"FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies"

Ron Levy said:
...I don't ever want anyone saying, "Hey, Ron, you said this was legal, but now I'm in trouble for doing it."
Click to expand...

I try to solve that problem with my sig line.
 
Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...
It seems as if I have accepted gas money in the past for a long trip in my car, and for sure I have accepted up to my share of airplane rental expenses when I was a private pilot and poor student. I have also paid my share for an airplane trip on a couple occasions within the past few years. In one case I know the other pilot only had a private, in the other case I'm sure the pilot had a commercial or better.
 
I have the impression that the FAA is a lot less interested (or is uninterested?) in the details of expense sharing arrangements when all the people contributing to the expenses are pilots.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
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."
Click to expand...
I will agree with this. I still think Air Pooler and others were trying to get around the "general public" problem by saying that both pilots and passengers needed to be members. But they asked for a interpretation and it went against them.
 
Everskyward said:
It seems as if I have accepted gas money in the past for a long trip in my car, and for sure I have accepted up to my share of airplane rental expenses when I was a private pilot and poor student. I have also paid my share for an airplane trip on a couple occasions within the past few years. In one case I know the other pilot only had a private, in the other case I'm sure the pilot had a commercial or better.
Click to expand...
On how many of those flights were you or the other pilot being a "Good Samaritan" but asked for money anyway? And in how many of those non-Samaritan flights involving money did you offer the seat publicly, or respond to a public offer from someone you never met before?
 
Ron Levy said:
On how many of those flights were you or the other pilot being a "Good Samaritan" but asked for money anyway? And in how many of those non-Samaritan flights involving money did you offer the seat publicly, or respond to a public offer from someone you never met before?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure any flights that I am thinking of could be considered "Good Samaritan". Back in the day when I had a private I would take people sightseeing or for the $100 hamburger, or... Some people I knew better than others. Sometimes it would be a friend accompanied by a friend of that friend who I didn't know previously. As I recall, many of these people split expenses, especially if they were older with real jobs. As I pointed out earlier, I was a poor college student.

Of the two more recent flights where I was a passenger and paid my share, one was basically a sightseeing flight and one was a trip to someplace the other pilot was going anyway. Unlike you, I don't find this very unusual. I've offered to pay other people but they have declined my offer.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm not sure any flights that I am thinking of could be considered "Good Samaritan". Back in the day when I had a private I would take people sightseeing or for the $100 hamburger, or... Some people I knew better than others. Sometimes it would be a friend accompanied by a friend of that friend who I didn't know previously. As I recall, many of these people split expenses, especially if they were older with real jobs. As I pointed out earlier, I was a poor college student.

Of the two more recent flights where I was a passenger and paid my share, one was basically a sightseeing flight and one was a trip to someplace the other pilot was going anyway. Unlike you, I don't find this very unusual. I've offered to pay other people but they have declined my offer.
Click to expand...
I split expenses for things like flying to Ft Lauderdale with a couple of college friends for spring break back then, but I sure didn't put an ad in the Michigan Daily to advertise it. And when I do someone a favor with my airplane (say, hauling my buddy Tom up to Summit to pick up his helo), I don't take their money for doing it -- even if they offer. That's all I'm trying to say, and (I think) all the FAA is trying to say.
 
Ron Levy said:
I split expenses for things like flying to Ft Lauderdale with a couple of college friends for spring break back then, but I sure didn't put an ad in the Michigan Daily to advertise it. And when I do someone a favor with my airplane (say, hauling my buddy Tom up to Summit to pick up his helo), I don't take their money for doing it -- even if they offer. That's all I'm trying to say, and (I think) all the FAA is trying to say.
Click to expand...
OK, but you wrote this in another post which implied to me that you were suggesting people don't ever split expenses. That seems like overkill.

Ron Levy said:
And for me, Occam's Razor applies -- I stick with the simplest solution, namely, not taking money from passengers.
Click to expand...
 
Last year I had a couple of empty seats going to Oshkosh. I put a posting here on POA with a departure time and an offer to any pilot who wanted the opportunity to come along. There was no mention of financials, I was going anyway.

Did I act as an air-carrier ? Is POA more comparable to a circle of friends on facebook (Haberkern) or the broader public (McPherson) ?
 
Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...

hold on, now.

The pro-rata rule is what makes this sort of thing a non-commercial operation for casual/recreational pilots, like me. I would not go out of my way to spend money to fly someone somewhere, but that's exactly what the pro-rata rule stipulates; passengers can only pay a portion of the expenses.

So the idea that allowing Airpooler to operate will create a whole new class of commercial aviation is, in my opinion, flawed.

Now, if I were to be flying somewhere anyway, then of course it would be cool to be able to add a couple folks to my flight, especially as I much prefer having passengers than flying alone. I love sharing the experience and that's my primary motivation, but getting some costs defrayed would be cool, too.

I will note that the FAA has held odd positions about the Internet before this, too. For example, in one of their decisions that I read, they show a breathtaking lack of understanding of Facebook, utterly failing to understand that there might be a difference between, say, my posting to my friend list (non-public post) that I'm going to such-and-such place and would anyone want to join, and someone making a public posting (maybe on a dedicated page) to the same effect. If anyone argues that the former is "holding out" or is a commercial operation then I am at a loss as to what doesn't count as holding out.
 
Everskyward said:
I will agree with this. I still think Air Pooler and others were trying to get around the "general public" problem by saying that both pilots and passengers needed to be members. But they asked for a interpretation and it went against them.
Click to expand...

I was wondering what happened there because wasn't there just another ruling that said these services were not intrinsically illegal and they would have to handle it on a case by case basis? It kinda made me wonder where this came from.:dunno: If they asked for an interpretation after that, that was kinda dumb. If you're going to force them to put a position in writing, then they are going to take the CYA position.

I do think a compromise to adopt a waiver system explaining the standards and the difference between commercial and private standards could satisfy both parties' needs; that would likely take a lot of legal expense to get to happen at this point, but would be worth offering up to the FAA.
 
Henning said:
I was wondering what happened there because wasn't there just another ruling that said these services were not intrinsically illegal and they would have to handle it on a case by case basis? It kinda made me wonder where this came from.:dunno: If they asked for an interpretation after that, that was kinda dumb. If you're going to force them to put a position in writing, then they are going to take the CYA position.
Click to expand...

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...1/haberkorn - (2011) legal interpretation.pdf

In the Haberkorn letter McPherson quoted herself a couple of times. I never realized how many of those opinions were her handywork.

I dont think she ever said that facebook is ok. She actually said that it 'may be construed as holding out' if transportation services are available to anyone within a given group (e.g. facebook users).

There is another letter to Ron that came from a regional counsel that seemed a bit less restrictive. But that letter is basically just someones opinion.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
OK, but you wrote this in another post which implied to me that you were suggesting people don't ever split expenses. That seems like overkill.
Click to expand...
No, in response to the post regarding this policy somehow making it harder to be a Good Samaritan or do someone a favor, I said Good Samaritans don't charge their passengers. If you're charging for the service, it's not a "favor".
 
weilke said:
Last year I had a couple of empty seats going to Oshkosh. I put a posting here on POA with a departure time and an offer to any pilot who wanted the opportunity to come along. There was no mention of financials, I was going anyway.

Did I act as an air-carrier ? Is POA more comparable to a circle of friends on facebook (Haberkern) or the broader public (McPherson) ?
Click to expand...
No money, no foul.
 
Ron Levy said:
No, in response to the post regarding this policy somehow making it harder to be a Good Samaritan or do someone a favor, I said Good Samaritans don't charge their passengers. If you're charging for the service, it's not a "favor".
Click to expand...

OTOH, nothing morally dictates that they don't accept an offer of reimbursement either, up to the FAA Pro Rata. My time is far more valuable than fuel.
 
onwards said:
hold on, now.

The pro-rata rule is what makes this sort of thing a non-commercial operation for casual/recreational pilots, like me.
Click to expand...
No. What makes it a non-commercial operation is that you aren't holding out to the public. 61.113(c) only provides an exception to the compensation prohibition, not to the rule against holding out to the public.

I would not go out of my way to spend money to fly someone somewhere, but that's exactly what the pro-rata rule stipulates; passengers can only pay a portion of the expenses.
Click to expand...
Now that is true, but there are other rules that have to be met besides the passengers not paying more (or actually, the pilot not paying less) than "the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees" for which 61.113(c) does not provide exemption. "Holding out" to the public is one of them.
So the idea that allowing Airpooler to operate will create a whole new class of commercial aviation is, in my opinion, flawed.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. And there's nothing saying AirPooler can't operate, either -- only that aircraft operators (like pilots) can't advertise on them unless they hold a commercial operating certificate.

Now, if I were to be flying somewhere anyway, then of course it would be cool to be able to add a couple folks to my flight, especially as I much prefer having passengers than flying alone. I love sharing the experience and that's my primary motivation, but getting some costs defrayed would be cool, too.
Click to expand...
I agree that would be nice. However, the FAA has serious concerns about you advertising such air transportation for hire/compensation to the general public without meeting the much higher standards of a commercial operator as opposed to those for a private operator with his/her own personal aircraft.

I will note that the FAA has held odd positions about the Internet before this, too. For example, in one of their decisions that I read, they show a breathtaking lack of understanding of Facebook, utterly failing to understand that there might be a difference between, say, my posting to my friend list (non-public post) that I'm going to such-and-such place and would anyone want to join, and someone making a public posting (maybe on a dedicated page) to the same effect. If anyone argues that the former is "holding out" or is a commercial operation then I am at a loss as to what doesn't count as holding out.
Click to expand...
Feel free to educate them. Their address is:

Federal Aviation Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel (AGC-200)
800 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20591

I'll be waiting to see their response to your argument.
 
weilke said:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...1/haberkorn - (2011) legal interpretation.pdf

In the Haberkorn letter McPherson quoted herself a couple of times. I never realized how many of those opinions were her handywork.

I dont think she ever said that facebook is ok. She actually said that it 'may be construed as holding out' if transportation services are available to anyone within a given group (e.g. facebook users).

There is another letter to Ron that came from a regional counsel that seemed a bit less restrictive. But that letter is basically just someones opinion.
Click to expand...
The Haberkorn letter only said Facebook might be OK, not that it would be, and they'd have to examine the details of the specific case to be able to say. So, all that did is leave the door open while warning that it might not be OK, too. In the AirPooler letter they clearly said that what AirPooler was doing was not compatible with the pilots involved being legal without commercial operating certificates. Two different questions, two different answers.
 
Henning said:
OTOH, nothing morally dictates that they don't accept an offer of reimbursement either, up to the FAA Pro Rata. My time is far more valuable than fuel.
Click to expand...
I'm talking FAA regulations, not morals, when I say that if you're being a Good Samaritan/doing someone a favor, you probably don't have common purpose for the flight, and that makes expense sharing under 61.113(c) illegal regardless of whether you held out or not.

For example, "it is clear that the respondent and his friend's sick father had no common purpose in flying to Lincoln", although the NTSB was kind enough to recognize the mitigating value of that good intent and reduce the suspension from 180 days to 30 days on that basis (Administrator v. Carter). So, while no good deed goes unpunished, at least the goodness of the deed may result in a reduction in the punishment.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
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.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but is a sound, practical observation like this even allowed in this thread?
 
weilke said:
In the Haberkorn letter McPherson quoted herself a couple of times. I never realized how many of those opinions were her handywork.
Click to expand...
As the Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, MacPherson was the author (or at least the signatory - in many cases the letters were composed by other staff attorneys) of numerous interpretive letter.
 
Henning said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm familiar with the regulation allowing commercial operators and the Department of the Interior to get approval to operate their aircraft up to 15% above certificated max gross weight in Alaska (91.323), but I'm not familiar with the regulatory exception to which you refer. Can you point that one out? Or are you saying that's covered by the 61.113(c) "common purpose" exception? If the latter, 61.113(c) is in no way specific to Alaska, and I have no knowledge of any FAA Chief Counsel letter relaxing or altering the "common purpose" requirement for Alaskan operations.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Excuse me, but is a sound, practical observation like this even allowed in this thread?
Click to expand...

No. Apparently you need to mention Facebook as the mode of communication. Then the question is, "Can somebody in town catch a ride back to the community to visit a friend for gas money if they learned of the flight via Facebook and don't know the pilot?"

I'll say "No", just to confound Facebook junkies. :D

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
No. Apparently you need to mention Facebook as the mode of communication. Then the question is, "Can somebody in town catch a ride back to the community to visit a friend for gas money if they learned of the flight via Facebook and don't know the pilot?"

I'll say "No", just to confound Facebook junkies. :D

dtuuri
Click to expand...
The better "no" is Ron's post just above yours ;)
 
Following the rules in the FAA has always been kind of an honor system. Being a pilot puts you in the "brotherhood". I like that. Honorably follow the rules. Don't break one on purpose. Be as safe as you can be. Don't have accidents.
 
Ron Levy said:
.....
Feel free to educate them. Their address is:

Federal Aviation Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel (AGC-200)
800 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20591

I'll be waiting to see their response to your argument.
Click to expand...

NO! NO! NO! Don't even joke about writing to the CC, someone might actually do it!!!!

NOTHING GOOD CAN COME OF WRITING TO THE CC!!!!!!!!!!!!

bc42r.jpg
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm familiar with the regulation allowing commercial operators and the Department of the Interior to get approval to operate their aircraft up to 15% above certificated max gross weight in Alaska (91.323), but I'm not familiar with the regulatory exception to which you refer. Can you point that one out? Or are you saying that's covered by the 61.113(c) "common purpose" exception? If the latter, 61.113(c) is in no way specific to Alaska, and I have no knowledge of any FAA Chief Counsel letter relaxing or altering the "common purpose" requirement for Alaskan operations.
Click to expand...

There's no 'relaxing' necessary, the written and applied standard exists that way right now.
 
Ron Levy said:
The Haberkorn letter only said Facebook might be OK, not that it would be, and they'd have to examine the details of the specific case to be able to say. So, all that did is leave the door open while warning that it might not be OK, too. In the AirPooler letter they clearly said that what AirPooler was doing was not compatible with the pilots involved being legal without commercial operating certificates. Two different questions, two different answers.
Click to expand...

While english is not my first language, in my reading, the Haberkorn letter doesn't say that facebook may be ok at all. On the contrary, she said that making transportation available to anyone in the group that is being addressed 'may be construed as holding out' (and quotes the Dempsey letter).

Had Haberkorn stated that the offer was only available to x number of people who were also invited to the wedding, maybe the answer would have been a more concise one. As he left the scope of his facebook audience an unknown, she didn't actually state whether it is acceptable.
 
I have a question about some scenarios with a CPL but without a 135 operation. Assume you have a commercial certificate, you're flying your own plane and all of the other people are non-pilots.

1) You did not "hold out" by posting anything online but your friends know you are a pilot with a commercial certificate. One day Alice and Bob ask you to fly them to Martha's Vineyard and offer to pay for your full costs for the flight.

2) The same as scenario 1, but Alice and Bob only pay their pro-rata share.

3) You mention among a group of friends that you are flying to Martha's Vineyard next weekend, and Alice and Bob express an interested in coming. They offer to pay the full costs of the trip.

4) The same as scenario 3, but Alice and Bob only pay their pro-rata share.

My understanding is that of these only #4 is legal for both private and commercial certificate holders operating under part 91. And that #1 would be legal for a CPL IF Alice and Bob supply the plane which is an interesting quirk.

I would probably be encouraged to go through the additional training of CPL especially if the first scenario was legal under Part 91, ie, without "holding out" you could offer privately to fly a friend to a destination of their choice and accept the full cost even without Part 135. That would also enable me fly more. That's probably a net good thing for aviation safety to encourage CPLs and currency but I recognize there is a tricky bit of gray area here.
 
Henning said:
There's no 'relaxing' necessary, the written and applied standard exists that way right now.
Click to expand...
Then contrary to what it seemed you were saying earlier, I guess you agree that neither being nor not being in Alaska changes nothing on this score.
 
weilke said:
While english is not my first language, in my reading, the Haberkorn letter doesn't say that facebook may be ok at all. On the contrary, she said that making transportation available to anyone in the group that is being addressed 'may be construed as holding out' (and quotes the Dempsey letter).
Click to expand...
Right -- it may be so construed, but that leaves open the possibility that it may also not be so construed, depending on details not currently known -- sort of like Abraham bargaining with God over how many good people make it worth saving a city from destruction. Until you get down to specifics, you just don't know for sure. That's different from the AirPooler letter where they said flat out "this isn't legal", i.e., "10 is enough, but with only nine, the city gets flamed".
 
spinfire said:
I have a question about some scenarios with a CPL but without a 135 operation. Assume you have a commercial certificate, you're flying your own plane and all of the other people are non-pilots.

1) You did not "hold out" by posting anything online but your friends know you are a pilot with a commercial certificate. One day Alice and Bob ask you to fly them to Martha's Vineyard and offer to pay for your full costs for the flight.

2) The same as scenario 1, but Alice and Bob only pay their pro-rata share.

3) You mention among a group of friends that you are flying to Martha's Vineyard next weekend, and Alice and Bob express an interested in coming. They offer to pay the full costs of the trip.

4) The same as scenario 3, but Alice and Bob only pay their pro-rata share.

My understanding is that of these only #4 is legal for both private and commercial certificate holders operating under part 91. And that #1 would be legal for a CPL IF Alice and Bob supply the plane which is an interesting quirk.

I would probably be encouraged to go through the additional training of CPL especially if the first scenario was legal under Part 91, ie, without "holding out" you could offer privately to fly a friend to a destination of their choice and accept the full cost even without Part 135. That would also enable me fly more. That's probably a net good thing for aviation safety to encourage CPLs and currency but I recognize there is a tricky bit of gray area here.
Click to expand...

Assuming there's no business relationship to trigger the goodwill issue, I think #2 would be legal too, if you made the flight for your own reasons and if the money was not a factor in those reasons. Unfortunately there's no way to prove what your motivation is.
 
spinfire said:
I have a question about some scenarios with a CPL but without a 135 operation. Assume you have a commercial certificate, you're flying your own plane and all of the other people are non-pilots.

1) You did not "hold out" by posting anything online but your friends know you are a pilot with a commercial certificate. One day Alice and Bob ask you to fly them to Martha's Vineyard and offer to pay for your full costs for the flight.
Click to expand...
Not legal. While your CP ticket permits you to provide pilot services for hire, e.g., getting paid to fly Alice and Bob around in their plane, it does not permit you to provide air transportation for hire, i.e., provide both plane and pilot for a fee.

2) The same as scenario 1, but Alice and Bob only pay their pro-rata share.
Click to expand...
Since it appears you have no reason to be going to MVY on that day other than to provide air transportation to Alice and Bob, you lack the necessary "common purpose" to take advantage of the 61.113(c) exception to the rule preventing you from doing scenario 1.

3) You mention among a group of friends that you are flying to Martha's Vineyard next weekend, and Alice and Bob express an interested in coming. They offer to pay the full costs of the trip.
Click to expand...
Now you have common purpose, but you still can't take more than their pro rata share of the direct cost of the flight. While you hold a CP ticket, there is nothing in 61.133 for CP's expanding the allowable expense sharing above the pro rata share authorized by 61.113.

4) The same as scenario 3, but Alice and Bob only pay their pro-rata share.
Click to expand...
Bingo! You finally hit on all the requirements -- no holding out to the public, common purpose exists, and you're not collecting more than their pro rata share of the direct cost.

My understanding is that of these only #4 is legal for both private and commercial certificate holders operating under part 91. And that #1 would be legal for a CPL IF Alice and Bob supply the plane which is an interesting quirk.
Click to expand...
Perfect answer. The FAA's logic here is that if Bob and Alice have their own plane, they should know enough to make a good risk assessment without all the requirements of Part 135.
 
Ron Levy said:
Then contrary to what it seemed you were saying earlier, I guess you agree that neither being nor not being in Alaska changes nothing on this score.
Click to expand...

It's possible that in Alaska, people are perhaps more inclined to give the acquisition of the supplies needed to survive a higher importance than determining whether Chief Counsel opinions are complied with.
 
Ron Levy said:
Now you have common purpose, but you still can't take more than their pro rata share of the direct cost of the flight. While you hold a CP ticket, there is nothing in 61.133 for CP's expanding the allowable expense sharing above the pro rata share authorized by 61.113.
Click to expand...

You might be correct when considering interpretations and intent, but purely reading 61.113 shows that it is a limitation on "Private Pilots" and never mentions anything about people who hold a commercial certificate. My understanding is that unlike ratings a "private certificate" is distinct from a "commercial certificate". That is if I hold a "commercial certificate" I do not hold a "private pilot certificate". This would be different from ratings where I can have a multi-engine, instrument, SES, etc, ie, ratings are cumulative. If you do not hold a "private pilot certificate" then reading 61.113 no section would apply. Maybe that's a misconception about the different between certificates and ratings?

Of course I do not doubt that there could be some interpretation I am missing, or that you are broadly correct but the reason is not 61.113.

My understanding is that *without* "Holding Out" and *with* a "Common Purpose" it does not fit the other definitions of "air transport for hire" and thus does not invoke Part 135. If this is the case it would seem that CPL could accept more than pro-rata share since the wording of 61.113 does not appear to mention Commercial Pilot Certificate holders.


Edit: And specifically 61.133 which specifies the same things for Commercial Pilot and would seem to apply in lieu of 61.113 does not contain any "pro-rata" wording and instead states that Commercial Privileges can be used "provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation". Without "Holding out" and with a "common purpose" does part 91 or part 135 apply?
 
Last edited:
So, what do we think about this situation:

Pilot, living in a very cool city, likes to fly around a VFR corridor over a river, past the city.
Would do this every day, if financially possible.

Offers in facebook, saying any friends or friends of a friend, who want to fly with me, let me know. Strict about paying his own share for the flight (if there's 2 people, its rental cost/2, if 3, rntal cost/3 etc).

There is a common purpose, pilot enjoys the view and will never get bored of it. There is no "destination" apart from the Hooters after the flight, and offering it in facebook to people you know hardly is offering it for anyone.
Pilot also is not for hire. If he didn't feel like going, he didn't go.
 
mtuomi said:
So, what do we think about this situation:

Pilot, living in a very cool city, likes to fly around a VFR corridor over a river, past the city.
Would do this every day, if financially possible.

Offers in facebook, saying any friends or friends of a friend, who want to fly with me, let me know. Strict about paying his own share for the flight (if there's 2 people, its rental cost/2, if 3, rntal cost/3 etc).

There is a common purpose, pilot enjoys the view and will never get bored of it. There is no "destination" apart from the Hooters after the flight, and offering it in facebook to people you know hardly is offering it for anyone.
Pilot also is not for hire. If he didn't feel like going, he didn't go.
Click to expand...

Modify it. Commercial Pilot loves to stay within the corridor within 25SM of his airport of departure and lands only back there, gets insurance to haul rides and goes down to the local Industrial Medical Clinic and gets on a DOT MRO overseen drug screen program or keeps the receipt from a clean test <90 days old with him and gets his blessing from the FSDO to haul sightseeing flights under PT. 119, they can do so all day long with signs and advertising and holding out and all that to try and make a go of it. The insurance is the tough part, that's gonna be about $9k a year in your typical GA plane. The drug tests are $35 a whack or you can get in a program for $100 a year and they'll do the initial, put you in a pool of others for random screening, and provide whatever compliance letter that is required.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top