"FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies"

[poadeleted20]

Honestly how much does the general public use ridesharing websites? Methinks its mostly pilots.

AirPooler seemed to have as its business model a lot wider audience than that, and I believe it is to that the FAA was reacting. Note also that it appears the FAA isn't as concerned with who actually uses them as they are with who might use them, i.e., who has access to them.

 

[Brad Z]

Another stupid rule that has nothing to do with safety.

As a commercial pilot yourself, you should understand the traps associated with get there itis, and the desire to fulfill the mission for your customers.

It's another to put a 100 hour, young, "starving" PP in a position where he's offering seats to the beach. On e trip home, weather is moving in, but he doesn't want to disappoint his passengers who may give him low feedback for canceling the trip. It's one thing to disappoint friends and family, but strangers, who may be very persuasive, and may not understand the limitations of GA, may put undue pressure on the pilot to attempt the flight.

History has show this time and time again, and it's why we have part 135 today. It has everything to,do with safety.

 

[Henning]

Another stupid rule that has nothing to do with safety.

Well, yes and no, it's about Consumer Safety, if not personal safety. The accident rate won't likely change, but the type of people who are involved may, and even more importantly, the government's liability exposure changes. Like I said before, the consumer has the right to expect if they pay for a flight, that flight is operated at the same FAA level of standard as any flight they pay for, and these flights don't meet that standard in either equipment or pilot categories.

 

[Henning]

Honestly how much does the general public use ridesharing websites? Methinks its mostly pilots.

If there was a way to assure that, the FAA may have a different view, they never seemed to care about FBO and flight school bulletin boards, or the EAA board for rides to Airventure.

I always questioned these operations as they always seem to fail multiple tests not only in the letter of the law, but more importantly, in the (correct) spirit of the law. If a person is paying for carriage from someone they don't know, they have the right to expect that the pilot and plane they are getting on meets the minimum standards for a commercial flight. This can't be shown in these operations.

Since their marketing is not strictly targeted to other pilots and they are acting as an agent holding out to the public, in my view these operations are not legal, and from the consumer perspective I think they're stupid.

Now, should they change the <6000 MGW commercial single pilot single plane 135 process? Well, it's not that tough already. The killer of the whole deal is the price of insurance, you have to fly a lot to make it worthwhile.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Another stupid rule that has nothing to do with safety.

I believe you are now flying 135. What this is really about is yet another way to circumvent Part 135 so that anyone with an airplane and a PP license can now be an air operator without complying with 135.

How would you like to now be competing with every Tom, Dick and Harry out there running "charter" with their beat up 172's, no insurance, no maintenance, etc. Your company spends a lot of money to stay in compliance while your new competitors have to do nothing.

All of this "ride share" BS is just yet another attempt to get around 135.

 

[David7700]

I believe you are now flying 135. What this is really about is yet another way to circumvent Part 135 so that anyone with an airplane and a PP license can now be an air operator without complying with 135.

How would you like to now be competing with every Tom, Dick and Harry out there running "charter" with their beat up 172's, no insurance, no maintenance, etc. Your company spends a lot of money to stay in compliance while your new competitors have to do nothing.

All of this "ride share" BS is just yet another attempt to get around 135.

It is and it isn't. The operators in the ride-share situation are not "making money" in the sense of turning a profit on the flight. They are merely subsidizing or receiving a one half contribution for the costs of the flight (though these could be misrepresented to passengers, I suppose, etc.). In this sense, there is no profit motive.

That being said, I understand the FAA position that if the public is paying money, it is expecting a high level or standard of care from pilot training and health to airplane maintenance and inspection.

 

[RotorAndWing]

It is and it isn't. The operators in the ride-share situation are not "making money" in the sense of turning a profit on the flight. They are merely subsidizing or receiving a one half contribution for the costs of the flight (though these could be misrepresented to passengers, I suppose, etc.). In this sense, there is no profit motive.

That being said, I understand the FAA position that if the public is paying money, it is expecting a high level or standard of care from pilot training and health to airplane maintenance and inspection.

I understand what you are saying, but I still contend it's a end run around 135. Let this pass and the next guy will get even more creative.

 

[bnt83]

I believe you are now flying 135. What this is really about is yet another way to circumvent Part 135 so that anyone with an airplane and a PP license can now be an air operator without complying with 135.

How would you like to now be competing with every Tom, Dick and Harry out there running "charter" with their beat up 172's, no insurance, no maintenance, etc. Your company spends a lot of money to stay in compliance while your new competitors have to do nothing.

All of this "ride share" BS is just yet another attempt to get around 135.

You mean no insurance, prop hasn't been overhauled in 15 years, engine hasn't been overhauled in 30 years and is 1000 passed hourly TBO, undocumented prop strike, unapproved parts and alterations airliner?

I have a feeling 70% or more of general aviation aircraft couldn't come close to passing 135 maintenance standards.

 

[RotorAndWing]

You mean no insurance, prop hasn't been overhauled in 15 years, engine hasn't been overhauled in 30 years and is 1000 passed hourly TBO, undocumented prop strike, unapproved parts and alterations airliner?

I have a feeling 70% or more of general aviation aircraft couldn't come close to passing 135 maintenance standards.

Yep.

Add to that pilot standards (or lack thereof) and it gets even more interesting.

 

[bnt83]

Yep.

Add to that pilot standards (or lack thereof) and it gets even more interesting.

Its amazing what a 135 operator goes through. Why did it take 30 hours to replace an aileron cable? Because its was required to be inspected by three people...

The burn cert binder on these things are larger than all my Cessna 150 records combined.

 

[Everskyward]

In the case of individual pilots taking money or other compensation from passengers in return for flying them somewhere, the "excruciating detail" is very important, because the FAA prohibits such activity outside of a few, very limited exceptions. Therefore, if you want to take money from people for flying them places, you'd better know the narrow limits of those exceptions in that "excruciating detail" so you don't get it wrong -- especially if you're going to advertise on the internet for all the world to see.

Or you can just not take money or other compensation from passengers, and then you don't have to worry about any "excruciating details" at all.

I think sharing expenses is actually quite common and no one much worries about it. At least I didn't when I was a private pilot.

And for me, Occam's Razor applies -- I stick with the simplest solution, namely, not taking money from passengers.

But that is you, and in reading this board you always seem to take the most conservative view on everything even when it goes far beyond what the regs require.

 

[midlifeflyer]

AC 120-12a dated 1986

In part -

b. A "holding out" may be accomplished through the actions of agents, agencies, or salesmen who may, themselves , procure passenger traffic from the general public and collect them into groups to be carried by the operator. It is particularly important to determine if such agents or salesmen are in the business of selling transportation to the traveling public not only through
the '*group*' approach but also by individual ticketing on known common carriers.

Seems the FAA is consistent in their opinion.

Even more consistent than that. Look at the Winton letter (previously linked) that follows the MacPherson one. It refers back to a 1950 enforcement proceeding describing holding out.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Honestly how much does the general public use ridesharing websites? Methinks its mostly pilots.

We don't know the answer to that. Testing it is part of the idea a a new entrepreneurial model.

 

[onwards]

The more I read the thread, the more I learn (honestly, not sarcastically).

I want to try and follow the money. The primary argument against this being successful is that it is not profitable, since it is still limited by the pro rata rule. I think that's a superficial argument at best, and here is why, from the profit motive perspective of each party to the transaction:

1) the pilot: while they could find people to fly with them to share costs on their own, this makes it a lot easier, and thus introduces a motivation to publish their planned flights in case someone wants to join in. I never heard of Airpooler before this, but if I knew it was legal, I would post my flights there too, because I love taking people with me and it would be nice to offset some of the cost of flying doing something I love. Money-wise, I would end up with more money than I otherwise would, so it is profitable for me.

2) the passenger: I get to fly on a little plane which is neat, and I get to pay less than I would to a commercial carrier. There is only a segment of the population that would think this way, that is, the more adventurous, but it is a decent-sized segment. Moneywise, if I needed to get somewhere anyway, I would get to do something cool and pay less, meaning more money in my pocket.

2a) Passenger, deux: this may be my only way to get to my destination without driving a car. Or this may get me much closer to where I want to go, which I could not do with an airline. Or this may be the only way for me to get there on very short notice without paying through the nose to the airliners. Or... there are many common scenarios, as we all know.

3) Airpooler: a broker with no liability and a website. The profit motive here is pretty clear.

I do think that like Uber and Lyft, this has the potential to upset commercial aviation on short local flights.

Now comes the question: is it in the FAA's interest to try and limit this?

I don't know. I am a big supporter of disruptive business models, and thus of Uber and Lyft, and my heart is definitely on Airpoole's side. The safety issue needs to be addressed, but I don't think the accident rate would go up. The main challenge will come, of course, after the first fatal that was arranged via Airpooler, which is why I think they did not fully think their model through; they needed to arrange a form of a rider to be offered via the site (or maybe even made mandatory) that both pilot and passengers could pay for as part of doing the arrangement. I'm sure there is an insurance company out there that would have been interested.

The FAA could also be more transparent and limit these to, say, non-Bravo and may be non-Charlie airports. Then there would be no direct competition with the airlines, and it might be easier for them to accept.

The blanket ruling really does seem like somebody is stuck in a bureaucratic mindset and enjoying their power to issue rules a wee-bit too much. I hope Airpooler finds a way to alter their model a bit and appeal.

 

[CFI.William]

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.

I receive daily news alerts from Google on airplane crashes. You can configure this too. Then you'll see just how many GA airplanes go down nearly everyday...and often for stupid reasons too.

 

[Everskyward]

I believe you are now flying 135. What this is really about is yet another way to circumvent Part 135 so that anyone with an airplane and a PP license can now be an air operator without complying with 135.

How would you like to now be competing with every Tom, Dick and Harry out there running "charter" with their beat up 172's, no insurance, no maintenance, etc. Your company spends a lot of money to stay in compliance while your new competitors have to do nothing.

All of this "ride share" BS is just yet another attempt to get around 135.

I'd be willing to bet that there is a quite a bit of this going on in Alaska already, only they use the don't ask don't tell method and don't put up slick websites.

 

[CFI.William]

I think people are going to do what they want to do regardless of the interpretation. That's the nature of Part 91 pilots that I have observed in my years in aviation. There are pilots who are just ignorant or are blatant in their disregard to regulations. Are these the pilots we want to be out there providing air transportation services? Pilots who are not subjected to drug testing, recurrent training, proficiency checks, etc. I don't. I don't even want these pilots in the skies doing personal flying.

I wonder how many pilots will want to test this interpretation and 61.113 with their pilot certificates. I suspect not too many will want to flush $10,000+ in pilot training and countless hours of study on principle.

I'll give props to AirPooler for trying to be innovative, but as it stands, I think it's pretty clear that AirPooler's days are numbered.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I receive daily news alerts from Google on airplane crashes. You can configure this too. Then you'll see just how many GA airplanes go down nearly everyday...and often for stupid reasons too.

You don't mean the same bad pilot decision-making and skills the GA accident stats show?

But, of course, that couldn't possibly include the pilots who would be offering seats on their flights to cut the cost of operation!

 

[Palmpilot]

I think people are going to do what they want to do regardless of the interpretation...

I would bet that most pilots don't even know that Chief Counsel letters exist, or where to find them.

If the FAA really wanted pilots to pay attention to them, they should require it to be included in the private pilot curriculum, or put it in the AIM.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I would bet that most pilots don't even know that Chief Counsel letters exist, or where to find them.

If the FAA really wanted pilots to pay attention to them, they should require it to be included in the private pilot curriculum, or put it in the AIM.

You can also include most Inspectors. These interpretations are for legal's use, not for field Inspectors.

 

[Palmpilot]

You can also include most Inspectors. These interpretations are for legal's use, not for field Inspectors.

Isn't that equivalent to saying that the FAA doesn't want people to know what's legal and what isn't until after the fact?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Isn't that equivalent to saying that the FAA doesn't want people to know what's legal and what isn't until after the fact?

No.

In most facets of life the only time case law comes up is when you are dealing with a legal matter. I doubt most laymen have knowledge of all case law in everyday dealings.

We have some on this board that's convinced Inspectors will write violations based upon "interpretations", which simply isn't the case. If the Inspector feels there is a violation of a regulation he will consult his manager who will probably give the RC a call and discuss. It's at this point the Attorney will make the call to proceed or drop it.

Let me put it this way: If an Inspector writes an EIR and starts using CC letters as reference, he is going to get it tossed back at him to rewrite.

 

[JeffDG]

No.

In most facets of life the only time case law comes up is when you are dealing with a legal matter. I doubt most laymen have knowledge of all case law in everyday dealings.

We have some on this board that's convinced Inspectors will write violations based upon "interpretations", which simply isn't the case. If the Inspector feels there is a violation of a regulation he will consult his manager who will probably give the RC a call and discuss. It's at this point the Attorney will make the call to proceed or drop it.

Let me put it this way: If an Inspector writes an EIR and starts using CC letters as reference, he is going to get it tossed back at him to rewrite.

That's kind of how I would think it would work too...Inspector says "That violates 91.999!" Checks it with the Regional Counsel and sees that the CC has written a letter that is on point that says, nope...Inspector drops the matter.

Checking with the lawyers is a last-step/quality control, not a first step "let's see what we can hang him with" step.

 

[Palmpilot]

...Let me put it this way: If an Inspector writes an EIR and starts using CC letters as reference, he is going to get it tossed back at him to rewrite.

What's an EIR?

 

[RotorAndWing]

What's an EIR?

Enforcement Investigation Report.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think sharing expenses is actually quite common and no one much worries about it. At least I didn't when I was a private pilot.

I'm sure it's common, but I don't think "no one" much worries about it, and anyway, I thought the question wasn't whether people are doing illegal things, but rather whether these things are illegal.

But that is you, and in reading this board you always seem to take the most conservative view on everything even when it goes far beyond what the regs require.

That's your opinion, but at least in this case, the FAA seems to have said the rules mean what I've said all along. In any event, I will always recommend that folks take a conservative approach to FAR compliance (especially on this issue since the FAA has always been so strict in its interpretations of these regulations) because I don't ever want anyone saying, "Hey, Ron, you said this was legal, but now I'm in trouble for doing it."

 

[poadeleted20]

The more I read the thread, the more I learn (honestly, not sarcastically).

I want to try and follow the money. The primary argument against this being successful is that it is not profitable, since it is still limited by the pro rata rule. I think that's a superficial argument at best, and here is why, from the profit motive perspective of each party to the transaction:

1) the pilot: while they could find people to fly with them to share costs on their own, this makes it a lot easier, and thus introduces a motivation to publish their planned flights in case someone wants to join in. I never heard of Airpooler before this, but if I knew it was legal, I would post my flights there too, because I love taking people with me and it would be nice to offset some of the cost of flying doing something I love. Money-wise, I would end up with more money than I otherwise would, so it is profitable for me.

2) the passenger: I get to fly on a little plane which is neat, and I get to pay less than I would to a commercial carrier. There is only a segment of the population that would think this way, that is, the more adventurous, but it is a decent-sized segment. Moneywise, if I needed to get somewhere anyway, I would get to do something cool and pay less, meaning more money in my pocket.

2a) Passenger, deux: this may be my only way to get to my destination without driving a car. Or this may get me much closer to where I want to go, which I could not do with an airline. Or this may be the only way for me to get there on very short notice without paying through the nose to the airliners. Or... there are many common scenarios, as we all know.

3) Airpooler: a broker with no liability and a website. The profit motive here is pretty clear.

I do think that like Uber and Lyft, this has the potential to upset commercial aviation on short local flights.

Now comes the question: is it in the FAA's interest to try and limit this?

I don't know. I am a big supporter of disruptive business models, and thus of Uber and Lyft, and my heart is definitely on Airpoole's side. The safety issue needs to be addressed, but I don't think the accident rate would go up. The main challenge will come, of course, after the first fatal that was arranged via Airpooler, which is why I think they did not fully think their model through; they needed to arrange a form of a rider to be offered via the site (or maybe even made mandatory) that both pilot and passengers could pay for as part of doing the arrangement. I'm sure there is an insurance company out there that would have been interested.

The FAA could also be more transparent and limit these to, say, non-Bravo and may be non-Charlie airports. Then there would be no direct competition with the airlines, and it might be easier for them to accept.

The blanket ruling really does seem like somebody is stuck in a bureaucratic mindset and enjoying their power to issue rules a wee-bit too much. I hope Airpooler finds a way to alter their model a bit and appeal.

You're confusing this with economic regulation issues, and that's not what it's about. It's strictly about protecting the public from getting into flight operations with lower levels of safety (much lower, in most cases) than the pay-for-air-transport operations they're used to using without having sufficient knowledge and understanding to be able to judge the risks for themselves. And that's part of the FAA's basic charter from Congress.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think people are going to do what they want to do regardless of the interpretation. That's the nature of Part 91 pilots that I have observed in my years in aviation.

True, but they usually don't advertise their illegal activities to the general public (and when they do, the FAA seems to find out rather often). So, since this is about advertising to the general public, I don't foresee many folks doing this in violation of the regulations as the Chief Counsel has interpreted them on this point. What they do quietly and privately with friends and family is not affected by this letter, and I see no reason to believe anyone will stop doing that on the basis of this letter.

 

[Henning]

I'd be willing to bet that there is a quite a bit of this going on in Alaska already, only they use the don't ask don't tell method and don't put up slick websites.

Well, yeah, in Alaskan communities you'll know when someone in town is flying out and you may catch a ride for some gas money, but the provisions are in the FARs to allow specifically for that kind of stuff. "Need supplies from town" is common purpose. The rules allow for community utility no worries. At that level the FAA has the right to assume that you know who you are dealing with and are able to give informed consent to flying with them and are not acting as a consumer of a service. He wasn't selling you a ride, he was taking you along for some gas money.

 

[David7700]

I understand what you are saying, but I still contend it's a end run around 135. Let this pass and the next guy will get even more creative.

And I am agreeing with you!

 

[David7700]

The more I read the thread, the more I learn (honestly, not sarcastically).

I want to try and follow the money. The primary argument against this being successful is that it is not profitable, since it is still limited by the pro rata rule. I think that's a superficial argument at best, and here is why, from the profit motive perspective of each party to the transaction:

1) the pilot: while they could find people to fly with them to share costs on their own, this makes it a lot easier, and thus introduces a motivation to publish their planned flights in case someone wants to join in. I never heard of Airpooler before this, but if I knew it was legal, I would post my flights there too, because I love taking people with me and it would be nice to offset some of the cost of flying doing something I love. Money-wise, I would end up with more money than I otherwise would, so it is profitable for me.

2) the passenger: I get to fly on a little plane which is neat, and I get to pay less than I would to a commercial carrier. There is only a segment of the population that would think this way, that is, the more adventurous, but it is a decent-sized segment. Moneywise, if I needed to get somewhere anyway, I would get to do something cool and pay less, meaning more money in my pocket.

2a) Passenger, deux: this may be my only way to get to my destination without driving a car. Or this may get me much closer to where I want to go, which I could not do with an airline. Or this may be the only way for me to get there on very short notice without paying through the nose to the airliners. Or... there are many common scenarios, as we all know.

3) Airpooler: a broker with no liability and a website. The profit motive here is pretty clear.

I do think that like Uber and Lyft, this has the potential to upset commercial aviation on short local flights.

Now comes the question: is it in the FAA's interest to try and limit this?

I don't know. I am a big supporter of disruptive business models, and thus of Uber and Lyft, and my heart is definitely on Airpoole's side. The safety issue needs to be addressed, but I don't think the accident rate would go up. The main challenge will come, of course, after the first fatal that was arranged via Airpooler, which is why I think they did not fully think their model through; they needed to arrange a form of a rider to be offered via the site (or maybe even made mandatory) that both pilot and passengers could pay for as part of doing the arrangement. I'm sure there is an insurance company out there that would have been interested.

The FAA could also be more transparent and limit these to, say, non-Bravo and may be non-Charlie airports. Then there would be no direct competition with the airlines, and it might be easier for them to accept.

The blanket ruling really does seem like somebody is stuck in a bureaucratic mindset and enjoying their power to issue rules a wee-bit too much. I hope Airpooler finds a way to alter their model a bit and appeal.

I agree with a lot of the "what if" in your post. It's be great to share the costs and introduce people to aviation at the same time. THe cost of GA is high, and to defray those costs would be great!

Regarding the bureaucratic mindset you mention, the FAA was not asked to think outside th box and come up with new regulations to allow a new business model (as with drones--look at how long that is taking). The FAA was asked to interpret existing regulations to see whether this new-fangled activity was permitted. And existing regulations say no.

 

[David7700]

I receive daily news alerts from Google on airplane crashes. You can configure this too. Then you'll see just how many GA airplanes go down nearly everyday...and often for stupid reasons too.

[SIZE=+2]A[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]CCIDENT [/SIZE][SIZE=+2]S[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]YNOPSES[/SIZE] - by month

 

[David7700]

No.

In most facets of life the only time case law comes up is when you are dealing with a legal matter. I doubt most laymen have knowledge of all case law in everyday dealings.

We have some on this board that's convinced Inspectors will write violations based upon "interpretations", which simply isn't the case. If the Inspector feels there is a violation of a regulation he will consult his manager who will probably give the RC a call and discuss. It's at this point the Attorney will make the call to proceed or drop it.

Let me put it this way: If an Inspector writes an EIR and starts using CC letters as reference, he is going to get it tossed back at him to rewrite.

And that cuts both ways, too, because if a decent inspector wants to give a really exemplary pilot (who is just in an unfortunate situation) a break, he/she can ignore those interpretations, too.

 

[David7700]

Interesting Blog Post by Robert Goyer. I do not know what "expired statute" he is referring to.


FAA Oversteps in Ride-Sharing Decision

The FAA's recent opinion that ride-sharing programs offered by two startups are not legal should give us all pause. The two companies, Flytenow and AirPooler, offered similar programs that allowed pilots to accept a share of the costs of the flight in return for giving rides to people who needed to get somewhere.

How it works is simple, and it should be perfectly legal.

For instance, yesterday I flew the Cirrus from Southern Ohio to Central Florida for meetings. I was solo, but had I used one of the websites to find someone nearby who needed a ride to Orlando, I could have given them a lift and had them share the costs of the flight with me. (My being a commercial pilot probably complicates things — when it comes to the FAA rulings on flights for hire, I guarantee you that it complicates things so much that you'd get a different opinion from every FAA person you asked about it — but let's say for the sake of this conversation that I'm just a private pilot.)

Cool, right? They get a ride in a super cool single avoiding security lines and that transfer in Atlanta or Charlotte. My flight yesterday was 3:45 nonstop. Sweet. The airlines would have taken 6 hours not counting the initial drive to the big airport. Had my travel companion been my next-door neighbor or my dentist's cousin, it would have been no big deal, perfectly legal. As private pilots we can have our rides share actual costs of the flight. That the flight needs to have a shared purpose is a red herring. Going to the same town for separate reasons is exactly how my friends and I travel in my Cirrus right now. I do business, they play golf. Our shared purpose is to go to a great town for a great purpose using a great mode.

But what the FAA said here is baffling. The only reason we can imagine that they ruled that way is they are afraid of the internet, which has the power to help pilots like you and me find people to ride along and share costs.

Now why this activity should be legal when it’s done in a casual way and why it’s illegal when one uses a website to do it is beyond me. The fact that the FAA based its opinion not on the current law but on an expired statute shows that it knows it’s completely out of line here. It also exposes the level of ... I hate to have to say it, but in this case, one could make a strong argument that an agency that knowingly rules on a case in a way that makes its conservative position stronger despite not having the legal basis for it is corrupt. It is an abuse of power.

Is it safe to let the average Joe ride with a private pilot on a trip in that guy's Cherokee? Well, the FAA lets the average Joe do this every day of every year and twice on Sundays. The difference is the web platform that allows for such a program to work gives the FAA the sense that this is some kind of commercial operation. It's not, at least not any more than is currently allowed.

If the FAA doesn't like that state of affairs, they should change the regs and not issue opinions arbitrarily and with utter disregard for the rule of law.

This might seem like a minor issue, but it's not. It represents a culture within the FAA in which staffers make decisions based not on safety or law but on what solidifies their power and position.

Enough. I challenge our friends at our friends at AOPA, EAA, GAMA and HAI to show that they represent us pilots and tell the FAA that we won't stand for this kind of abuse of power. It's a new age, one of transparency and accountability. It's time the FAA woke up to that fact.

My response:

I'm confused as to what the expired statute is that you are referring to, Robert.

I agree with you that it is a shame these activities aren't permitted under current regulation, but I don't see the FAA's position deviating from one they've held since the 1950's. In fact, the MacPherson - Jones Day letter is not much more of an extension of the Haberkorn Letter of Interpretation.

The FAA has been consistent that 61.113 is a narrow exception to the rule that private pilots may not transport passengers or property for compensation. If the four "tests" or "prongs" of common carriage are met, then the exception of 61.113 does not apply, and the activity falls under 119. Common purpose does not come into play if part 119 is applicable. Common purpose is only a determination to be considered under 61.113. Holding out is one of the four prongs of the common carriage test. The flight share companies fail the "holding out" test, so the activity cannot fall under 61.113 and common purpose need not be discussed. Common purpose is irrelevant.

Holding out is offering a flight to the public or some segment of the public. The FAA has said that posting on a bulletin board at the FBO or posting on FB could constitute holding out. Where holding out occurs, the protection of 61.113 cannot be had. There is no bright line rule of what constitutes holding out. The FAA has said that holding out is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. That is why most of the arrangements for cost-sharing happen quietly among friends.

The other three prongs of common carriage are easily met: 2. transporting people or property 2. from one place to another 3. for compensation. There need not be profit motive--just compensation.

I agree that it would be nice if a flight share company exception could be added to 61.113, but I think it would take a lot of public pressure for that to happen. And I do not see that public pressure for flight share companies (not as with Uber and Lyft, or to use an FAA example, the drone industry). Such an exception would make the skyrocketing cost of GA, an entry barrier to many, easier to handle and more accessible to many. It will take legislative action to make that happen, however. And many will argue that the public is not protected when Part 119 rules about pilot training and certification and aircraft certification standards are not being met.

 

[Everskyward]

Well, yeah, in Alaskan communities you'll know when someone in town is flying out and you may catch a ride for some gas money, but the provisions are in the FARs to allow specifically for that kind of stuff. "Need supplies from town" is common purpose. The rules allow for community utility no worries. At that level the FAA has the right to assume that you know who you are dealing with and are able to give informed consent to flying with them and are not acting as a consumer of a service. He wasn't selling you a ride, he was taking you along for some gas money.

I'm also willing to bet people don't always have a common purpose, say, flying a friend somewhere as a favor that you weren't originally planning to go. Like you would do in a car, without a second thought.

 

[Henning]

I'm also willing to bet people don't always have a common purpose, say, flying a friend somewhere as a favor that you weren't originally planning to go. Like you would do in a car, without a second thought.

Of course, nobody really cares about that, besides, there are also 'Good Samaritan' arguments that hold as well, but the basis is they really don't care about what goes on between friends and such. It's about protecting consumers and their own asses against liability in those regards.

 

[Everskyward]

Of course, nobody really cares about that, besides, there are also 'Good Samaritan' arguments that hold as well, but the basis is they really don't care about what goes on between friends and such. It's about protecting consumers and their own asses against liability in those regards.

I'm not sure there is Good Samaritan clause in the FARs, only that inspectors are not going to waste their time going after something like this that might be a technical violation but not worth their effort. Unless it becomes egregious.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm also willing to bet people don't always have a common purpose, say, flying a friend somewhere as a favor that you weren't originally planning to go. Like you would do in a car, without a second thought.

Would you require your friend to pay for the gas in either situation (plane or car)? I doubt it, and that's the point. Doing a favor with no strings attached is and always has been fine; charging for air transportation is another story entirely, and that's the issue here.

 

[Henning]

I'm not sure there is Good Samaritan clause in the FARs, only that inspectors are not going to waste their time going after something like this that might be a technical violation but not worth their effort. Unless it becomes egregious.

It doesn't have to be in the FARs specifically, it is a part of our legal principle the country bases on and is always available as a conditional mitigation to an act. If you're helping someone out of a bind, you don't get bound up for it. Amazingly enough, American law is set up to encourage people to do the right thing, but man it has gotten screwed up because nobody would, so they had to keep adding more and more and more rules trying to get people to do the right thing, and still they don't want to lol.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm not sure there is Good Samaritan clause in the FARs,

Other than the charitable airlift provisions of 91.146, I'm sure there isn't, but Good Samaritans don't charge for their services, so that's not at issue here.

...inspectors are not going to waste their time going after something like this that might be a technical violation but not worth their effort. Unless it becomes egregious.

I'm pretty sure you're right about this, and I think the FAA will consider advertising on a commercial web site available to the general public would fall in the "egregious" category. I doubt they'll be surfing the net for it, but if it comes to their attention, I'm pretty sure they'll act, even if it is just to tell the pilot involved, "This isn't legal, so please take down your ad and don't do it again."