"FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies"

[Alexb2000]

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.

You're right, but we are using a howitzer to kill a nat. These kinds of operations are never going amount to a blip on the radar of commercial operations. If 1,000 people a year used the service I'd be amazed.

 

[weilke]

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

Neither is airpooler. That it wont work doesn't mean you couldn't raise a pile of money from the dumb-money venture capital crowd.

 

[Lindberg]

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.

Did you read my whole post before you responded? Especially this part:

^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.

The Common Carrier test really is just a two-pronged test because two of the four prongs will always be met in a flight with passengers. And one of the remaining two prongs will always be met in a flight where money changes hands, which leaves only . . . holding out. Since compensation is not in dispute, and pro rat share is not in dispute, if "common purpose" has any relevance at all, it must be in the context of holding out. Otherwise, it's just non sequitor.

I think the problem is that MacPherson was hoisted on her own petard of a history of poorly-written letters. None of them actually provide 100% of the analysis they rely upon, apparently in a deliberate attempt to remain vague.

 

[poadeleted20]

That may be your interpretation, but it's not what the FAA said and it's not what the regulations say. The FAA has always made clear than the "common purpose" was related only to the 61.113(c) rule, and there's nothing about "common purpose" in Part 119. In fact, even if the pilot of a Part 135 commercial operation happened to have personal business at the aircraft's destination, it wouldn't change a thing about that flight's requirement for a Part 135 operating certificate.

 

[midlifeflyer]

if "common purpose" has any relevance at all, it must be in the context of holding out. Otherwise, it's just non sequitor.

Really? The only way conceivably possible to arrange a flight for a common purpose is to publicly advertise (leaving aside the question of the passenger also paying a fee)?

Seems I've done a whole bunch of non sequiturs, sharing flights and expenses with people I know for a day or weekend trip together.

My fear is that the attitude being displayed is going to have the exact opposite of the intended effect. I would not be at all surprised if the Chief Counsel's office began cynically viewing Ms. MacPherson's Haberkorn letter (expanding the concept of "common purpose" and opening the door to the possibility of using online communication to arrange it) knowing that her next step was going to be to leave the agency and try to push it with this project, and disavowing it entirely. No more "common destination" but a true "common purpose" in terms of both destination and activity.

That would truly be unfortunate.

 

[Everskyward]

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).

I think Air Pooler and other companies like this were trying to get around the "general public" argument by making sure both pilots and passengers were members. Who is a "friend"? If you belong to the same organization are you close enough to be considered a friend? If a private pilot on POA offers me a ride and I pay half the expenses have they violated a rule? How about if the day of the ride is the first time I have ever met them in person but we have communicated in other ways? I think there are still grey areas but I don't want to see them clarified.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think Air Pooler and other companies like this were trying to get around the "general public" argument by making sure both pilots and passengers were members. Who is a "friend"? If you belong to the same organization are you close enough to be considered a friend? If a private pilot on POA offers me a ride and I pay half the expenses have they violated a rule? How about if the day of the ride is the first time I have ever met them in person but we have communicated in other ways? I think there are still grey areas but I don't want to see them clarified.

You make an excellent point. Several of them in fact.

If Haberkorn is viable, I suspect we're going to see the same gray area "quacks like a duck" we've seen in this area for as long as it's existed.

 

[Palmpilot]

Trying to reduce every gray area to a predictable set of rules inevitably leads to nonsensical results like zero tolerance policies and unnecessary restrictions on freedom.

 

[David7700]

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

Here is your response and my comments:

On August 15, 2014, six months after our initial request for an official ruling concerning our expense-sharing platform, the FAA responded. Regrettably, the FAA’s letter fails to answer the only two questions it raises. What is clear, however, is that the FAA arbitrarily grounded planesharing, for now. The ruling declares any form of expense-sharing to be compensation, regardless of whether it originates on a ridesharing platform or not.

Before we go any further, here is the FAA’s traditional legal framework:

The “Common Carriage” Rule: Private pilots cannot hold out to the public a willingness to transport persons for “compensation.”[1]
The Exception: The sharing of expenses is an exception to “compensation.”[2]
The Common Purpose Test: The expense-sharing exception only applies if the pilot and passenger share a common purpose in the destination of the flight, i.e., the pilot and passengers each have a reason for traveling to the destination.[3][4]

Based on this legal framework, pilots have been sharing expenses with their passengers for decades. It has been common practice for private pilots to post their flights on local airport bulletin boards.

This may be common practice (though I do not see it at my local FBO), but it is arguably "holding out" as the FAA has indicated.

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.

[An advertisement] may still be considered holding out if it expresses a willingness to provide transportation for all within this class or segment to the extent of its capacity [emphasis in the original].

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.

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.

Anyone walking by who saw the post and had a common purpose at the destination could contact the pilot, join his or her flight, and share the costs.

As such, the common purpose test ensures that a pilot’s motivation for sharing expenses while flying is not rooted in compensation. Rather, it ensures that a pilot who takes advantage of the expense-sharing exception is engaged in the genuine sharing of expenses because the pilot and passenger each have separate business at the destination. This is how pilots have been able to legally defray their expenses for decades.

The Flytenow platform simply applied this framework to the technological age. We allowed pilots to post where they were going, and enthusiasts with a common purpose in the destination to join them and split the costs – same as it’s always been. So what’s changed? Simply put, the FAA chose not to apply the common purpose test and ruled all expense-sharing to be compensation.

As the MacPherson JonesDay letter makes clear, if there is "holding out", you do not get to the 61.113 rule, which is an exception only to the ability of a private pilot to receive compensation for a flight under limited circumstances. One thing that is not permitted in that instance is "holding out". So it is not appropriate to even delve into the issue of "common purpose", which is a 61.113 issue.

The ruling summarily concludes that pilots using the platform are engaged in compensation, and thus, “common carriage”.
Nowhere does the letter apply the “common purpose” test to any ridesharing platform flight(s), which is the single most important factor in determining whether compensation exists. "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.”

What’s most troubling is that the ruling appears to have swallowed the common purpose test with the following enigma:

"Based on the fact that the FAA views expense-sharing as compensation for which an exception is necessary for private pilots, the issue of compensation is not in doubt."

Translation: Because expense-sharing is an exception to compensation, it is compensation. Put another way, the FAA claims that an exception includes what it excludes. This logic swallows the expense-sharing exception and deems all expense-sharing to be compensation. Prior to this statement, the common purpose test determined whether expense-sharing was or was not compensation.

No, it did not. The FAA said expense sharing is compensation. Period. 61.113(c) does not say compensation is not compensation if there is a common purpose. It states that limited expense sharing (compensation) is permissible in a limited situation. The fact that is it compensation is not negated.

It is allowed if there is a common purpose--a narrow exception to the rule that a private pilot may not accept compensation for flying persons or property. But if there is holding out you don't even get to the 61.113(c) exception.

The FAA is saying that as to the common carriage test for compensation, you have admitted that there is compensation. Is it allowable under 61.113(c)? No, because there is holding out.

None of this is new law or a new position for the FAA.

Most pilots know that “holding out” is defined very broadly, so it is no surprise that the FAA did not delve into the issue beyond the general statement that posting a flight to a website is “holding out.” The problem is that “holding out” only applies if compensation occurs. Without compensation, “holding out” does not apply because §119(k) says “no person may advertise or otherwise offer to perform an operation subject to this part” What’s this part? See the Applicability section of Part 119. “Holding out” applies to “an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air commerce.” Again, the issue is compensation.

14 C.F.R. 119.1 specifies what is applicable under the chapter. It is:

§119.1 Applicability.

(a) This part applies to each person operating or intending to operate civil aircraft—

(1) As an air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air commerce; or

(2) When common carriage is not involved, in operations of U.S.-registered civil airplanes with a seat configuration of 20 or more passengers, or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more.

. . .

(d) This part does not govern operations conducted under part 91, subpart K (when common carriage is not involved) nor does it govern operations conducted under part 129, 133, 137, or 139 of this chapter.

Under 119.1(d), then, common carriage is the issue, then, to determine whether part 91 would even apply, and one test of common carriage is holding out. The FAA said that posting the availability of the flight to a flight-share site is holding out.

The flight-sharing app or website is not as restrictive as the sub-set of the public constituted by my Facebook friends, yet the FAA said in Haberkorn that advertising a flight I am planning on taking to such a subset of the public may constitute holding out.

In the face of an unprecedented and impending pilot shortage, and Private Aviation operations at one of its lowest points in history, we will do everything we can to defend your private pilot privileges.

and I'd love to see the FAA bend on this just from the standpoint of promoting GA, and I wish you well in your endeavors.

Flytenow was built by pilots for pilots. We are keeping the platform up and running, but removing all forms of expense-sharing. This means that a pilot will no longer be able to use Flytenow to share expenses, but may still find others to fly with. Based on the ruling, this means that flights cannot possibly be seen as “common carriage.”

Now more than ever, innovation and regulation intersect due to new and exciting technologies, and regulators are almost always too slow to adapt. This has been true since the advent of the automobile, when regulators passed laws banning “the running of horseless carriages,” to today’s regulatory monopolies that companies such as Uber and Airbnb have disrupted.
If you are a pilot, an aviation enthusiast, or are interested in the development of ridesharing in aviation, please sign up for updates by creating an account at www.flytenow.com or subscribing to this blog.

The Flytenow Team

 

[N6768L]

First the FAA looks at whether the action is commercial carriage (119). 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.

Right after that statement, the FAA says "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.”

Where does the ruling analyze common purpose? The FAA says that if there is common purpose then there isn't a problem, but it does not analyze common purpose.

 

[N6768L]

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 is a really good point. Part 61 governs the privileges and limitations of "pilot, flight instructor, and ground instructor certificates and ratings." Part 119 governs, "air carrier or commercial operator, or both, in air commerce."

The difference between these Parts? Compensation. That's why the FAA ruling did not analyze holding out. It was all about compensation. And basically, they said if you meet someone online and go flying with them then: expense-sharing = compensation, regardless of common purpose.

Compliance with one does not create compliance with the other, and it is the "holding out" issue which sank the AirPooler concept.

Compliance with the compensation element of "common carriage" means that holding out does not apply. How else could a pilot share costs without engaging in some kind of holding out? Where in the regs or in prior rulings does it state some sort of preexisting relationship is required? Is there a secret handshake before people can fly together? Is it one conversation, two conversations?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Right after that statement, the FAA says "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.”

Where does the ruling analyze common purpose? The FAA says that if there is common purpose then there isn't a problem, but it does not analyze common purpose.

Discussions of common purpose are pretty common with the most recent discussion in the Haberkorn interpretation mentioned a number of times. "Common purpose" is a requirement for legitimate sharing under 61.113 and has been so for a pretty long time - the earliest mention I have of it was 1977 but I don't doubt there are earlier ones.

Also bearing repeating is that there are two separate issues in the analysis - (1) the privileges and limitations of pilot certificates and (2) the requirements for operating certificates. "Common purpose" is the primary element for answering the pilot question but only answers part of of the "operator" question.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The difference between these Parts? Compensation.

No. The difference is making transportation of persons or property available for some sort of compensation.

And, of course, as has been said numerous times in this thread, cost sharing is compensation.

But we're getting repetitive, aren't we?

 

[N6768L]

Trying to reduce every gray area to a predictable set of rules inevitably leads to nonsensical results like zero tolerance policies and unnecessary restrictions on freedom.

Exactly. That's why the FAA has always said that common purpose is determined on a case-by-case basis. Where was the case-by-case here?

Instead, the FAA found all expense-sharing flights arranged on social media as violative of common carriage.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Trying to reduce every gray area to a predictable set of rules inevitably leads to nonsensical results like zero tolerance policies and unnecessary restrictions on freedom.

Great way to put it.

 

[JeffDG]

Trying to reduce every gray area to a predictable set of rules inevitably leads to nonsensical results like zero tolerance policies and unnecessary restrictions on freedom.

Zero tolerance policies are an abdication of basic judgement.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think Air Pooler and other companies like this were trying to get around the "general public" argument by making sure both pilots and passengers were members. Who is a "friend"? If you belong to the same organization are you close enough to be considered a friend? If a private pilot on POA offers me a ride and I pay half the expenses have they violated a rule? How about if the day of the ride is the first time I have ever met them in person but we have communicated in other ways? I think there are still grey areas...

The so-called gray areas got very much overwhelmed by black prohibitions in the letter under discussion. The FAA has always said they will regulate this sort of activity in the strictest manner, so I am not at all surprised they went the way they did.

...but I don't want to see them clarified.

My personal opinion is that most any remaining areas which you or others might call "gray" would be determined illegal if the FAA were ever asked about them. So, for any of you out their who are thinking about offering seats on your privately-owned plane for money or any other form of compensation, I suggest you do it in a way the FAA cannot see it, and don't ask the FAA about it either before or after.

 

[steingar]

I can only wish the ride share folks the best of luck. At least they're trying something out of the box. The way things are going with GA, we need all we can get.

 

[poadeleted20]

Right after that statement, the FAA says "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.”

Where does the ruling analyze common purpose? The FAA says that if there is common purpose then there isn't a problem,

No, they did not. Common purpose is only one element necessary to be legal, i.e., to avoid violating 61.113(c) when sharing expenses with passengers. However, 61.113 is not the only regulation involved, and Part 119 tells us that when you hold out an offer of transportation for compensation to the general public, that becomes a commercial operation requiring a commercial operating certificate regardless of whether or not you have "common purpose" with your passenger(s). IOW, two separate and independent issues, both of which (having common purpose and not holding out) must be met in order to be legal.

but it does not analyze common purpose.

Common purpose has been analyzed repeatedly and in detail in many other interpretations.

 

[poadeleted20]

The difference between these Parts? Compensation. That's why the FAA ruling did not analyze holding out. It was all about compensation. And basically, they said if you meet someone online and go flying with them then: expense-sharing = compensation, regardless of common purpose.

Right, but per 61.113(c), compensation in the form of pro rata expense sharing may be legal as long as you don't violate some other rule (such as Part 119) in the process.

Compliance with the compensation element of "common carriage" means that holding out does not apply.

Not quite.

How else could a pilot share costs without engaging in some kind of holding out?

The question is to whom you are making the offer and how. If it's just talking with your friends or family, that's one thing, but if you make an offer via the internet accessible to the general public at large (and that's AirPooler's audience), Part 119 comes into play unless there is no compensation at all.

Where in the regs or in prior rulings does it state some sort of preexisting relationship is required? Is there a secret handshake before people can fly together? Is it one conversation, two conversations?

It's all in the FAA's interpretation of the term "holding out", which they've defined in several interpretations and Advisory Circulars. Perhaps the best summary of this is in Advisory Circular 120-12A which has been around for almost 30 years.

 

[dans2992]

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.

When grandma buys a "ticket" to share a GA flight in someone's Cirrus and it crashes, you can bet they'll be calls for more regulations. We don't need that.

Call it "expense sharing" or whatever, but the public will still perceive it as a "ticket".

 

[poadeleted20]

Exactly. That's why the FAA has always said that common purpose is determined on a case-by-case basis. Where was the case-by-case here?

They didn't have to do that, since the "holding out" issue made the "common purpose" issue moot.

Instead, the FAA found all expense-sharing flights arranged on social media as violative of common carriage.

They didn't do that, either. They only said it was so for web sites where there was no limitation of the audience. They had previously said in Haberkorn it could be okay on Facebook where you could limit the offer to your small circle of friends rather than the public at large. I think the problem here is that you have no such capability to limit AirPooler's audience.

 

[poadeleted20]

Zero tolerance policies are an abdication of basic judgement.

I think it's more that zero tolerance policies are an apparently inevitable result of the failure to exercise good judgment and prudence by those being regulated.

 

[David7700]

Right after that statement, the FAA says "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.”

Where does the ruling analyze common purpose? The FAA says that if there is common purpose then there isn't a problem, but it does not analyze common purpose.

Only if it gets to 61.113(c) which it does not. Common purpose is not an appropriate discussion because of the holding out. The holding out keeps it in 119.

 

[Everskyward]

The so-called gray areas got very much overwhelmed by black prohibitions in the letter under discussion. The FAA has always said they will regulate this sort of activity in the strictest manner, so I am not at all surprised they went the way they did.

My personal opinion is that most any remaining areas which you or others might call "gray" would be determined illegal if the FAA were ever asked about them. So, for any of you out their who are thinking about offering seats on your privately-owned plane for money or any other form of compensation, I suggest you do it in a way the FAA cannot see it, and don't ask the FAA about it either before or after.

I still think there is a large grey area, especially with the advent of social media, concerning who could be considered a friend or an acquaintance. Even before social media, would belonging to the same club be close enough an association? As I said though, I don't particularly want to see these questions answered. People can interpret it in their own way.

 

[David7700]

I still think there is a large grey area, especially with the advent of social media, concerning who could be considered a friend or an acquaintance. Even before social media, would belonging to the same club be close enough an association? As I said though, I don't particularly want to see these questions answered. People can interpret it in their own way.

The FAA has never said the passenger has to be a friend or acquaintance, but I think they have indicated that your relationship to that party would be a strong factor in the determination of whether 61.113(c) is applicable or whether there was any holding out. But I think as Ron suggests above, best not to ask the FAA, since, to quote your sig line, "you can't un-ring a bell".

 

[Everskyward]

The FAA has never said the passenger has to be a friend or acquaintance, but I think they have indicated that your relationship to that party would be a strong factor in the determination of whether 61.113(c) is applicable or whether there was any holding out. But I think as Ron suggests above, best not to ask the FAA, since, to quote your sig line, "you can't un-ring a bell".

But the grey area is how strong a relationship you need to have.

BTW my other favorite saying is "Better to beg for forgiveness than permission."

 

[midlifeflyer]

They didn't have to do that, since the "holding out" issue made the "common purpose" issue moot.

You could also say the "case" was a specific request by a company proposing a specific firm of business model. "Case" doesn't always mean litigation.

 

[Palmpilot]

But the grey area is how strong a relationship you need to have.

BTW my other favorite saying is "Better to beg for forgiveness than permission."

There used to be a local talk show host who closed every broadcast with that quote.

He's in prison now.

 

[midlifeflyer]

But the grey area is how strong a relationship you need to have.

BTW my other favorite saying is "Better to beg for forgiveness than permission."

The other is the reality of FAA enforcement in this field. Although there are definitely exceptions, the usual FAA response when it gets wind of a possible violation is an informal talking to in the general nature of, "that's not right; stop doing it."

 

[Henning]

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.

Yep, but they need some tangible reason to exclude in order to get the insurance commission to allow the exclusion, they don't write policy unilaterally. With the FAA deeming these acts as commercial carriage, then the insurance company can exclude coverage and require commercial level insurance. For most people the 10 fold increase in insurance, even if they meet all personal qualifications, makes this stuff a losing proposition.

 

[Henning]

You're right, but we are using a howitzer to kill a nat. These kinds of operations are never going amount to a blip on the radar of commercial operations. If 1,000 people a year used the service I'd be amazed.

Precedent. I agree, the only people who would use this are pilots.

 

[Clip4]

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.

 

[Brad Z]

The other is the reality of FAA enforcement in this field. Although there are definitely exceptions, the usual FAA response when it gets wind of a possible violation is an informal talking to in the general nature of, "that's not right; stop doing it."

That's true, unless there's an accident or mishap. In that case, you're not likely to get off with just a "stop doing that" warning. I'd imagine that's the most common way something like this would come to light.

 

[tlglenn]

I see the utility in flight sharing websites as a means for pilots to fly together. I figure (if the insurance company is satisfied) that the pilots can take turns as acting PIC and then the acting PIC pays 100% of the cost for that particular leg.

 

[Everskyward]

There used to be a local talk show host who closed every broadcast with that quote.

He's in prison now.

Well, I'm not in prison, yet.

I just get frustrated when people want everything in writing, in excruciating detail, because they are afraid of making some misstep and getting in trouble. I would prefer to have some leeway, to hang myself, or not.

 

[poadeleted20]

I just get frustrated when people want everything in writing, in excruciating detail, because they are afraid of making some misstep and getting in trouble. I would prefer to have some leeway, to hang myself, or not.

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.

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

 

[DavidWhite]

Another stupid rule that has nothing to do with safety.

 

[poadeleted20]

Another stupid rule that has nothing to do with safety.

Perhaps it doesn't change the accident rate, but it does prevent the general public from thinking they are getting a commercial level of safety when they are paying for a flight for which that level of safety is not provided. And that's the FAA's big concern -- keeping the separation of commercial from noncommercial while providing a higher level of safety for commercial flights. They do not want public expectations based on one to bleed over into the other without applying the higher level of safety to the flight involved.

 

[DavidWhite]

Perhaps it doesn't change the accident rate, but it does prevent the general public from thinking they are getting a commercial level of safety when they are paying for a flight for which that level of safety is not provided. And that's the FAA's big concern -- keeping the separation of commercial from noncommercial while providing a higher level of safety for commercial flights. They do not want public expectations based on one to bleed over into the other without applying the higher level of safety to the flight involved.

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