we don't get an appreciation for the FAA's stance on commercial "common carrier" status and all it implies until we actually start to work in that environment. Until then we see through the eyes of Part 61 privileges only. I'm just surprised that the FAA hasn't shut down "Angel Flights" too, for all the same reasons.

Again, if you want to use the world-wide-web to connect pilots with other pilots for sharing the experience of flight, as opposed to sharing transportation with mere "passengers", I'd think you would stand a better chance. But then, is there a market for that service?

dtuuri

 

[midlifeflyer]

Good rebuttal. Do you feel like Alice in Wonderland yet?

From a rebuttal by a party with a stake in the action doing its best to make it sound silly? Not likely.

Hard to argue that a general policy existing for more than 60 years is something new (See the Winton Letter issued the day after the AirPooler one). Equally hard to claim, "well, they didn't regulate internet providers before it was invented so why are they talking about it now?" (now there's an Alice scenario).

There may be good policy reasons for the FAA to have taken a different view, but the AirPooler and Wintonn letters, as a follow up to the 2011 Haberkorn Letter (one "might" be able to do it on Facebook, depending) is pretty consistent with the history of FAA interpretations and certificate actions in this area.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm just surprised that the FAA hasn't shut down "Angel Flights" too, for all the same reasons.

If you check the history, they did. or at least tried to.

In March 1993, the Chief Counsel issued an interpretation that Angel Flight was an operation that required a Part 135 operating certificate and that the pilots must meet Part 135 pilot requirements. The Chief Counsel backtracked a month later, strictly on political grounds, creating the charitable transportation exemption many of us use today.

Sometimes (although rarely) politics can be a good thing. The inquiry letter to the FAA was from Senator Phil Gramm. No surprise ow the quick turn-about happened.

 

[weilke]

If you check the history, they did. or at least tried to.

In March 1993, the Chief Counsel issued an interpretation that Angel Flight was an operation that required a Part 135 operating certificate and that the pilots must meet Part 135 pilot requirements. The Chief Counsel backtracked a month later, strictly on political grounds, creating the charitable transportation exemption many of us use today.

Sometimes (although rarely) politics can be a good thing. The inquiry letter to the FAA was from Senator Phil Gramm. No surprise ow the quick turn-about happened.

I wonder whether the Winton and McPherson letters are just a prelude to a similar political move regarding the airpooler issue. Now that the companies have the official word that 'the big meanie FAA is trying to quash internet innovation', they can go and purchase a couple of congress-critters to put pressure on the agency.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I wonder whether the Winton and McPherson letters are just a prelude to a similar political move regarding the airpooler issue. Now that the companies have the official word that 'the big meanie FAA is trying to quash internet innovation', they can go and purchase a couple of congress-critters to put pressure on the agency.

Certainly possible. Not quite sure, though, if it has the same pull at the heartstrings as charitable flights. Even in the humanitarian flight arena, the exception doesn't allow for any reimbursement of expenses in the absence of specific exemptions (which come with their own conditions). Hard to make the counter-argument that Angel Flight opens the door for abuse by folks trying to make an end run around the no-carrier regs. But is the A36 pilot filling his seats every weekend for a trip to the beach just a guy taking a few friends or a 134.5 operator trying to get back 5/6 of the operating costs of the flights (or 5/6 of the rental fees)? Does the FAA start tracking how many of those flights "the pilot was going to do anyway" to see how many get cancelled if the pilot doesn't get enough money?

And even the commercial pilot ability to engage in sightseeing flights without an operating certificate and undergone restrictions in recent years. And, of course, Colgan continues to have unfortunate fallout.

OTOH, where the Haberkorn "crack" for a Facebook post that doesn't reach a substantial segment of the public begins and the AirPooler "slammed door" closes it is a question that, in 2014 really needs to be answered in some way. I don't have a reasonable answer.

 

[Henning]

Where it won't fly on The Hill is that it has the potential to affect the airline industry.

 

[Palmpilot]

I think it's probably a good thing to restrict these sites, simply because the first time one of these planes goes down, it might be WORSE for GA than had they not been permitted to begin with.

The general public has no clue about GA and generally expects the government to protect them from stuff they know nothing about.

Several people have been using that argument, or something similar, in regard to various issues lately. The fact is that GA aircraft in the U.S. get in accidents several times a day, and there is a fatal accident roughly every other day, but it's rare for one of these accidents to result in draconian measures.

http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Safety-and-Technique/Accident-Analysis/Joseph-T-Nall-Report

 

[weilke]

Hard to make the counter-argument that Angel Flight opens the door for abuse by folks trying to make an end run around the no-carrier regs.

Some of the charity flying does get pretty close to it. Arguably, many of those patients would be better served by someone donating an airline ticket (or by a patient obtaining his care in the community rather than flying 1/2 way across the country for fairly routine stuff).

But is the A36 pilot filling his seats every weekend for a trip to the beach just a guy taking a few friends or a 134.5 operator trying to get back 5/6 of the operating costs of the flights (or 5/6 of the rental fees)? Does the FAA start tracking how many of those flights "the pilot was going to do anyway" to see how many get cancelled if the pilot doesn't get enough money?

I think this already happens, just not as traceable as with a website/app. Lots of 'common purpose' fishing trips heading up to canada.....

OTOH, where the Haberkorn "crack" for a Facebook post that doesn't reach a substantial segment of the public begins and the AirPooler "slammed door" closes it is a question that, in 2014 really needs to be answered in some way. I don't have a reasonable answer.

Well, the Winton letter seems to set the goalposts for anything put online firmly on the McPherson end of the spectrum.

 

[Palmpilot]

If you check the history, they did. or at least tried to.

In March 1993, the Chief Counsel issued an interpretation that Angel Flight was an operation that required a Part 135 operating certificate and that the pilots must meet Part 135 pilot requirements. The Chief Counsel backtracked a month later, strictly on political grounds, creating the charitable transportation exemption many of us use today.

Sometimes (although rarely) politics can be a good thing. The inquiry letter to the FAA was from Senator Phil Gramm. No surprise ow the quick turn-about happened.

I was under the impression that neither the pilots nor Angel Flight receive compensation for the flights. I see that the FAA's letter specifically states that if the flights do not involve compensation or hire, then there is no problem. I also notice that the letter mentions tax deductions as compensation, and I recall that the FAA backed off from that after there was some outcry about it.

 

[Henning]

Several people have been using that argument, or something similar, in regard to various issues lately. The fact is that GA aircraft in the U.S. get in accidents several times a day, and there is a fatal accident roughly every other day, but it's rare for one of these accidents to result in draconian measures.

http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Safety-and-Technique/Accident-Analysis/Joseph-T-Nall-Report

Right, but it comes down to the duty of care standards and if they are met under the new circumstances. The reason we draw the line at compensation is that it creates a contract for cartage. Different standards of duty of care apply, and it is the FAA's job to assure the public, and the insurers, that do not know you that you are capable of meeting that legal obligation.

With a free flight, then you fall under private carriage where they assume that everybody that flies with you knows you and makes their assumption of risk on that personal knowledge. That's where these connection services throw a wrench into the works, these people don't have the knowledge to make an informed assumption of risk on a flight they are paying carriage on. That is the point where government liability steps in. If you pay for carriage on a flight the FAA approves, then the person paying for carriage has the right to assume that the FAA has vetted the pilot and operation to that level, which they haven't. So if the FAA gave their blessing to this, then the FAA can be held negligent in an accident.

Personally I think the situation could be solved with a clear disclaimer and placard, "This pilot and aircraft have not been approved for commerce." But I am not as risk adverse as most lawyers.

 

[weilke]

I was under the impression that neither the pilots nor Angel Flight receive compensation for the flights. I see that the FAA's letter specifically states that if the flights do not involve compensation or hire, then there is no problem. I also notice that the letter mentions tax deductions as compensation, and I recall that the FAA backed off from that after there was some outcry about it.

That is what he said in the post you quoted.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I was under the impression that neither the pilots nor Angel Flight receive compensation for the flights. I see that the FAA's letter specifically states that if the flights do not involve compensation or hire, then there is no problem. I also notice that the letter mentions tax deductions as compensation, and I recall that the FAA backed off from that after there was some outcry about it.

Exactly what I said.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Several people have been using that argument, or something similar, in regard to various issues lately. The fact is that GA aircraft in the U.S. get in accidents several times a day, and there is a fatal accident roughly every other day, but it's rare for one of these accidents to result in draconian measures.

Think maybe its precisely because it only affects the pilots, their families and a few close friend who know them well?

 

[Alexb2000]

There are many examples of this already going on, the government doesn't seem to be able to stop it and somehow I doubt they will stop this. Of course we have mentioned Uber, but there are shipping sites like Uship.com with people transporting all kinds of things around the country without a Motor Carrier license. I had a welder picked up in FL and brought to Dallas for $300 in the back of some guys pickup. It wouldn't have made financial sense commercially shipped. So what's wrong with people helping each other out?

 

[weilke]

So what's wrong with people helping each other out?

The goverment doesn't get its cut. That is the main incentive to enforce these kinds of regulations (7.5% excise tax on tickets, $8.70 facilities tax, $4 segment fee, $5.60 9-11 fee, $4.50 facility fee).

I am sure there are taxes motor carriers have to pay.

 

[Palmpilot]

Think maybe its precisely because it only affects the pilots, their families and a few close friend who know them well?

There have been GA accidents that hurt or killed people on the ground, but didn't result in measures taken against GA. It seems like the public only cares when somebody famous or an airliner full of passengers gets taken out.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Some of the charity flying does get pretty close to it. Arguably, many of those patients would be better served by someone donating an airline ticket (or by a patient obtaining his care in the community rather than flying 1/2 way across the country for fairly routine stuff).



I think this already happens, just not as traceable as with a website/app. Lots of 'common purpose' fishing trips heading up to canada.....



Well, the Winton letter seems to set the goalposts for anything put online firmly on the McPherson end of the spectrum.

I dont think it necessarily does.

 

[David7700]

The 61.113(c) exception has nothing to do with holding out AFAICT. Holding out is about whether or not you're operating a carrier.

First the FAA looks at whether the action is commercial carriage (119). If it is, then the FAA looks to the exception (61.113(c)). When these rules against pilot compensation were first enacted, they recognized the need for an exception for private pilots who were bring reimbursed for personal flights. One of those exceptions is the now 14 CFR 61.113(c).

With AirPooler, they maintained there was no pilot compensation. That was incorrect. The FAA said that a pilot cannot look to the narrow exception of 61.113(c) to say that there is no compensation under common carriage rules.

Airpooler argued that the test for compensation under 119 was the "major enterprise for profit test". The FAA's response was that if there was compensation such that 61.113(c) came into play, then the issue of compensation was not it doubt. So the FAA looked to the other prongs of commercial carriage under 119. The FAA found all 4 of the elements of common carriage to be met. Holding out, the FAA said, was taking place even though the pilot had chosen the destination.

Based on prior interpretations, I cannot see how this is not holding out to a segment of the public that transportation is available.

 

[poadeleted20]

But neither do pilots do that on the current batch of flight-sharing sites. The way it works is that pilots post flights that they're planning to take anyway, and anyone who wants to go to the same destination at the same time is invited to sign up and share costs.

If you post your offer on an internet web site viewable by anybody with an internet connection, you've made the offer to the general public. By this letter, that's how the FAA Chief Counsel sees it, and unless you're willing to try it, get busted, appeal it to the ALJ, NTSB, and finally US Court of Appeals (and odds are they'll side with the FAA anyway), that's the way it is.

 

[poadeleted20]

As I said above, there is a public groundswell for these great ride sharing businesses. There is not the same enthusiasm for flight sharing. And with driving, it's state by state. With flying, it's the Feds. And it'd be easy for them to send notice of proposed certificate actions to all pilots registered with a flight-share company.

Personally, I think what will put those operations out of business will be insurance. Auto and property insurers aren't going to sit still very long if someone gets hurt in a "ride-shared" car or rented apartment and the insurer has to pay big. They're going to put clauses in their policies excluding coverage for paying passengers or paying occupants in such deals, and that will be the end of that.

However, that's not the situation for us. Everyone knows aviation is different. For example, why do you think auto manufacturers have to pay the bill on recalls but we have to pay for AD compliance? In this case, the FAA has statutory direction and authority from Congress to hold the providers of air transportation for hire/compensation to a substantially higher standard than private flyers, and this is just one example of how they do that.

Further, I don't see any massive groundswell of voters complaining to Congress about this, either. Private flyers make up only about 1/5 of 1 percent of the voting public, and that's not going to stir Congress to action. Even Senator Inhofe isn't going to demand that the FAA allow private flyers to offer air transportation for hire to the public in their own planes -- just to explosive an issue.

 

[poadeleted20]

You spoke of offering "the unlimited opportunity to fly somewhere that you weren't going anyway to the general public or a subset of the general public". My point is that these sites don't do that. They offer an opportunity to fly when and where the pilot IS going to fly anyway.

And that differs from United Airlines how? The point is that you're confusing the "common purpose" requirement to allow PP's to accept compensation under 61.113(c) with the issue of holding out to the general public in violation of Part 119. Two separate issues, and you have to comply with both to be legal. IOW, with AirPooler, the fact that you're holding out to the general public an offer of air transportation for hire kills the deal even before you get into the question of whether there's "common purpose" or not.

 

[poadeleted20]

Here's a $100 idea:

How about the site does not show available flights?. The pilot enters flights he plans to make (destination and dates). This flights are not visible or searchable.
Passengers enter travel plans (also destination and dates).

If there's a match, the site connects the two.

Doesn't matter because...

I guess it could still be seen as holding out, but at least it looks more common purposy :wink2:

Point is, you have to cover both requirements -- there must be common purpose, and you cannot hold out to the general public. Since the FAA has made clear that these accessible-to-all sites are considered holding out to the general public, common purpose is irrelevant and the issue is dead.

 

[poadeleted20]

No, there's a difference, a Travel Agent is reselling a legal product (the ticket), The website is creating an illegal one (the ticket).

I don't see that -- AFAIK, AirPooler isn't selling tickets, just bringing people together. But either way, neither AirPooler nor the travel agent is providing the air transportation -- the pilot or airline is, and that's the operation requiring FAA certification as a commercial operator.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think it's probably a good thing to restrict these sites, simply because the first time one of these planes goes down, it might be WORSE for GA than had they not been permitted to begin with.

The general public has no clue about GA and generally expects the government to protect them from stuff they know nothing about.

And that's why the FAA doesn't want private flyers offering air transportation for ire to the general public. What you offer to friend/family is another thing entirely -- they are assumed to know you well enough to decide if they want to put their lives in your hands. Likewise, if someone isn't paying for something, they are assumed to realize no assurance beyond that for which they paid (i.e., nothing).

 

[poadeleted20]

On the contrary, the common-purpose test is what determines whether or not you are holding out.

[A] private pilot may not rely on that narrow exception [in 61.113(c)] to avoid the compensation component of common carriage. For this reason, the FAA has required a private pilot to have a common purpose with his or her passengers and must have his or her own reason for traveling to the destination [to avoid holding out, because all the other elements are met].^1
​

It appears Lindberg has inserted language into the FAA's letter, offering an assumption the FAA has not stated. Holding out and common purpose are entirely separate issues governed by Part 119 and 61.113(c) respectively. This means you have a two-pronged test in order to be legal -- you cannot be holding out to the general public, and you must have common purpose with your passenger. Compliance with one does not create compliance with the other, and it is the "holding out" issue which sank the AirPooler concept.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you check the history, they did. or at least tried to.

In March 1993, the Chief Counsel issued an interpretation that Angel Flight was an operation that required a Part 135 operating certificate and that the pilots must meet Part 135 pilot requirements. The Chief Counsel backtracked a month later, strictly on political grounds, creating the charitable transportation exemption many of us use today.

Nevertheless, Angel Flight and the like are still not allowed to take money from passengers -- not one red cent.

 

[poadeleted20]

Several people have been using that argument, or something similar, in regard to various issues lately. The fact is that GA aircraft in the U.S. get in accidents several times a day, and there is a fatal accident roughly every other day, but it's rare for one of these accidents to result in draconian measures.

http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Safety-and-Technique/Accident-Analysis/Joseph-T-Nall-Report

But any GA aircraft mishap (even non-fatal) makes the news across the country. Not so with vehicular accidents unless there's something pretty special or spectacular about them (celebrities, mass casualties, school bus, etc). That's why I don't see Congress telling the FAA to change this rule.

 

[Palmpilot]

I don't see that -- AFAIK, AirPooler isn't selling tickets, just bringing people together. But either way, neither AirPooler nor the travel agent is providing the air transportation -- the pilot or airline is, and that's the operation requiring FAA certification as a commercial operator.

Businesses that make their income via Internet matching of private pilots with expense sharing passengers is a new enough phenomenon that I doubt that there is much case law on the activities of those businesses. Consequently, I'm not confident that it is possible to predict whether the businesses will be judged to be more like travel agents, or more like air transportation providers who are using private pilots to get around Part 119, etc.

 

[poadeleted20]

Businesses that make their income via Internet matching of private pilots with expense sharing passengers is a new enough phenomenon that I doubt that there is much case law on the activities of those businesses. Consequently, I'm not confident that it is possible to predict whether the businesses will be judged to be more like travel agents, or more like air transportation providers who are using private pilots to get around Part 119, etc.

If they were being judged as air transportation providers, the FAA would already have served notice on AirPooler, probably with a Letter of Proposed Action including a hefty civil penalty for violating Part 119. So, I don't see them going after the web sites that way, just the pilots who violate the FAA regulations.

 

[Palmpilot]

But any GA aircraft mishap (even non-fatal) makes the news across the country.

I'm not seeing reports of several GA accidents per day in the national news media, and accidents that only appear in local news media seldom if ever result in new laws or regulations.

Not so with vehicular accidents unless there's something pretty special or spectacular about them (celebrities, mass casualties, school bus, etc). That's why I don't see Congress telling the FAA to change this rule.

I agree that Congress is unlikely to mandate a change in the applicable regs or interpretations.

 

[Palmpilot]

If they were being judged as air transportation providers, the FAA would already have served notice on AirPooler, probably with a Letter of Proposed Action including a hefty civil penalty for violating Part 119. So, I don't see them going after the web sites that way, just the pilots who violate the FAA regulations.

I don't know about you, but my crystal ball never has worked worth a darn.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Nevertheless, Angel Flight and the like are still not allowed to take money from passengers -- not one red cent.

Damn! I sure wish I had said

Even in the humanitarian flight arena, the exception doesn't allow for any reimbursement of expenses in the absence of specific exemptions (which come with their own conditions).

 

[weilke]

Damn! I sure wish I had said

Ron referred to the charity which is still not allowed to take money from the pax. Your comment seemed to refer to the pilot, who is allowed to receive reimbursement under the restrictive terms of some of the waivers.

Two different issues.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron referred to the charity which is still not allowed to take money from the pax. Your comment seemed to refer to the pilot, who is allowed to receive reimbursement under the restrictive terms of some of the waivers.

Two different issues.

Yup. And that's the problem with AirPooler -- the passengers are paying for the ride. Now, if AirPooler wanted to reimburse the pilots for their expenses, and then donate a free ride to the passengers...

...but I don't see that as a real viable business model.