FlyteNow Sues FAA (Uber for pilots)

Henning said:
Either that, or they will relinquish the liability to the courts
Click to expand...
You can't sue a court for damages over the results stemming from that's court's decision (do some research on "judicial immunity"), so I don't see how the FAA could do that.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm sure you do, but some others (including the plaintiff's attorneys) seem to be ignoring that fundamental issue. The FAA wouldn't give a damn about their web site if there was no money changing hands in return for air transportation, but since that's what FlyteNow's program involves, the FAA has all the authority they need to regulate it. The only question would be whether it was just the pilots or also FlyteNow who would be breaking the FAA's regulations on that subject. The fact that FlyteNow would taking a cut of the money is probably why the FAA has said they will go after them, as opposed to the other sites like PilotsShareTheRide, where the site is not involved in the financial transactions. Hence,...

"It's the money, stupid!"
Click to expand...

That's exactly what my friend said to FlyteNow's founder, Matt (and obviously I agreed with my friend). He said:

Further, you state your case as if what you are doing is good for pilots. As a private pilot, I don't hold that view at all. In fact, I think that were this scheme to go ahead, an accident where a member of the public is killed or badly injured is inevitable, leading potentially to onerous regulatory changes on general aviation. In my view, there is very, very little upside to what you propose for pilots and very significant potential downside.

Pilots already share costs -- with friends, family, etc. But we are private pilots, not mini airlines, and I am quite comfortable with the current situation. The only one who doesn't seem to benefit from the current situation is your company -- whose goal it is to make money on the back of pilots sharing rides.

If your goals are so noble, just create a website and let pilots and interested passengers post for free. It could even be a vBulletin site. No other technology is needed. If the FAA says this is okay, that would work just fine. Free technology, maintained for a very minimal amount of money per year, all to benefit pilots.
Click to expand...
 
David7700 said:
I wish I could search earlier opinions. Thanks for that.

Do you have a copy of the Transoceanic action from 1950?

Transocean Airlines, Enforcement Proceeding, 11 C.A.B. at 350 (1950)
Click to expand...
I do. It's in the joint appendix filed in the case. I'll post the full appendix somewhere and make it available
 
David7700 said:
That's exactly what my friend said to FlyteNow's founder, Matt (and obviously I agreed with my friend). He said:
Click to expand...

I too agree with your friend. I only need to remind all of the supporters of FlyteNow and similar sites that none of these issues would have arise if GA airplanes didn't crash at the rate they do. The reason why 135 operators have higher standards is because they are flying paying customers, who presumably have a higher expectation of safety. If you want to fly people you don't already have a relationship with, and get paid money to do it, get a 135 certificate.

If for some strange reason the FAA did allow the ridesharing sites to operate as originally envisioned, a high profile accident would only be a matter of time.

Recently in the news the story of the accident with the sole 7yo survivor made the rounds, placing a very dark mark on GA. Imaging if the pilot in that scenario, rather than her daddy, was some random 200 hour pilot trying to build flight time?

If the issue is that a 135 certificate is too hard to get, then perhaps the effort and energy should be placed on petitioning the FAA to rework that.
 
Man, reading what some of you guys write is pretty disheartening. Like begging scraps of liberty from yo massa. 'Please, let me fly with another person in the plane, and take a smidge of money? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeaassssseeeeeee!!!!!'

Grovelling works well in a benevolent kingdom. Ooops, I forgot where I was living for a second.
 
Ron Levy said:
You can't sue a court for damages over the results stemming from that's court's decision (do some research on "judicial immunity"), so I don't see how the FAA could do that.
Click to expand...

Simple, just like you said. If the court orders them to relinquish and relieve the people from this burden, all they have to do is say, "Yes Your Honor", and the Court Order then absorbs the liability of failing to fulfill the function, and like you said, can't sue the courts. So what it does is puts the regulation of this factor in the hands of those who accept the liability, insurance companies and their actuaries, where it will be handled as efficiently as one could hope (not saying it will be great, but likely more liberal in what is allowed now).
 
docmirror said:
Man, reading what some of you guys write is pretty disheartening. Like begging scraps of liberty from yo massa. 'Please, let me fly with another person in the plane, and take a smidge of money? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeaassssseeeeeee!!!!!'

Grovelling works well in a benevolent kingdom. Ooops, I forgot where I was living for a second.
Click to expand...

This isn't about personal liberty or freedom of speech. It's about aviation and aviation safety. It's about existing law.

I am a huge proponent of smaller, less intrusive government. You probably have figured out I am somewhat socially liberal but economically conservative. It's amazing to me--astounding, really--that people (pilots, especially) on the PB, POA, and in the comments to articles and blogs on the subject matter do not see or understand the details or implications of this. They look at it on the surface with no understanding or research and say, "No. I hope FlyteNow wins. Bad FAA. Bad Government. Stay out of our lives. Let me tell you about my view on ADS-B . . . " and then go off in another direction.

Part of the issue with that, I think, is the society we live in where people really believe that a 15-30 second news story will tell you all you need to know on a subject. IDK. Perhaps I'm just jaded.
 
Henning said:
Simple, just like you said. If the court orders them to relinquish and relieve the people from this burden, all they have to do is say, "Yes Your Honor", and the Court Order then absorbs the liability of failing to fulfill the function, and like you said, can't sue the courts. So what it does is puts the regulation of this factor in the hands of those who accept the liability, insurance companies and their actuaries, where it will be handled as efficiently as one could hope (not saying it will be great, but likely more liberal in what is allowed now).
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you guys have gotten into here. Suing the court? What does this have to do with anything.
 
Don't ask for your rights, they might say no.:rolleyes2: You guys are going to make the king mad, don't make the king mad or it will be off to the dungeon for us.
docmirror said:
Man, reading what some of you guys write is pretty disheartening. Like begging scraps of liberty from yo massa. 'Please, let me fly with another person in the plane, and take a smidge of money? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeaassssseeeeeee!!!!!'

Grovelling works well in a benevolent kingdom. Ooops, I forgot where I was living for a second.
Click to expand...
 
Some of us would rather have freedom or nothing. If Flytenow kills all sharing I'm OK with that. Better then the retarded rules we have now. You guys are groveling and thankful cause the king lets you keep all the grain you can pick out of cowpoop. Pathetic.
David7700 said:
This isn't about personal liberty or freedom of speech. It's about aviation and aviation safety. It's about existing law.

I am a huge proponent of smaller, less intrusive government. You probably have figured out I am somewhat socially liberal but economically conservative. It's amazing to me--astounding, really--that people (pilots, especially) on the PB, POA, and in the comments to articles and blogs on the subject matter do not see or understand the details or implications of this. They look at it on the surface with no understanding or research and say, "No. I hope FlyteNow wins. Bad FAA. Bad Government. Stay out of our lives. Let me tell you about my view on ADS-B . . . " and then go off in another direction.

Part of the issue with that, I think, is the society we live in where people really believe that a 15-30 second news story will tell you all you need to know on a subject. IDK. Perhaps I'm just jaded.
Click to expand...
 
ClimbnSink said:
Some of us would rather have freedom or nothing. If Flytenow kills all sharing I'm OK with that. Better then the retarded rules we have now. You guys are groveling and thankful cause the king lets you keep all the grain you can pick out of cowpoop. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Your analogy makes no sense to me. I'm all for "to each his own" though. :tinfoil:
 
David7700 said:
This isn't about personal liberty or freedom of speech. It's about aviation and aviation safety. It's about existing law.

I am a huge proponent of smaller, less intrusive government. You probably have figured out I am somewhat socially liberal but economically conservative. It's amazing to me--astounding, really--that people (pilots, especially) on the PB, POA, and in the comments to articles and blogs on the subject matter do not see or understand the details or implications of this. They look at it on the surface with no understanding or research and say, "No. I hope FlyteNow wins. Bad FAA. Bad Government. Stay out of our lives. Let me tell you about my view on ADS-B . . . " and then go off in another direction.

Part of the issue with that, I think, is the society we live in where people really believe that a 15-30 second news story will tell you all you need to know on a subject. IDK. Perhaps I'm just jaded.
Click to expand...

I think we're at a point where we'll have to agree to disagree(me being a a social liberal, and fiscal conservative as well) . I've asked that people take a larger look at the fundamentals here. Being a libertarian I see way too much as an assault on liberty. Yes, there is a need for oversight and regulation of the NAS, and those who use it. Anarchy won't work well in this situation where we all have to share. But I warn you, all of you that this kind of preemptive restraint, no matter the forum(in this case aviation) will end badly. It's one more Prohibition act writ small, and along with the controlled substances act, and a few other similar restraints continue to chink away at fundamentally deciding how you want to live your life.

Sadly, the Day the Music Died, along with the death of Patsy Cline before set the stage for the current regulations. Now, I mourn the loss of some of the best voices and writers in the world of music, but for the rest of us, a very large population we are all paying the price in liberty for the mistakes in judgement of those who erred before us. Everyone has to decide how much management your life needs. The FAA, SEC, BATF, FCC, and a million other letter agencies are presuming more authority than I want. If stupid people do stupid things, is it the job of govt to save them from themselves? Everyone's line in the sand is different, but since I've been around, we've gone from risk and experience to a measured allowance of opportunities to be just like the drone next door. I don't like it.
 
docmirror said:
Man, reading what some of you guys write is pretty disheartening. Like begging scraps of liberty from yo massa. 'Please, let me fly with another person in the plane, and take a smidge of money? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeaassssseeeeeee!!!!!'

Grovelling works well in a benevolent kingdom. Ooops, I forgot where I was living for a second.
Click to expand...

Really? Really???

Okay, let's think this through. Suppose FlyteNow prevails and gets the go-ahead to provide this service. They publicize it and start connecting members of the public with private pilots who, at least in theory, have reason go in the same direction. Passengers pay a pro rata portion of the expenses.

Sounds great, huh? Lots of freedom! Yay!

What private pilots will be allowed to offer rides? Any private pilot? How about the pilot who just got his license last week? Last month? Last year?

How about the pilot who has 800 hours -- but has flown 8 hours a year for the last six years?

How about the pilot who just upgraded to a fancy new plane -- bigger, heavier, lots of room for lots of passengers -- and has four hours in it?

How about the pilot who has had two accidents already?

How about the pilot who thinks that if getting one passenger to come along on a flight in his 172, then two more would be three times as good?

How about the pilot who's pretty concerned about the way the weather is turning out but doesn't want to disappoint the two paying passengers who showed up to meet him on time? Or turn down the hundreds of dollars they are willing to pay him?

How about the pilot who is flying his friend's airplane and didn't really have all that much time to familiarize himself with the plane and its operation?

How about the pilot with a tight budget who hasn't been able to fix those squawks and thinks things will probably be okay for another few flights when he can afford to pay for maintenance? Or the pilot who puts everything off until the next annual because, hey, that's always worked in the past?

How about the young pilot who is going to skip making a fuel stop because the businessman who is his passenger has told him that he's in a "huge hurry" to make a meeting?

And then, once you decide what pilots are going to fly, who can fly with them? Anyone? How about kids? Is it okay to send a couple of kids off with an unknown pilot? Would you?

How about your mother? Or grandmother? Would you be okay with them just picking a flight off a website and going flying with a pilot you know nothing about in a plane you know nothing about? Would you be comfortable with that?

And how about those passengers? Would you be willing to take anyone who shows up with a few bucks? Suppose you take some guy on a flight because he's offered to pay and you find out at 7500' that he's a psycho who has been looking forward to killing himself for a long time?

What about the young woman who seems a bit sad and then, in the air, announces that she wants to jump?

How in the world would you judge a passenger or passengers if you know nothing about them except the fact that they are willing to shell out a few bucks? How would you tell your friends and family to judge the pilots that they want to go flying with? Is there any way non-pilots could reasonably make a judgment as to whether someone is sane, safe, possessing of good judgment and not under undue influence for today's flight?

As a society, we have chosen to place strict regulations on the common carriage of passengers, primarily in the name of safety. Were FlyteNow to prevail and open the gates to this, it would be like the wild west. I'd never fly a passenger I didn't know, unless it was someone with a medical need or some other similar requirement. I'd also recommend to friends and family that they never take advantage of FlyteNow's service: there would simply be no reasonable way to judge how safe the very next flight would be. And when you put the paying, naive public in the position of purchasing said flight, that's a real problem.
 
Last edited:
ClimbnSink said:
Some of us would rather have freedom or nothing. If Flytenow kills all sharing I'm OK with that. Better then the retarded rules we have now. You guys are groveling and thankful cause the king lets you keep all the grain you can pick out of cowpoop. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

You think the rules now are retarded? Okay, why?

The rules allow pilots to share costs with passengers on a pro rata basis providing that a couple of simple tests are met. Those tests are purposefully designed to make it hard for pilots to essentially become mini-airlines for friends, family or others. The FAA clearly believes that anyone providing airline service, mini or full-size, needs to operate in a manner that is demonstrably safe. They offer a way for anyone who wants to do that to do so. Simply being a private pilot doesn't fulfill the requirements.

Evidently, you think that's retarded. I don't share that view. I think that safeguarding the safety of the public is a rational, sane thing for us as a country to want to do. Sorry you disagree.

Evidently, you are seeing this only through the lens of your dislike of government. Okay, fair enough. But if FlyteNow's actions cause a change of regulation that prohibit private pilots from taking any money from anyone for any portion of a flight, don't come back whining.

Oh, and by the way, the only way to have the freedom to do anything you want without any government interference is to go buy a private island and be king. Barring that, living in a democracy means living by the rules and laws promulgated by the democratically-elected government.
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
I think we're at a point where we'll have to agree to disagree(me being a a social liberal, and fiscal conservative as well) . I've asked that people take a larger look at the fundamentals here. Being a libertarian I see way too much as an assault on liberty. Yes, there is a need for oversight and regulation of the NAS, and those who use it. Anarchy won't work well in this situation where we all have to share. But I warn you, all of you that this kind of preemptive restraint, no matter the forum(in this case aviation) will end badly. It's one more Prohibition act writ small, and along with the controlled substances act, and a few other similar restraints continue to chink away at fundamentally deciding how you want to live your life.

Sadly, the Day the Music Died, along with the death of Patsy Cline before set the stage for the current regulations. Now, I mourn the loss of some of the best voices and writers in the world of music, but for the rest of us, a very large population we are all paying the price in liberty for the mistakes in judgement of those who erred before us. Everyone has to decide how much management your life needs. The FAA, SEC, BATF, FCC, and a million other letter agencies are presuming more authority than I want. If stupid people do stupid things, is it the job of govt to save them from themselves? Everyone's line in the sand is different, but since I've been around, we've gone from risk and experience to a measured allowance of opportunities to be just like the drone next door. I don't like it.
Click to expand...

I hate to see freedoms eroded, too. But you and others like you would do away with the FAA. DO they not have an important role to play? I think you do aviation a dis-service in this matter.

ON other subjects like ADS-B, I'm against the regulation. That is new regulation and a policy the FAA clearly has not thought out.

Do you favor drones just flying around with no oversight or regulation? I do not and think that regulation must come when new technology comes. But I don't want it to be overbearing regulation.

But I can agree to disagree with you on opinions or even points of fact.

What I am attempting to do here on POA is post my research and insight into the issues. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
 
qbynewbie said:
You think the rules now are retarded? Okay, why?

The rules allow pilots to share costs with passengers on a pro rata basis providing that a couple of simple tests are met. Those tests are purposefully designed to make it hard for pilots to essentially become mini-airlines for friends, family or others. The FAA clearly believes that anyone providing airline service, mini or full-size, needs to operate in a manner that is demonstrably safe. They offer a way for anyone who wants to do that to do so. Simply being a private pilot doesn't fulfill the requirements.

Evidently, you think that's retarded. I don't share that view. I think that safeguarding the safety of the public is a rational, sane thing for us as a country to want to do. Sorry you disagree.

Evidently, you are seeing this only through the lens of your dislike of government. Okay, fair enough. But if FlyteNow's actions cause a change of regulation that prohibit private pilots from taking any money from anyone for any portion of a flight, don't come back whining.

Oh, and by the way, the only way to have the freedom to do anything you want without any government interference is to go by a private island and be king. Barring that, living in a democracy means living by the rules and laws promulgated by the democratically-elected government.
Click to expand...

Some good points, Brian.
 
Everybody with 40 hours and a license is equal. All those people that are unfit in your opinion can kill themselves and their friends right now, you want them grounded? More rules? Or just not as easy to split costs? That'll save the children.:rolleyes2: Next you are going to tell us cab medallions save lives.:lol:
qbynewbie said:
Really? Really???

Okay, let's think this through. Suppose FlyteNow prevails and gets the go-ahead to provide this service. They publicize it and start connecting members of the public with private pilots who, at least in theory, have reason go in the same direction. Passengers pay a pro rata portion of the expenses.

Sounds great, huh? Lots of freedom! Yay!

What private pilots will be allowed to offer rides? Any private pilot? How about the pilot who just got his license last week? Last month? Last year?

How about the pilot who has 800 hours -- but has flown 8 hours a year for the last six years?

How about the pilot who just upgraded to a fancy new plane -- bigger, heavier, lots of room for lots of passengers -- and has four hours in it?

How about the pilot who has had two accidents already?

How about the pilot who thinks that if getting one passenger to come along on a flight in his 172, then two more would be three times as good?

How about the pilot who's pretty concerned about the way the weather is turning out but doesn't want to disappoint the two paying passengers who showed up to meet him on time? Or turn down the hundreds of dollars they are willing to pay him?

How about the pilot who is flying his friend's airplane and didn't really have all that much time to familiarize himself with the plane and its operation?

How about the pilot with a tight budget who hasn't been able to fix those squawks and thinks things will probably be okay for another few flights when he can afford to pay for maintenance? Or the pilot who puts everything off until the next annual because, hey, that's always worked in the past?

How about the young pilot who is going to skip making a fuel stop because the businessman who is his passenger has told him that he's in a "huge hurry" to make a meeting?

And then, once you decide what pilots are going to fly, who can fly with them? Anyone? How about kids? Is it okay to send a couple of kids off with an unknown pilot? Would you?

How about your mother? Or grandmother? Would you be okay with them just picking a flight off a website and going flying with a pilot you know nothing about in a plane you know nothing about? Would you be comfortable with that?

And how about those passengers? Would you be willing to take anyone who shows up with a few bucks? Suppose you take some guy on a flight because he's offered to pay and you find out at 7500' that he's a psycho who has been looking forward to killing himself for a long time?

What about the young woman who seems a bit sad and then, in the air, announces that she wants to jump?

How in the world would you judge a passenger or passengers if you know nothing about them except the fact that they are willing to shell out a few bucks? How would you tell your friends and family to judge the pilots that they want to go flying with? Is there any way non-pilots could reasonably make a judgment as to whether someone is sane, safe, possessing of good judgment and not under undue influence for today's flight?

As a society, we have chosen to place strict regulations on the common carriage of passengers, primarily in the name of safety. Were FlyteNow to prevail and open the gates to this, it would be like the wild west. I'd never fly a passenger I didn't know, unless it was someone with a medical need or some other similar requirement. I'd also recommend to friends and family that they never take advantage of FlyteNow's service: there would simply be no reasonable way to judge how safe the very next flight would be. And when you put the paying, naive public in the position of purchasing said flight, that's a real problem.
Click to expand...
 
David7700 said:
I hate to see freedoms eroded, too. But you and others like you would do away with the FAA. DO they not have an important role to play? I think you do aviation a dis-service in this matter.

ON other subjects like ADS-B, I'm against the regulation. That is new regulation and a policy the FAA clearly has not thought out.

Do you favor drones just flying around with no oversight or regulation? I do not and think that regulation must come when new technology comes. But I don't want it to be overbearing regulation.

But I can agree to disagree with you on opinions or even points of fact.

What I am attempting to do here on POA is post my research and insight into the issues. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you can't put words in my mouth: "Yes, there is a need for oversight and regulation of the NAS, and those who use it. Anarchy won't work well in this situation where we all have to share. This is tacit, if not clear acceptance of the role of FAA. Same with the SEC which protects investors all over the world and gives stability to our investment communities(NYSE, NASDAQ, Commodities, etc).

So, the FAA has a mandate, which I fully recognize to ensure safety of the flying public, and the 'rules of the road' in sharing the NAS. But - we're moving toward a system where we are leaving a nation of at will activity, to one of codified and only permitted activities. Want to drive a car? Get a license and a registration. Want to fly a plane? Same and same. Ok, we are made aware of the limitations so that planes don't bang into each other and cause untimely death. good for me, good for the gen pop.

Here's where I get off(a lot earlier than most, I admit). If a citizen, who is 18YO, acting on their own merits and risk, wants to get in a plane with a VFR only pilot who has only 42 hours in his logbook, and flying a 12,499 pound GA plane, going across country at night, in the middle of winter and offer to pay part expenses, why should the fedguv be in a position to prohibit that? It is not common carriage, the prospective passenger is free to ask any question they want of the pilot, they can decline, they can get references, they can refuse, they can hop in and hand over the pro-rata share of the direct operating expenses. Is this decision point a proper place for federal regulation once they have blessed the pilot with a PPL, and limited him/her to planes under 12,500lbs?

Maybe we should require some kind of brand on a new pilot like the EXPERIMENTAL on homebuilt planes? A big sign that must be worn around the neck of the pilot: "I HAVE ONLY XXX HOURS FLIGHT TIME. GET IN AT YOUR OWN RISK." Or, we could leave shyte alone and let the passenger assess the risk, and decide for themselves. I miss Patsy Cline music, and the Big Bopper, and all the others who've died in tragic aviation accidents. I miss them, and wish they hadn't happened. But oh my - the cost to all who remain! Is it worth the limitations? Sorry, but I value my independence too much to beg for scraps of liberty. Makes me sad when I hear people say 'enjoy what you have, cuz it could be taken away easy enough!' Death of a nation. :confused:
 
ClimbnSink said:
Everybody with 40 hours and a license is equal. All those people that are unfit in your opinion can kill themselves and their friends right now, you want them grounded? More rules? Or just not as easy to split costs? That'll save the children.:rolleyes2: Next you are going to tell us cab medallions save lives.:lol:
Click to expand...

You tell David that you don't like having words put in your mouth. Don't put them in mine.

I didn't say that I wanted anyone grounded. But I do think that we as a society have a responsibility to ensure that people and businesses who offer transportation to the public do so in a way that is reasonably safe. In a sense, it's part of the deal. If I go buy a ticket on Greyhound, I don't have to worry about whether the brakes are going to work because I expect that the buses are being maintained in a reasonable manner that is designed expressly to protect the safety of the traveling public. Same thing with United's airplanes. FlyteNow would upend that entirely.

If you think that's a good thing, well, we simply disagree. However, I suspect that most Americans, when questioned, would agree that they want the government to have reasonable regulations designed to ensure that our airlines, buslines, train systems, ferries, taxis and other forms of public transport are safe and reliable.
 
docmirror said:
Sorry, but you can't put words in my mouth: "Yes, there is a need for oversight and regulation of the NAS, and those who use it. Anarchy won't work well in this situation where we all have to share. This is tacit, if not clear acceptance of the role of FAA. Same with the SEC which protects investors all over the world and gives stability to our investment communities(NYSE, NASDAQ, Commodities, etc).

So, the FAA has a mandate, which I fully recognize to ensure safety of the flying public, and the 'rules of the road' in sharing the NAS. But - we're moving toward a system where we are leaving a nation of at will activity, to one of codified and only permitted activities. Want to drive a car? Get a license and a registration. Want to fly a plane? Same and same. Ok, we are made aware of the limitations so that planes don't bang into each other and cause untimely death. good for me, good for the gen pop.

Here's where I get off(a lot earlier than most, I admit). If a citizen, who is 18YO, acting on their own merits and risk, wants to get in a plane with a VFR only pilot who has only 42 hours in his logbook, and flying a 12,499 pound GA plane, going across country at night, in the middle of winter and offer to pay part expenses, why should the fedguv be in a position to prohibit that? It is not common carriage, the prospective passenger is free to ask any question they want of the pilot, they can decline, they can get references, they can refuse, they can hop in and hand over the pro-rata share of the direct operating expenses. Is this decision point a proper place for federal regulation once they have blessed the pilot with a PPL, and limited him/her to planes under 12,500lbs?

Maybe we should require some kind of brand on a new pilot like the EXPERIMENTAL on homebuilt planes? A big sign that must be worn around the neck of the pilot: "I HAVE ONLY XXX HOURS FLIGHT TIME. GET IN AT YOUR OWN RISK." Or, we could leave shyte alone and let the passenger assess the risk, and decide for themselves. I miss Patsy Cline music, and the Big Bopper, and all the others who've died in tragic aviation accidents. I miss them, and wish they hadn't happened. But oh my - the cost to all who remain! Is it worth the limitations? Sorry, but I value my independence too much to beg for scraps of liberty. Makes me sad when I hear people say 'enjoy what you have, cuz it could be taken away easy enough!' Death of a nation. :confused:
Click to expand...

I apologize for putting words in your mouth.

I've highlighted (in bold) the text where I have an issue. You think that the general public--Joe Sixpack--is capabale of understanding and evaluating these risks? I disagree. Government is not here to protect us from everything, but I think the public certainly expects government to protect them in this case. Joe Sixpack doesn't know that I am not as capable a pilot as you are. That my plane is not maintained like Delta's fleet. That I am not instrument certified (or why that would matter) or that I haven't flown since November and flew very few hours last year. We do get our PPL at 40 hours (or more, since I hazard to guess 40 would be fairly rare) but the FAA issues this with the understanding that a PPL is not going to be carrying people or goods for compensation or hire.

What is required for that? A lot more hours than 40. And after the Buffalo crash, more than ever.

The FlyteNow plan is one conceived to circumvent or skirt the existing charter regulations which are in place for safety.

And with regard to free markets, this whole discussion is moot anyway. If FlyteNow does prevail, you won't be able to get insurance to cover you for this at a reasonable cost. Why? Because the liability is so high.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Everybody with 40 hours and a license is equal. All those people that are unfit in your opinion can kill themselves and their friends right now, you want them grounded? More rules? Or just not as easy to split costs? That'll save the children.:rolleyes2: Next you are going to tell us cab medallions save lives.:lol:
Click to expand...

Greg, this almost sounds like you would like to see FlyteNow succeed but would never advise a friend or family member to use their services to obtain a flight.
 
David7700 said:
Greg, this almost sounds like you would like to see FlyteNow succeed but would never advise a friend or family member to use their services to obtain a flight.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying people should be forced to use FlyteNow, just that they should have the choice. If they are too dumb or ignorant to choose wisely not our or the government's problem.
 
You got me confused with Doc. The Feng Wu buses are cheap deathtraps people can choose to take them or not. If people aren't smart enough to judge the risk/reward of a cheap bus ride that isn't a problem the gov't should be trying to solve.
qbynewbie said:
You tell David that you don't like having words put in your mouth. Don't put them in mine.

I didn't say that I wanted anyone grounded. But I do think that we as a society have a responsibility to ensure that people and businesses who offer transportation to the public do so in a way that is reasonably safe. In a sense, it's part of the deal. If I go buy a ticket on Greyhound, I don't have to worry about whether the brakes are going to work because I expect that the buses are being maintained in a reasonable manner that is designed expressly to protect the safety of the traveling public. Same thing with United's airplanes. FlyteNow would upend that entirely.

If you think that's a good thing, well, we simply disagree. However, I suspect that most Americans, when questioned, would agree that they want the government to have reasonable regulations designed to ensure that our airlines, buslines, train systems, ferries, taxis and other forms of public transport are safe and reliable.
Click to expand...
 
You guys are funny, you are arguing that GA isn't safe enough for the general population.:lol:
 
I don't think Joe Sixpack is now equipped to understand the risks. It's a fundamental destruction of liberty since before Joe was born. He's been coddled, and protected, and managed all his waking hours by the fedguv.

What's more, people like Joe die from accidents with amazing regularity. I applaud the FAA for trying to minimize the death by aviation that Joe may suffer, but really - where are you going to draw the line? Our current discussion is aviation, but the philosophy extends to everything Joe does each day. Joe's around the country die getting out of bed. I read a story about a guy back in the 90s who literally choked to death on his own toothbrush. He was brushing, and sneezed, and got the brush stuck in his throat - dead Joe(whatever).

I just point out that an agency, and not my elected representative is trying soooooooo hard to save Joe from himself that we are fast moving from a country where Joe can die on his own terms to a society where Joe will live on and on in his cocoon of security all provided by the fedguv.

If you've never read the story, find a book called "To Serve Man", I can't recall the author. Altruism in the guise of govt is rarely for the benefit of all. Often, it's for the benefit of the one's making the rules, and when that's not the case, it's for the benefit of some small segment, which is not generally the totality of the population. This is the case I see with FlyteNow, and most of the controlled substances act, which has been a massive boon for prisons, cops, DAs, lawyers, collection agents, bail bonds, and skip tracers. All for the benefit of managing what you put in your own body.
 
David7700 said:
Greg, this almost sounds like you would like to see FlyteNow succeed but would never advise a friend or family member to use their services to obtain a flight.
Click to expand...

Not Greg, but I concur with this. I want it available, just like I want pot available to consume. However, I would strongly caution my family members from taking a ride with FlyteNow, and I would strongly discourage them from using pot(or at least in extreme moderation).
 
ClimbnSink said:
You guys are funny, you are arguing that GA isn't safe enough for the general population.:lol:
Click to expand...


You are missing the point, then. but no amount of explanation is going to help you see the point. So I won't bother you any longer.
 
The other bit of hate for FlyteNow is ego. If FlyteNow wins 100 bucks for gas will provide more GA utility then being a rated pilot. All without jumping through a single hoop.:rofl:
 
docmirror said:
I don't think Joe Sixpack is now equipped to understand the risks. It's a fundamental destruction of liberty since before Joe was born. He's been coddled, and protected, and managed all his waking hours by the fedguv.



What's more, people like Joe die from accidents with amazing regularity. I applaud the FAA for trying to minimize the death by aviation that Joe may suffer, but really - where are you going to draw the line? Our current discussion is aviation, but the philosophy extends to everything Joe does each day. Joe's around the country die getting out of bed. I read a story about a guy back in the 90s who literally choked to death on his own toothbrush. He was brushing, and sneezed, and got the brush stuck in his throat - dead Joe(whatever).



I just point out that an agency, and not my elected representative is trying soooooooo hard to save Joe from himself that we are fast moving from a country where Joe can die on his own terms to a society where Joe will live on and on in his cocoon of security all provided by the fedguv.



If you've never read the story, find a book called "To Serve Man", I can't recall the author. Altruism in the guise of govt is rarely for the benefit of all. Often, it's for the benefit of the one's making the rules, and when that's not the case, it's for the benefit of some small segment, which is not generally the totality of the population. This is the case I see with FlyteNow, and most of the controlled substances act, which has been a massive boon for prisons, cops, DAs, lawyers, collection agents, bail bonds, and skip tracers. All for the benefit of managing what you put in your own body.
Click to expand...


I don't really have any comment about what you have written except to say that I think you are transposing something on to this situation which does not exist.
 
qbynewbie said:
You tell David that you don't like having words put in your mouth. Don't put them in mine.

I didn't say that I wanted anyone grounded. But I do think that we as a society have a responsibility to ensure that people and businesses who offer transportation to the public do so in a way that is reasonably safe. In a sense, it's part of the deal. If I go buy a ticket on Greyhound, I don't have to worry about whether the brakes are going to work because I expect that the buses are being maintained in a reasonable manner that is designed expressly to protect the safety of the traveling public. Same thing with United's airplanes. FlyteNow would upend that entirely.

If you think that's a good thing, well, we simply disagree. However, I suspect that most Americans, when questioned, would agree that they want the government to have reasonable regulations designed to ensure that our airlines, buslines, train systems, ferries, taxis and other forms of public transport are safe and reliable.
Click to expand...


I think the primary issue is what gets defined as business. What is missing is the ability to (legally) provide a friend a ride for the price of fuel, or for pilots to assume the risk for their own safety in these decisions.
 
aggie06 said:
Not exactly. You would have to actually bill and collect it, then give the cash back to the charity to deduct it. Instead, you just don't pick it up in income in the first place.
Click to expand...
So it's deducable as a loss?
 
ClimbnSink said:
The other bit of hate for FlyteNow is ego. If FlyteNow wins 100 bucks for gas will provide more GA utility then being a rated pilot. All without jumping through a single hoop.:rofl:
Click to expand...


I'm not following you here.
 
David7700 said:
I don't really have any comment about what you have written except to say that I think you are transposing something on to this situation which does not exist.
Click to expand...

My rebuttal is that due to your profession, you are stuck in the minutia of the situation. To use a metaphor, you have a tress vs forest deal brewing. Thanks again for the debate points. :)
 
ClimbnSink said:
You guys are funny, you are arguing that GA isn't safe enough for the general population.:lol:
Click to expand...

Has anyone in the history of aviation ever argued otherwise? At which point in the history of US aviation have private pilots been allowed to advertise flights and essentially sell tickets to the paying public?

Do you know any pilots you wouldn't go flying with? Anyone whose plane you don't trust? I do -- not many but a couple come to mind. I wouldn't recommend that anyone fly with those folks. Many, if not most, private pilots are good, careful, thoughtful and try hard to bring good judgment to their flights. But not all private pilots fit that description and not all planes are well maintained.

I remember the time I saw a pilot park his car in the lot, go out to his plane, unlock it, get in, taxi and takeoff. No preflight, no runup, no nothing. Evidently, he felt that was an appropriate procedure. The current rules make it difficult for him to take members of the public on flights and one presumes that his family and circle of friends and associates are able to make judgments about his judgment based on their knowledge of him. But an unsuspecting mom who showed up for a two-hour flight to NJ wouldn't have any way of knowing that this guy might be skipping a few steps that many of us would consider important.

Is it only the safety standards that limit your behavior that you dislike? Or should we eliminate speed limits, building codes, food safety standards, fire codes and all other similar sets of regulations that have been implemented in order to protect the safety of the public?
 
If I can boil this down to a phrase, limited to the present scenario, we should be more careful that the FAA is abusing its mission to improve the safety of aviation by trying to make people safe FROM aviation.

docmirror said:
I don't think Joe Sixpack is now equipped to understand the risks. It's a fundamental destruction of liberty since before Joe was born. He's been coddled, and protected, and managed all his waking hours by the fedguv.

What's more, people like Joe die from accidents with amazing regularity. I applaud the FAA for trying to minimize the death by aviation that Joe may suffer, but really - where are you going to draw the line? Our current discussion is aviation, but the philosophy extends to everything Joe does each day. Joe's around the country die getting out of bed. I read a story about a guy back in the 90s who literally choked to death on his own toothbrush. He was brushing, and sneezed, and got the brush stuck in his throat - dead Joe(whatever).

I just point out that an agency, and not my elected representative is trying soooooooo hard to save Joe from himself that we are fast moving from a country where Joe can die on his own terms to a society where Joe will live on and on in his cocoon of security all provided by the fedguv.

If you've never read the story, find a book called "To Serve Man", I can't recall the author. Altruism in the guise of govt is rarely for the benefit of all. Often, it's for the benefit of the one's making the rules, and when that's not the case, it's for the benefit of some small segment, which is not generally the totality of the population. This is the case I see with FlyteNow, and most of the controlled substances act, which has been a massive boon for prisons, cops, DAs, lawyers, collection agents, bail bonds, and skip tracers. All for the benefit of managing what you put in your own body.
Click to expand...
 
David7700 said:
Explain that to me a little further, because I'm pretty confused.
Click to expand...

If the FAA does not regulate and enforce this issue under their own decision, then the FAA holds liability for the failures produced through that negligence, and you CAN sue the FAA.

OTOH, if the Courts rule on the matter and tell the FAA, "You may not enforce...", then the Court assumes the liability of that decision, a court that you Cannot sue. This removes all practical liability from the government and places it with the insurance industry by default.

Remember, everything in America is about money and liability for loss of money. Somebody has to be liable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top