Flytenow Hearing

T

The-Flying-Lawyer

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
128
Location
Omaha, NE
Display Name
Display name:
TFL
If you've been following the Flytenow saga, you might be interested to know they have a hearing set for tomorrow.

If you haven't, you should pay attention. Cost is probably the #1 factor killing general aviation right now, followed by obscurity or eccentricity. Flytenow would give us a chance to seriously cut into those problems by giving us an easy way to connect with anyone looking for a lift. People have compared them to Uber or Lyft, but that's a pretty bad analogy: it's really just the online equivalent of the old ride-sharing boards people have been using to split costs for a very long time. The FAA has slapped this idea down under the common carrier rule, essentially saying that the website would allow non-commercial pilots to "hold themselves out" to the public like an air charter service.

Unfortunately, this isn't like 3CM reform, FAA privatization, or other legislative changes in that we can't do much to influence the outcome. I'll be watching with bated breath.

My stance on this is probably pretty obvious by now. What's yours?
 
Just my preliminary opinion, but I agree with the FAA, it is like holding yourself out to anyone.
 
My breath is not very bated. In the end, I think Flytenow walks, talks, eats, looks and smells like a charter server, but is in fact just ride sharing. But I don't think the FAA lawyers care.

I'm telling you, it is coming to the point when a private pilot won't be allowed to have passengers at all.
 
The-Flying-Lawyer said:
If you've been following the Flytenow saga, you might be interested to know they have a hearing set for tomorrow.

If you haven't, you should pay attention. Cost is probably the #1 factor killing general aviation right now, followed by obscurity or eccentricity. Flytenow would give us a chance to seriously cut into those problems by giving us an easy way to connect with anyone looking for a lift. People have compared them to Uber or Lyft, but that's a pretty bad analogy: it's really just the online equivalent of the old ride-sharing boards people have been using to split costs for a very long time. The FAA has slapped this idea down under the common carrier rule, essentially saying that the website would allow non-commercial pilots to "hold themselves out" to the public like an air charter service.

Unfortunately, this isn't like 3CM reform, FAA privatization, or other legislative changes in that we can't do much to influence the outcome. I'll be watching with bated breath.

My stance on this is probably pretty obvious by now. What's yours?
Click to expand...

I may be an outlier, but I actually think the FAA's stance makes a lot of sense. I have thousands of hours of single engine private flying, hundreds in IMC in all kinds of weather, yet if I don't fly regularly and miss even a few days I feel rust starting to set in. I consider anyone who is not flying professionally, or at least very intensively and routinely privately, with lots of total and recent IMC time, a danger. Exactly how much danger you could argue about, but definitely more than the pros. The general public, however, has no way of assessing this risk, since many or most lump all of aviation together. I don't see how uber-izing small planes and private pilots is going to help GA, and in fact I can see serious damage occurring to us once a few of those bite the dust with plenty of front page exposure.
 
I guess I can see both sides of this philosophically. There is a need by the feds to protect the public from less than qualified private operators acting in the capacity of a comm operator. The line is pretty narrow, and it can fall either way.

The fly in the soup of this case to me is the monetization of any ride. When you bring money into the mix, things can get muddy very fast. My gut says 'let freedom ring! Everyone flies!' but my brain says that there will be a fringe element that will misuse and even exploit the potential for abuse by charging by the trip sort of like Uber, notwithstanding the small print in the Flytenow agreement. I don't think it will degrade if allowed right from the beginning, but slowly people will find a way to make money by picking up and dropping people off at airports for cash. Once that gets going, it's hard to stop.

I could go either way. One thing I would like to see from this is hard, and clear law on non-comm ops where there is a payment involved. So far, it's mostly a series of case rulings, and opinions from the chief counsel. A bad way to make law.

<Edit: Weird. Seems the first four of us are somewhat/mostly on the side of the FAA. Weird.>

<Another edit: I guess what drives me are the day the music died crash, and also Patsy Cline and others killed in small planes flown by unqualified pilots. That kind of stuff just keeps happening, even today, and the public needs to be protected from that sort of operation. When you take money for a plane ride, the pilot is under the gun to get it done. >
 
Last edited:
RotorDude said:
I may be an outlier, but I actually think the FAA's stance makes a lot of sense...

The general public, however, has no way of assessing this risk, since many or most lump all of aviation together.
Click to expand...

It looks like I'm the outlier!

I think the part I quoted above is where I disagree. The public is very well, if not excessively, informed about the safety record of general aviation. I don't think it's a secret buried in small print, but if I did I admit I'd probably convert to your side. If the FAA wants to require some kind of giant banner disclosure to that effect, like they do on the interior of experimentals, I'm all for it.

This is why I think this is a lot more like a college ride board than Uber: pilots using Flytenow are amateurs by definition. Uber drivers may lack whatever additional training and licensure a taxi driver might need, but they are getting a paycheck for their service. Ride board drivers are just trying to cut their cost of getting home in half. The riders in each situation understand this, and probably expect more from the Uber driver than the college kid. Flytenow pilots can only defray their own costs. Sure, they get a benefit (hours in the logbook), but fundamentally they have to pay at least their pro rata share to use the service. To me, this makes the pilot-passenger relationship much more cooperative (ride board) than professional (Uber).

The real test for this distinction would be the clientele if/when Flytenow is allowed to take off. Under my theory, you would have friends/family, sightseers, and occasionally travelers also wanting to go to whatever small non-commercial airport the pilot might be using. Under the FAA's, air charter passengers would ditch their King Airs for 172s (or Bonanzas, or...).

Unfortunately, I'm not sure we'll get the chance to find out.
 
RotorDude said:
I don't see how uber-izing small planes and private pilots is going to help GA
Click to expand...

If Flytenow were anything like Uber, I'd agree with you. But it isn't.

If Uber were like Flytenow, passengers would not be able to request rides. Instead, a driver would have to say "Hey, I'm about to drive from the post office to the supermarket. Anyone want to come along?" (or "I'm driving from Houston to Dallas this weekend. Want to come?"). That would be very different (and far less useful) than the taxi service that Uber in fact provides.

So yes, an Uber-like airplane taxi service using private pilots would violate FAA rules and would lack adequate protection for the public. But instead, Flytenow just mediates pro-rata cost-sharing of common-purpose flights, which fits the FAA criteria for private-pilot privileges.
 
The-Flying-Lawyer said:
It looks like I'm the outlier!

I think the part I quoted above is where I disagree. The public is very well, if not excessively, informed about the safety record of general aviation. I don't think it's a secret buried in small print, but if I did I admit I'd probably convert to your side. If the FAA wants to require some kind of giant banner disclosure to that effect, like they do on the interior of experimentals, I'm all for it.

This is why I think this is a lot more like a college ride board than Uber: pilots using Flytenow are amateurs by definition. Uber drivers may lack whatever additional training and licensure a taxi driver might need, but they are getting a paycheck for their service. Ride board drivers are just trying to cut their cost of getting home in half. The riders in each situation understand this, and probably expect more from the Uber driver than the college kid. Flytenow pilots can only defray their own costs. Sure, they get a benefit (hours in the logbook), but fundamentally they have to pay at least their pro rata share to use the service. To me, this makes the pilot-passenger relationship much more cooperative (ride board) than professional (Uber).

The real test for this distinction would be the clientele if/when Flytenow is allowed to take off. Under my theory, you would have friends/family, sightseers, and occasionally travelers also wanting to go to whatever small non-commercial airport the pilot might be using. Under the FAA's, air charter passengers would ditch their King Airs for 172s (or Bonanzas, or...).

Unfortunately, I'm not sure we'll get the chance to find out.
Click to expand...

I realize it's not identical to Uber, but I think effectively it's very similar. Many pilots consider even a partial defrayal of flying costs a big plus along with the extra flight hours logged. In fact, many are working as flight instructors or similar for starvation wages and poor conditions for the same reasons. The problem here is that having a big fancy company behind it, even if it's only to maintain a virtual bulletin board, creates an illusion of safety, because the public starts believing that some kind of vetting takes place of both man and machine. I completely disagree about the general public knowing about the safety of GA in any kind of detail. Most of them just feel aviation as a whole is dangerous, and don't bother to make distinctions. Yes, big planes may crash less often, but when they do it's much more spectacular, so it evens out the psychological effects.
 
JeffDG said:
And I would ask where does the phrase "holding out" appear in Part 91?
Click to expand...
ac120-12a

4 GUIDELINES.
to the public,
A carrier becomes a common carrier when it "holds itself out"
or to a segment of the public, as willing to furnish
transportation within the limits of its facilities to any person who wants it.
Absence of tariffs or rate schedules, transportation only pursuant to separately
negotiated contracts, or occasional refusals to transport, are not conclusive
proof that the carrier is not a common carrier. There are four elements in
defining a common carrier; (1) a holding out of a willingness to (2) transport
persons or property (3) from place to place (4) for compensation. This "holding
out" which makes a person a common carrier can be done in many ways and it does
not matter how it is done.
Click to expand...

14 cfr 110.2
§ 110.2 Definitions For the purpose of this subchapter, the term—
All-cargo operation means any operation for compensation or hire that is other than a passenger-carrying operation or, if passengers are carried, they are only those specified in § 121.583(a) or § 135.85 of this chapter.
Certificate-holding district office means the Flight Standards District Office that has responsibility for administering the certificate and is charged with the overall inspection of the certificate holder's operations.
Commercial air tour means a flight conducted for compensation or hire in an airplane or helicopter where a purpose of the flight is sightseeing. The FAA may consider the following factors in determining whether a flight is a commercial air tour:
(1) Whether there was a holding out to the public of willingness to conduct a sightseeing flight for compensation or hire;
Click to expand...

it doesn't have to be in part 91 to matter.
 
RotorDude said:
I completely disagree about the general public knowing about the safety of GA in any kind of detail. Most of them just feel aviation as a whole is dangerous, and don't bother to make distinctions.
Click to expand...

I think we must have different friends, and that's ok. When I tell people I fly little planes, by far the most common reaction I get is "aren't those really dangerous?" I grew up around it, so it never bothered me, but I know it's still a challenge for my entire in-law family even though my wife and I mostly use GA to visit them. I really don't think people have that perception of United or Southwest or whoever, and for good reason.
 
acrophile said:
If Flytenow were anything like Uber, I'd agree with you. But it isn't.

If Uber were like Flytenow, passengers would not be able to request rides. Instead, a driver would have to say "Hey, I'm about to drive from the post office to the supermarket. Anyone want to come along?" (or "I'm driving from Houston to Dallas this weekend. Want to come?"). That would be very different (and far less useful) than the taxi service that Uber in fact provides.

So yes, an Uber-like airplane taxi service using private pilots would violate FAA rules and would lack adequate protection for the public. But instead, Flytenow just mediates pro-rata cost-sharing of common-purpose flights, which fits the FAA criteria for private-pilot privileges.
Click to expand...
:yes:
 
PeeGee said:
ac120-12a



14 cfr 110.2


it doesn't have to be in part 91 to matter.
Click to expand...

Interesting...an advisory circular is not regulatory, and the other one applies to cargo and tour operators.

The issue with FlyteNow is that the FAA is trying to impose regulatory burdens on people through non-regulatory processes, like Chief Counsel interpretations or Advisory Circulars.

You see, to put something into the actual regulations, the FAA is required to abide by the notice-and-comment provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, which both interpretation letters and advisory circulars bypass entirely.
 
Where the line blurs is a PPL who hops on Flytenow, and sees a req for a ride share from Chi-town to Boston area next week and thinks to himself; 'Hmmm, I could go for some fresh lobster next week, so that means I have a reason to go to Bean Town, therefore we have a common purpose, therefore this fits the definition of the FAA, therefore I will contact this person and offer to let them sit in my plane, and pay me gas money.'

Another case example; 'It costs me too much to fly myself from TX to CO for a long weekend ski trip, so I will post on Flytenow and see what I get. If I can fill two seats, and collect gas money the cost justification is there for the trip that I otherwise would find too expensive on it's own merit'.

I think I've just given the FAA their main case arguments. Sorry.
 
JeffDG said:
The issue with FlyteNow is that the FAA is trying to impose regulatory burdens on people through non-regulatory processes, like Chief Counsel interpretations or Advisory Circulars.

You see, to put something into the actual regulations, the FAA is required to abide by the notice-and-comment provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, which both interpretation letters and advisory circulars bypass entirely.
Click to expand...

This is a most excellent point. Administration without legislation is running rampant in our govt these days. It bugs the shyte out of me, which is why I'm kind of glad to see this played out and part of me hopes the FAA loses so they will then go through the correct process to define the gray area.:yes:
 
JeffDG said:
And I would ask where does the phrase "holding out" appear in Part 91?
Click to expand...

Hi Jeff - I'm just guessing here, but it's probably more about Part 61, specifically 61.113(a) which says that the holder of a private pilot certificate may not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

61.113(c) puts the familiar floor on how much a pilot has to pay when flying with passengers (not less than his pro rata share of the operating expense).

However, at least to my mind's eye, that doesn't mean that all expense sharing arrangements are clear of (a).

There is no requirement in (a) that the pilot make a profit for it to be "for compensation or hire." In my opinion, searching for members of the public to ride along with me on my flight follies is essentially just me selling, for compensation, a resource that would otherwise go wasted, i.e. my empty seats.

If the proposed FlyteNow arrangement allows for a widespread, systematic marriage between the public and pilots like me, then the public deserves to be protected from the very likes of me. If my friends and family want to fly with me, great. If one of you crazy pilot guys or gals wants to fly with me, great. Random public guy or gal, not so great.

As an example, if I want to fly to Big Bear and I cut my operating expenses down by 75% while doing so because 3 friends make the trip with me, that's fine. But, I don't think it's a great idea that I can advertise my trip to find three random people that also want to go to Big Bear to do some skiing.

They know not what they do.
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
Where the line blurs is a PPL who hops on Flytenow, and sees a req for a ride share from Chi-town to Boston area next week and thinks to himself; 'Hmmm, I could go for some fresh lobster next week, so that means I have a reason to go to Bean Town, therefore we have a common purpose, therefore this fits the definition of the FAA, therefore I will contact this person and offer to let them sit in my plane, and pay me gas money.'

Another case example; 'It costs me too much to fly myself from TX to CO for a long weekend ski trip, so I will post on Flytenow and see what I get. If I can fill two seats, and collect gas money the cost justification is there for the trip that I otherwise would find too expensive on it's own merit'.

I think I've just given the FAA their main case arguments. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just naive or something, but I simply don't see the problem. Neither of these would be impermissible by word of mouth under the pro rata share rule that pilots have been using for decades. Heck, you could start a PoA thread or fire mass emails to everyone you knew to try and accomplish the same thing. Some airports do have ride-boards precisely for flights like this, and nobody seems to think those run afoul. Why is the internet so different?
 
Another thought just occurred to me: the Uber v. ride board analogy really depends more on perspective than anything else. From the pilots' perspective, it's a ride sharing board. From the consumers, particularly any consumers who are miraculously ignorant of GA's poor safety record compared to airlines, I admit that it wouldn't look very different from Uber. I think this goes to the heart of the FAA's mission: is it to regulate pilots or protect non-pilots?

It's obviously kind of a continuum, but I do think that where the judge lands on that continuum might be outcome-determinative in this case.
 
RotorDude said:
I realize it's not identical to Uber, but I think effectively it's very similar. Many pilots consider even a partial defrayal of flying costs a big plus along with the extra flight hours logged. In fact, many are working as flight instructors or similar for starvation wages and poor conditions for the same reasons. The problem here is that having a big fancy company behind it, even if it's only to maintain a virtual bulletin board, creates an illusion of safety, because the public starts believing that some kind of vetting takes place of both man and machine. I completely disagree about the general public knowing about the safety of GA in any kind of detail. Most of them just feel aviation as a whole is dangerous, and don't bother to make distinctions. Yes, big planes may crash less often, but when they do it's much more spectacular, so it evens out the psychological effects.
Click to expand...

caveat emptor. It is not government's place to worry what people actually understand, but it is its place to make sure the information is readily available.

docmirror said:
Where the line blurs is a PPL who hops on Flytenow, and sees a req for a ride share from Chi-town to Boston area next week and thinks to himself; 'Hmmm, I could go for some fresh lobster next week, so that means I have a reason to go to Bean Town, therefore we have a common purpose, therefore this fits the definition of the FAA, therefore I will contact this person and offer to let them sit in my plane, and pay me gas money.'

Another case example; 'It costs me too much to fly myself from TX to CO for a long weekend ski trip, so I will post on Flytenow and see what I get. If I can fill two seats, and collect gas money the cost justification is there for the trip that I otherwise would find too expensive on it's own merit'.

I think I've just given the FAA their main case arguments. Sorry.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with either scenario. The government should not have so much power that it gets to dictate our rationale for an action. It may, however, regulate the action.

docmirror said:
This is a most excellent point. Administration without legislation is running rampant in our govt these days. It bugs the shyte out of me, which is why I'm kind of glad to see this played out and part of me hopes the FAA loses so they will then go through the correct process to define the gray area.:yes:
Click to expand...

Quite true.

I am for a libertarian approach to this. Will some people think this is a commercial service? Moot. The question is whether a reasonable person would come to that conclusion. There has to be a way to structure this so that full disclosure is available, rules are followed, and from there, truly, caveat emptor and GTFO of our affairs, FAA.
 
JeffDG said:
Interesting...an advisory circular is not regulatory, and the other one applies to cargo and tour operators.

The issue with FlyteNow is that the FAA is trying to impose regulatory burdens on people through non-regulatory processes, like Chief Counsel interpretations or Advisory Circulars.

You see, to put something into the actual regulations, the FAA is required to abide by the notice-and-comment provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, which both interpretation letters and advisory circulars bypass entirely.
Click to expand...

Please read all of 14 CFR Part 110, as well as 14 CFR Part 119. Theses are regulations, and they are quit clear on the subject.
 
To be fair to the FAA, their CC opinions and ACs and INfOs are put forth so that we know where they draw the legal lines and how they will interpret the FARs. That doesn't mean they can't be challenged, as FlyteNow is doing. So we can choose to have our own interpretation different from the FAA's but we better be willing to fight them in court - and most of us have no means or intention of doing that.
 
I'm curious: even if the FAA relented and went along with Flytnow's concept, I wonder what the aircraft insurers' response might be? I can't imagine them not feeling a bit more exposed in such a case.
 
LDJones said:
I'm curious: even if the FAA relented and went along with Flytnow's concept, I wonder what the aircraft insurers' response might be? I can't imagine them not feeling a bit more exposed in such a case.
Click to expand...

They'll follow the actuarial numbers.
 
Well...other than "Agency position appears consistent." I took that as an endorsement of grounding Flytenow.
 
The assertion that FAA is "protecting" anyone today with the rules, is patently false. Once one realizes that, the rest of the argument falls apart.

We just showed definitively that a non-rated pilot can kill themselves and four others in an RV-10 and again a week prior in a 310. The 310 pilot had been flying for over a decade unrated. Nobody in his circle seemed to care or notice.

FAA is totally missing the opportunity to extend and embrace the whole thing, Microsoft style. They should be quite pleased a well advertised and marketed web location is going to provide them a list of flights to go ramp check as soon as they land, to make sure the pilot did a proper pre-flight, planning, w&b, and all that, as well as has their aircraft paperwork in order.

And they'd get to ride on the wave of "safety" by saying that there's a "special focus" on such activity.

Fighting it is retarded. It's happening anyway. Driving it underground is ultimately the end result of fighting these website guys.

But bureaucracies and the religious who believe in them, never step back and look at what's actually occurring. They believe the rule book is followed.

Wouldn't it just be smarter to just smile and say "go for it" and download a list of flights and head to the airport for ramp checks? Sure. But bureaucracy doesn't think that way.

If they think what these guys want to do isn't happening every day of the week, they're not only stupid, they're blind. See the two crashes in the last two weeks for proof of the low end of that bell curve. The middle is not crashing and is much much bigger by simple extrapolation of the known data.

But the idea that FAA is "protecting" anyone is absurd as a starting point for logic in this matter. Without hard numbers of enforcement actions taken, it's mostly marketing.
 
JeffDG said:
And I would ask where does the phrase "holding out" appear in Part 91?
Click to expand...

RotorAndWing said:
Please read all of 14 CFR Part 110, as well as 14 CFR Part 119. Theses are regulations, and they are quit clear on the subject.
Click to expand...

f'rinstance...
§135.7 Applicability of rules to unauthorized operators.
The rules in this part which apply to a person certificated under part 119 of this chapter also apply to a person who engages in any operation governed by this part without an appropriate certificate and operations specifications required by part 119 of this chapter.
Click to expand...
 
The proponents of FlyteNow keeping referring to "old ride-share boards" (the prevalence and popularity of which I think is being overestimated or exaggerated) without acknowledging that those boards were directed, almost exclusively, to other pilots and NOT to the general public. Whether the Sun 'n Fun or Oshkosh online forums, or physical airport bulletin boards, those efforts were directed at other pilots. Sure, the "general public" may have had theoretical access to them, but common sense tells us that basically nobody but pilots were using them. As a result, the FAA didn't really care too much. FlyteNow is different, as it's marketed at the general public and has an underlying profit motive.

In other words, while they might seem similar on the surface, FlyteNow is very different from "ride share boards."
 
The-Flying-Lawyer said:
Maybe I'm just naive or something, but I simply don't see the problem. Neither of these would be impermissible by word of mouth under the pro rata share rule that pilots have been using for decades. Heck, you could start a PoA thread or fire mass emails to everyone you knew to try and accomplish the same thing. Some airports do have ride-boards precisely for flights like this, and nobody seems to think those run afoul. Why is the internet so different?
Click to expand...

I don't think you're naive, and I applaud your position on behalf of GA. The point is not the media, the point is the message. If publishing a 'for ride' anywhere in any media changes the mission, then we're over the line into holding out.

Look again at the examples. While you and I, as reasonable people can see there would be no fault here, it will slip to the point where the trip to Boston to have a lobster dinner becomes secondary to the mission of getting flight hours, and some money to move people from one place to another. Once in Boston, maybe the pilot says 'hmmm, weather front moving in from the midwest, I better head back early. No lobster, but I'll grab a big mac on the way to the airport.'

Mission, and alteration, or decision based on financial incentive - not media.
 
petrolero said:
I have no problem with either scenario. The government should not have so much power that it gets to dictate our rationale for an action. It may, however, regulate the action.
Click to expand...

And I strongly agree with you WRT the powers of the govt being restricted to actions. Where things get fuzzy to be sure, is in the motivation for said actions, and it's a very tough nut to crack.

Maybe it would help to look again at the motives or rationale for the day the music died, and the Patsy Cline crashes, and see where things start to go sideways. Would either of those pilots taken a chance and operated in those conditions had they not been motivated by flight hours, schedules and money?

One of the things that drives me crazy about our direction in this country is the amount of prior restraint that allowed to go on. Lets face it, the fedguv is risk averse when it comes to GA. I think we can all agree on that. The big questions we're all trying to figure is how much prior restraint is good, and how much is too much. I admit I don't have an answer that satisfies everyone. My case and position is one that I think, but am not sure will be the greatest gain for the greatest amount of long-term freedom for GA pilots.

I can envision another round of crashes with Flytenow as a component of the cause and then the screws will be tightened and we all suffer. And I would be hot to go on Flytenow, just for the case of a ski buddy or two for my trips to CO. But, anyone getting in my plane would have to know that it is time permitting, and if I don't like the situation then we just don't fly, and that is the end of discussion.
 
I guess I don't have a problem with 'holding out' as defined by the FAA and that's where I differ. People 'hold out' now. The only difference here is the medium. The FAA is fighting modern methods of communication, not 'holding out'. If a pilot holds out that he has a commercial ticket or operation then that is FRAUD and that is illegal everywhere already.

They seem to imagine pilots and passengers randomly coming into contact with each other like so many molecules. That's certainly a component of it, but pilots also communicate on forums like this one and also via the Twitbooks and Instaface, etc.

The entities that the FAA protects with these interpretations are the commercial airlines who must certainly feel threatened by pilots and passengers getting together ad hoc.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of "holding out", this is from the FAQs on Flytenow's website:

Would this be considered "Holding Out"?

When you create an adventure, you are not "holding out" under 14 C.F.R. 119.5(k) because your adventure does not communicate to the public that transportation services are indiscriminately available but rather, only available to an enthusiast who has a demonstrated common interest in the specific date, points of operation, and adventure. Moreover, Part 119 applies to Air Carriers and Commercial Operators for Compensation or Hire, not pilots engaged in the genuine sharing of expenses under 14 CFR 61.113(a)-(d). http://blog.flytenow.com/the-legality-of-ride-sharing-in-aviation
 
petrolero said:
The entities that the FAA protects with these interpretations are the commercial airlines who must certainly feel threatened by pilots and passengers getting together ad hoc.
Click to expand...

That's a bit delusional. I can't fathom the commercial airlines are even remotely worried about services like Flytenow. Smaller charter operations, maybe. But I doubt this is much more than a blip on the radar at SWA, United, Delta, etc.
 
RotorDude said:
The problem here is that having a big fancy company behind it, even if it's only to maintain a virtual bulletin board, creates an illusion of safety, because the public starts believing that some kind of vetting takes place of both man and machine.
Click to expand...

Even if it were still true that having a web page conveys some kind of gravitas, any illusion or misconception could easily be dispelled by a prominent, explicit disclaimer.
 
Flocker said:
Speaking of "holding out",....
Click to expand...

My understanding is that holding out is the crux of the issue...the FAA says FlyteNow is holding out, which makes it illegal. FlyteNow says they're not holding out, and that the FAA is against their use of the Internet to do what the FAA considers to be holding out.:dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top