"FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies"

JeffDG said:
Just curious...the requester here, is that the same Rebecca MacPherson who signed such nutball interpretations as the Mangiamele interpretation as the "Acting Asst Chief Counsel"?
Click to expand...
Yes. Rebecca MacPherson is the signatory to a good number of Chief Counsel interpretations over the years when she was an Assistant Chief Counsel.
 
acrophile said:
An important further detail is that the passengers whom the pilot ferried (and whom he did not know) did pay for the transportation (though the pilot himself apparently did not receive any of that money).
Click to expand...
I agree. I've wondered (even aloud in posts) why the FAA took the approach of using the prohibition on receiving compensation instead of the prohibition on acting as PIC on a compensated flight.
 
Hopefully this will be the end of the spam from the PilotWantsa135Violation.com I used to get.
 
Out of curiosity... can a VFR pilot get a VFR only commercial certificate?
 
midlifeflyer said:
The NTSB decision holding a private pilot for violating 61.113 because he flew passengers for a bar's Super Bowl party with the hopes of future business good will has been discussed more than once.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/5061.PDF
Click to expand...

On yeah, there is that one, although it's considerably more convoluted, still pretty much holds. The thing that makes it trickier is that it involves third parties who paid for airfare with their party tickets. If you take the guy flying to show him a sight in the furtherance of business, ie the flight s incidental to the money, you're trying to sell them in on a real estate project, if you pay the bill, I'm pretty sure you're ok. The pilot in the case you cited has a prior working relationship with the guy who sold the tickets that included airfare, that's why they rejected the Good Samaritan claim.
 
Henning said:
Yes, it is restricted and of limited usefulness.
Click to expand...

Well... if I don't care about *being* a commercial pilot in the sense that it will never be a source of income, but want to avoid getting into trouble because reading this thread seems to imply that even goodwill - goodwill! - is verboten, would this "cover" me? I mean, shoot, I am absolutely certain that 99% of my flights with family, friends, colleagues, associates, and friends of all of these people, generate some goodwill. How could it not? it's such a fun and unusual thing to do! the only person whose goodwill is not generated by flying with me at this point I think is my daughter, who just doesn't like it very much. Or at least so she claims.
 
onwards said:
Well... if I don't care about *being* a commercial pilot in the sense that it will never be a source of income, but want to avoid getting into trouble because reading this thread seems to imply that even goodwill - goodwill! - is verboten, would this "cover" me? I mean, shoot, I am absolutely certain that 99% of my flights with family, friends, colleagues, associates, and friends of all of these people, generate some goodwill. How could it not? it's such a fun and unusual thing to do! the only person whose goodwill is not generated by flying with me at this point I think is my daughter, who just doesn't like it very much. Or at least so she claims.
Click to expand...

If you read the cases carefully, it's business-related goodwill, not personal goodwill, that is the issue. In other words, it's goodwill that's likely to lead to future employment and/or business dealings that they're concerned about.
 
Palmpilot said:
If you read the cases carefully, it's business-related goodwill, not personal goodwill, that is the issue. In other words, it's goodwill that's likely to lead to future employment and/or business dealings that they're concerned about.
Click to expand...

Ah. OK, that makes more sense. Honestly, I was having trouble breathing for a few moments there - it started looking like all I've been doing is violating these rules (because I absolutely love taking people flying with me so I do it all the time - I very rarely fly alone). Thank you.
 
onwards said:
Ah. OK, that makes more sense. Honestly, I was having trouble breathing for a few moments there - it started looking like all I've been doing is violating these rules (because I absolutely love taking people flying with me so I do it all the time - I very rarely fly alone). Thank you.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

I try to write at least one useful post per year. ;)
 
onwards said:
Out of curiosity... can a VFR pilot get a VFR only commercial certificate?
Click to expand...

You can get a COMMERCIAL pilot certificate without having an instrument rating. You are strongly restricted in what you can do with it (and it goes way beyond being restricted to VFR) if you don't also have an instrument rating.

91.133
(b) Limitations.
(1) A person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category or powered-lift category rating and does not hold an instrument rating in the same category and class will be issued a commercial pilot certificate that contains the limitation, “The carriage of passengers for hire in (airplanes) (powered-lifts) on cross-country flights in excess of 50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited.” The limitation may be removed when the person satisfactorily accomplishes the requirements listed in § 61.65 of this part for an instrument rating in the same category and class of aircraft listed on the person's commercial pilot certificate.
​

Note that the key here is not just the lack of a commercial pilot certificate, but a commercial OPERATORS (for example, part 135) certificate.
 
onwards said:
Well... if I don't care about *being* a commercial pilot in the sense that it will never be a source of income, but want to avoid getting into trouble because reading this thread seems to imply that even goodwill - goodwill! - is verboten, would this "cover" me? I mean, shoot, I am absolutely certain that 99% of my flights with family, friends, colleagues, associates, and friends of all of these people, generate some goodwill. How could it not? it's such a fun and unusual thing to do! the only person whose goodwill is not generated by flying with me at this point I think is my daughter, who just doesn't like it very much. Or at least so she claims.
Click to expand...

In the context you give, it is unnecessary, however, yes, it could protect you from, and make available to you, some scenarios of making an unpaid flight legally vs. not.
 
Airpooler's 20% fee pretty clearly crosses the line in to ticket selling, by any common sense standard.

Every VC on Sand Hill road wants to fund "Ubber for XXXXX", it's not surprising that Airpool got some startup money.

On the other, it's possible to imagine an advertiser or volunteer supported ride sharing web site that would not have the burden of a third party collecting what amounts to ticket money.

I'm sure that the FAA chief counsel would still opine that such an arrangement was not permitted, but I'm not sure the federal courts would agree with him.

It's pretty clear that the courts have been trying to restrain the growth of law making by administrative decree.

The FAA, IRS, and EPA, to name three, have all had overreaching administrative actions rolled back by the federal courts as being exceedances of their legal rule making power just in the last two or three years.

I suspect that if our hypothetical free ride sharing site were to take the question to the federal courts they would have a reasonable chance of success.

Certainly there is a strong case to be made that the FAA's very strict interpretation of the law concerning what constitutes 'compensation' would not hold up under judicial review.

For example, I strongly suspect that courts would rule that 'compensation' means something of tangible value changing hands.

Making a business connection or logging time really is not considered 'compensation' in any other arena that I'm aware of.
 
I don't know about the compensation issue, that one is all over DOT, if it would get ruled unjust, it would cause a ****storm in the transportation industry.
 
onwards said:
I don't understand.



Here is an example that will happen later today: I am flying out to pick my daughter up from camp. I let the camp coordination center know that I have a couple of extra seats in back, and that if they have any parents who can't make it in to pick their kids, I'd be happy to fly them back with me so they can pick them up locally.



This is all sort of rushed because the camp has shut down early and evacuate due to the Mendocino fires. The kids were supposed to stay for longer. I figured why not offer this in case some parents get stuck. I just thought I was being nice and offering a free ride to - you guessed it - total strangers.



Is this somehow illegal? I've done this a couple years back flying my daughter back from camp and took one of the counselors back home en-route. Did I break the law?
Click to expand...


Did you offer the unlimited opportunity to fly somewhere that you weren't going anyway to the general public or a subset of the general public? It doesn't sound like it.
 
onwards said:
Yeah, I totally missed that. I thought it was some sort of online bulletin board.







Yeah, I have no intention of asking for anything nor know any of the other parents... I just let the camp know since they are driving my daughter down to the airport to meet with me that they are welcome to bring down 1-2 other kids as well. I know I'd be appreciative of an offer like that under these circumstances.



But this whole discussion brings up another question - when I picked up that counselor two years back to fly her back home with us (from Big Bear to the bay area), the camp offered or rather decided to deduct $100 from my daughter's camp fee, which I accepted without thinking about it. The flight itself cost over $700 in fuel alone, so it was definitely within the pro-rata rule, but it had not occurred to me until just now that this could have fallen under the compensation thing. Was that a violation? if so, is there a way to resolve it?
Click to expand...


I don't believe it is a violation.
 
Lindberg said:
Where do you find this in the letter? I've only read it once, but I didn't notice anything in the discussion of common purpose regarding whether the pilot knows the passengers. I found the letter to be inconsistent and conclusory. She describes bona fide common interest as being when the pilot and passenger both have a reason to go someplace, but then simply assumes this is not the case with airpooler.
Click to expand...


It's in previous letters of interpretation.
 
Here is some research I did Friday on holding out:

Just asking a friend if they want to go to a breakfast if they split the cost is probably not holding out. Asking 10 friends might be. 5 friends? I don't know. It's going to be fact-specific.

If my buddy with a house on Martha's Vineyard keeps telling me we should go for a weekend, and I finally say yes adding that I will fly him and we will split the cost, then I think clearly that is not holding out.

If I ask him if he wants to fly with me to Cape Cod and split the costs when he wasn't originally planning on going, and he agrees, I think that would be OK.

The situation to be avoided is to not hold oneself out to the public as being willing to transport them or their property for compensation.

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 was 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
Click to expand...

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.

This doesn’t mean that you can’t ask people to fly with you and share some of the costs, but the sole purpose of your flight can’t be just to transport your passengers from one point
to another. Asking your flying buddies if they want to split the costs of flying to Oshkosh with you and flying with friends to that resort on the coast you’re all going to share and sharing the flying costs—those would be okay. However, sharing expenses with a passenger on a flight to a place you would not otherwise be flying to would be a problem.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Knee

where a private pilot develops a reputation that he or she is willing to serve anyone from the general public, then the actions or conduct utilized by the individual to develop this reputation would constitute "holding out.” Actions or conduct which rise to this level would be prohibited solicitation, and hence, operating expense sharing would be inappropriate.
Click to expand...
 
Here are my thoughts on the letter:

It wasn't the interpretation of "holding out" that the FAA went after or hung them with--and that was what I was expecting after our discussions here and my reading on the issue. That must've been Rebecca MacPherson's view as well.

It appears AirPooler argued the holding out issue with great specificity. I think AirPooler might have been caught off guard that the issue actually became that the re-imbursement of costs was compensation. That is often the case in legal proceedings--you focus on one issue, and turns out to be another.

The FAA pointed out what they overlooked. Sharing the costs is compensation--that's why an exception was made in 61.113.

The FAA didn't have any qualms (as I agree they should not have) about saying that there was "holding out" here. Certainly there was--advertising that Brian is going to be flying to the Cape this weekend--anyone want to go? How could you hold out more?

The internet has made this possible, but all it is giving a pilot a bigger audience to hold out to--bigger than a paper on a bulletin board a the local FBO.

To me what's fascinating to watch is the Uber and Lyft debate and progress (which is why I started that thread--because of the similarities in my mind to this). Uber and Lyft are flouting the law in many if not most states--operating in a fashion or where they are not really legally able to operate. The drivers take a risk. The company takes a risk. Uber was fined in Virginia and paid those fines!

But public outcry was that we want to see services like Uber and Lyft happen. The public says it's time that the taxi companies and regulations get turned on their heads! Its a digital and technological revolution. And maybe it is. But I wonder how that would turn out if the US Department of Transportation regulated taxis and not the individual states. Or if the FAA regulated taxis. There is no way they would have allowed Uber and Lyft to continue to operate.

And pilots may be as a group more cautious than the Uber drivers who risk being fined or punished. Pilots generally do not want to risk their license if this flight-sharing is not permitted. Since the FAA has been clear that it is not, most pilots are certainly not going to participate. So the revolution cannot get started. And there is very little public outcry to make the FAA change.

Along these lines, the drone debate is similar. There is much more public outcry for things to change, and we can see how difficult (and extremely time consuming) it is to get the FAA to act. They cannot act as quickly as the technology develops.

I personally would love to see an AirPool-type exception in the regs. I think it is good for GA. I think it is good to expose people to aviation and get them excited about it and the possibilities available with it. The cost to fly is high to your average pilot like me. This is a great way to defray the cost.

But I don't think we will see change from the FAA on this anytime soon if ever. It would probably take an act of Congress to get them moving (like it did with the drones), and I just don't see the public outcry to make that happen.
 
CTLSi said:
My emphasis was on the 'stranger' angle. Which is what they are saying too. If friends are going to the same city for two different events, that qualifies as a common purpose and since they are friends, the ride itself is a common experience among friends.

Stretching that to include strangers is obviously too close to just plain commercial hire.
Click to expand...
Not so. "Common purpose" and "holding out" are two entirely separate issues. You can have common purpose with anyone at all, but you're still violating Part 119 by "holding out" to everyone out there an offer of air transportation for compensation. IOW, the fact that someone isn't your friend or relative doesn't mean you don't have common purpose. That said, "common purpose" is necessary but not sufficient to be legal.
 
Johann said:
Wasn't there another interpretation some time ago that basically said the website was not illegal, and each operation would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis?
Click to expand...
Yes, and they made clear in that letter that holding out to one and all would not be acceptable. You would have to limit your offer to a small circle of friends.
 
mjburian said:
I'd like it to be that simple, but isn't there some stipulation about other forms of compensation? The example I heard was a salesman taking a client (or potential client?) for a plane ride as a way to woo him and win his business. No money changes hands for the flight, but additional consideration is given to the guy's company, thus making this an illegal flight.
Click to expand...
There's at least one case and a couple of interpretations discussing the concept of "goodwill" as compensation, but that is limited to when there is a business relationship between pilot and passenger where there would an expectation of future business consideration from the passenger in return for providing the flight.
 
timwinters said:
I believe the title of the article..and the title of this thread are a misnomer.

The FAA can't "Ban GA Ride Sharing Companies" can they? It seems that all they could do is track posts and chase those who successfully link up.

Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...
No, you are correct. All they can do is hang the pilots involved.
 
JimNtexas said:
Airpooler's 20% fee pretty clearly crosses the line in to ticket selling, by any common sense standard.
Click to expand...
By that standard, travel agents would need Part 121 certificates. They don't, because they are only providing the ticket sale, not the transportation.
 
David7700 said:
Did you offer the unlimited opportunity to fly somewhere that you weren't going anyway to the general public or a subset of the general public? It doesn't sound like it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
frfly172 said:
Private enterprise will prevail,no matter what the government says.
Click to expand...

You guys are all familiar with the fact that Über, Lyft, and other ride sharing companies have all been effectively ignoring cease and desist letters by local governments stating their operations are illegal.

http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2014/jul/17/uber-lyft-operating-despite-city-notices/

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsbur...perations-in-pittsburgh-despite.html?page=all

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/ju...perating-la-cease-and-desist-letters-20130625

I think people are finally starting to get fed up with the excessive, choking, burdensome regulations in every enterprise and corner on business and life that have been put in place by career politicians interested in nothing more than making a name for themselves..Let's not forget the government exists to serve us and that our money is financing it.
 
Last edited:
vdehart said:
You guys are all familiar with the fact that Über, Lyft, and other ride sharing companies have all been effectively ignoring cease and desist lets by local governments stating their operations are illegal.

I think people are finally starting to get fed up with the excessive, choking, burdensome regulations in every enterprise and corner on business and life that have been put in place by career politicians interested in nothing more than making money for themselves..
Click to expand...

FTFY.
 
vdehart said:
You guys are all familiar with the fact that Über, Lyft, and other ride sharing companies have all been effectively ignoring cease and desist letters by local governments stating their operations are illegal.
Click to expand...

Car-sharing sites have literally three orders of magnitude more potential customers than flight-sharing sites. That puts the car-sharers in a much better position to afford to mount a legal or political challenge. Plus, the car-sharers don't have all their eggs in one basket--even if they end up losing in a few jurisdictions, it won't put them out of business.
 
acrophile said:
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.
Click to expand...


That's an opportunity to the public or a segment of the public to fly somewhere just as was discussed in Haberkorn.
 
vdehart said:
You guys are all familiar with the fact that Über, Lyft, and other ride sharing companies have all been effectively ignoring cease and desist letters by local governments stating their operations are illegal.



http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2014/jul/17/uber-lyft-operating-despite-city-notices/



http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsbur...perations-in-pittsburgh-despite.html?page=all



http://articles.latimes.com/2013/ju...perating-la-cease-and-desist-letters-20130625



I think people are finally starting to get fed up with the excessive, choking, burdensome regulations in every enterprise and corner on business and life that have been put in place by career politicians interested in nothing more than making a name for themselves..Let's not forget the government exists to serve us and that our money is financing it.
Click to expand...


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.
 
David7700 said:
That's an opportunity to the public or a segment of the public to fly somewhere just as was discussed in Haberkorn.
Click to expand...

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.
 
acrophile said:
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.
Click to expand...

How much does the site get and who pays?
 
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.

I guess it could still be seen as holding out, but at least it looks more common purposy :wink2:
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
By that standard, travel agents would need Part 121 certificates. They don't, because they are only providing the ticket sale, not the transportation.
Click to expand...

No, there's a difference, a Travel Agent is reselling a legal product (the ticket), The website is creating an illegal one (the ticket).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top