FlyteNow Sues FAA (Uber for pilots)

[Everskyward]

I think what people are missing is that FlyteNow is not holding out to the public, they are advertising within their membership. This is where the grey area is as far as I'm concerned. How close a relationship do you need to have for a person to be considered a "friend"? How wide a circle of "friends" can you have? They are advertising their memberships to the public so how does that play into it?

 

[poadeleted20]

You flip the argument when you use the phrase "paying public". The passenger isn't paying for air transportation, they are contributing to costs. This is addressed by the common purpose rule.

That is not true. The "common purpose" expense sharing rule in 61.113(c) does not mean the expense-sharing passenger isn't paying for air transportation when giving money or other compensation to the pilot/operator of the aircraft; rather, it merely provides an exception to the general prohibition in 61.113(a) on PP's accepting payment for air transportation. The regulations don't provide any threshold value for the payment to become "compensation" -- any compensation, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

 

[poadeleted20]

Sorry, that's a distinction without merit. Mrs. Brown and little Johnny will see "$125 prorata costs per person to NYC" and read "$125 per ticket".

More importantly, that's how the FAA sees it, too. The regulations do include anything saying "contribution to costs" is not "compensation", only that under certain limited circumstances, a private pilot may accept compensation in the form of pro rata shares of the direct costs of the flight. It's still "compensation", just an allowable level of compensation and only under limited circumstances.

 

[poadeleted20]

GA has a certain level of carnage per hour, that is either acceptable or it isn't. Is Johnny Public's life more valuable then a private pilots mother's life?

Not so. If eight people die in a private vehicle accident, it never gets on the news beyond the local area that night/next morning. OTOH, if eight people die in a commercial bus accident, it gets much wider publicity, and the politicians start hollering about whether or not the bus driver should have been driving that bus. IOW, money changes everything.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Not so. If eight people die in a private vehicle accident, it never gets on the news beyond the local area that night/next morning. OTOH, if eight people die in a commercial bus accident, it gets much wider publicity, and the politicians start hollering about whether or not the bus driver should have been driving that bus. IOW, money changes everything.

If the phenom crash didn't change anything, FlyteNow crashes won't change anything. Heck Angelflights are pretty close, no money, but flying strangers without common purpose. Piled a couple of those in they're still at it.

 

[ki4lzk]

There are services around like this for 135 operators. Typically it works as follows:
XYZ charters has a customer that wants to go from LAX to SEA. They then post on this brokerage site that they have a one-way leg available from SEA back to LAX on whatever date, for a reduced price.

I feel like this site is offering a very similar service. It is distinctly different for me and a few buddies splitting the cost to go see a football game vs hitting up the internet to find random people that want to go on this trip for whatever reason. My personal fear would be that whomever decides to go on this trip with me may have something illicit in their backpack. Who knows how much of what they could be carrying with them.

 

[poadeleted20]

If the phenom crash didn't change anything, FlyteNow crashes won't change anything. Heck Angelflights are pretty close, no money, but flying strangers without common purpose. Piled a couple of those in they're still at it.

You obviously don't get it, so I'll say it one last time...

"It's the money, stupid!"

...and please pardon the pejorative -- I'm just paraphrasing an ex-President.

 

[Henning]

The quote was "It's the Economy Stupid." IIRC.

 

[poadeleted20]

The quote was "It's the Economy Stupid." IIRC.

Yeah, well, money, economy -- same thing in this context.

"There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today!" - Paddy Chayefski, Network, 1976.

And FlyteNow is meddling with the primal forces of nature.

 

[JimNtexas]

All you guys arguing about 'joe sixpack' and what the FAA 'wants' are way off the mark.

Private pilot cost sharing may or may not be a good idea.

At this point that doesn't matter! What matter is the question of what is allowed by the real law and the real written regulations. FAA interpretations are just opinions, nothing more. Opinions aren't laws!

The question is really this: There is a real regulation, that is consistant with the Constitution and laws passed by Congress and signed by a President, that prohibts private pilot cost sharing?

By 'real regulation' I mean one that was first published as notice of proposed rulemaking in the federal register, comments from stakeholders were solicited and considered, and then the final regulation was published as §61.113.

When one reads this regulation it's clear that private pilot cost sharing not related to employment is simply not addressed.

Ron can tell us what the FAA 'wants' or 'thinks', but what they want or think isn't really in the reg and is of highly questionable legality.

What the FAA should do is revise the regulation to reflect what they want by going through the legal and fair NPRM process.

Because the FAA is too lazy to do that, they've opened the door to a valid legal challenge to their 'wants'.

The big issue that the GA community needs to focus on is this business of the FAA making up fake regulations on the fly with these 'letters' without going through the legally required NPRM process.

Even though I think these ride sharing websites are not something I'm comfortable with I hope they win this challenge in court and force the FAA and Congress do regulation the right way, not the lazy way.

 

[ClimbnSink]

You obviously don't get it, so I'll say it one last time...

"It's the money, stupid!"

...and please pardon the pejorative -- I'm just paraphrasing an ex-President.

I thought it was about the blood of innocent passengers splattered across America.

 

[poadeleted20]

The question is really this: There is a real regulation, that is consistant with the Constitution and laws passed by Congress and signed by a President, that prohibts private pilot cost sharing?

By 'real regulation' I mean one that was first published as notice of proposed rulemaking in the federal register, comments from stakeholders were solicited and considered, and then the final regulation was published as §61.113.

When one reads this regulation it's clear that private pilot cost sharing not related to employment is simply not addressed.

How do you figure that? Compensation related to employment is covered in 61.113(b). Expense sharing is covered in 61.113(c). Two separate exemptions, unrelated to each other, to the general compensation prohibition in 61.113(a), with no "ands", "ors", or "buts" to link them, and nothing authorizing the private pilot to "hold out" in violation of the rules in Part 119.

In case anyone hasn't read them, here is that section in toto, with the relevant portions highlighted:

Sec. 61.113

Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.
(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and
(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.
(c) A private pilot may not pay 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.
(d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event flight described in Sec. 91.146, if the
sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of Sec. 91.146.
(1) The sponsor of the airlift notifies the FAA Flight Standards District Office with jurisdiction over the area concerned at least 7 days before the event and furnishes--
(i) A signed letter from the sponsor that shows the name of the sponsor, the purpose of the charitable event, the date and time of the event, and the location of the event; and
(ii) A photocopy of each pilot in command's pilot certificate, medical certificate, and logbook entries that show the pilot is current in accordance with Secs. 61.56 and 61.57 of this part and has logged at least 200 hours of flight time.
(2) The flight is conducted from a public airport that is adequate for the aircraft to be used, or from another airport that has been approved by the FAA for the operation.
(3) No aerobatic or formation flights are conducted.
(4) Each aircraft used for the charitable event holds a standard airworthiness certificate.
(5) Each aircraft used for the charitable event is airworthy and complies with the applicable requirements of subpart E of part 91 of this chapter.
(6) Each flight for the charitable event is made during day VFR conditions.
(7) The charitable organization is an organization identified as such by the U.S. Department of Treasury.
(e) A private pilot may be reimbursed for aircraft operating expenses that are directly related to search and location operations, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees, and the operation is sanctioned and under the direction and control of:
(1) A local, State, or Federal agency; or
(2) An organization that conducts search and location operations.
(f) A private pilot who is an aircraft salesman and who has at least 200 hours of logged flight time may demonstrate an aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer.
(g) A private pilot who meets the requirements of Sec. 61.69 may act as pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle.
(h) A private pilot may act as pilot in command for the purpose of conducting a production flight test in a light-sport aircraft intended for certification in the light-sport category under Sec. 21.190 of this chapter, provided that--
(1) The aircraft is a powered parachute or a weight-shift-control aircraft;
(2) The person has at least 100 hours of pilot-in-command time in the category and class of aircraft flown; and
(3) The person is familiar with the processes and procedures applicable to the conduct of production flight testing, to include operations conducted under a special flight permit and any associated operating limitations.

 

[mrkbbd]

How do you figure that? Compensation related to employment is covered in 61.113(b). Expense sharing is covered in 61.113(c). Two separate exemptions, unrelated to each other, to the general compensation prohibition in 61.113(a), with no "ands", "ors", or "buts" to link them, and nothing authorizing the private pilot to "hold out" in violation of the rules in Part 119.

In case anyone hasn't read them, here is that section in toto, with the relevant portions highlighted:

How about 'rent' the airplane from yourself? you can charge whatever and then pro-rata that to make money...

 

[JimNtexas]

Ron, paragraph (b) concerns flying in the context of employment, which isn't an issue here.

Paragraph (a) concerns flying for profit,which is not what cost sharing is. The FAA doesn't like to admit it but words mean things. "Compensation" has specific meanings in law, and "sharing" isn't "compensation".

Note also that the FAA can't just decree that mentioning you are flying from A to B on a web forum on a specific day is somehow forbidden speech.

Read the plaintiff's brief it's very strong, it even cites the infamous 'Levy Letter' in support of their argument.

 

[Palmpilot]

...The "common purpose" expense sharing rule in 61.113(c)...

The common purpose rule is not in 61.113(c). It's in the file of opinion letters on the Chief Counsel's Web page, and in case law.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Did you pull the case off of Pacer?

Yes.

For those interested, I placed both the FlyteNow opening brief and the Joint Appendix in a shared DropBox folder. These are downloads of the official court filings.

The Joint Appendix is a very large document and contains the various cases, letters of interpretation, etc that are referred to in the brief (i.e. JA.023 for the Ware Interpretation).

As I acquire other documents I will add them. The next scheduled event is not until the end of the day February 18 when the FAA brief is due.

Link to shared DropBox folder.

 

[David7700]

I think what people are missing is that FlyteNow is not holding out to the public, they are advertising within their membership. This is where the grey area is as far as I'm concerned. How close a relationship do you need to have for a person to be considered a "friend"? How wide a circle of "friends" can you have? They are advertising their memberships to the public so how does that play into it?

There is a case on that. I'll have to pull a copy.

 

[David7700]

All you guys arguing about 'joe sixpack' and what the FAA 'wants' are way off the mark.



Private pilot cost sharing may or may not be a good idea.



At this point that doesn't matter! What matter is the question of what is allowed by the real law and the real written regulations. FAA interpretations are just opinions, nothing more. Opinions aren't laws!



The question is really this: There is a real regulation, that is consistant with the Constitution and laws passed by Congress and signed by a President, that prohibts private pilot cost sharing?



By 'real regulation' I mean one that was first published as notice of proposed rulemaking in the federal register, comments from stakeholders were solicited and considered, and then the final regulation was published as §61.113.



When one reads this regulation it's clear that private pilot cost sharing not related to employment is simply not addressed.



Ron can tell us what the FAA 'wants' or 'thinks', but what they want or think isn't really in the reg and is of highly questionable legality.



What the FAA should do is revise the regulation to reflect what they want by going through the legal and fair NPRM process.



Because the FAA is too lazy to do that, they've opened the door to a valid legal challenge to their 'wants'.



The big issue that the GA community needs to focus on is this business of the FAA making up fake regulations on the fly with these 'letters' without going through the legally required NPRM process.



Even though I think these ride sharing websites are not something I'm comfortable with I hope they win this challenge in court and force the FAA and Congress do regulation the right way, not the lazy way.

What you ignore about 'real law' is that we have a system in this country of both codified laws and regulations AND common law. Common law is that law decided by courts. Case law. And this notion of common carriage comes from case law. I posted quite a long explanation of this with links to article and cases.

You cannot know all there is to know about this by watching or reading a short snippet. You need to delve into this to understand it.

The FAA opinion letters are opinion. Opinion of how the FAA would proceed in an enforcement action under current law. Regulations, statutes and case law.

I've posted over and over again: I wouldn't want to be the test-case in doing something contrary to a chief counsel opinion. You can take that chance if you want to.

 

[David7700]

All of this discussion is well and good.

But I want you anti-government involvement folks to tell me this: what is your position on Jujyfruits?

 

[David7700]

Yes.



For those interested, I placed both the FlyteNow opening brief and the Joint Appendix in a shared DropBox folder. These are downloads of the official court filings.



The Joint Appendix is a very large document and contains the various cases, letters of interpretation, etc that are referred to in the brief (i.e. JA.023 for the Ware Interpretation).



As I acquire other documents I will add them. The next scheduled event is not until the end of the day February 18 when the FAA brief is due.



Link to shared DropBox folder.

Thanks very much!!

 

[JeffDG]

I've posted over and over again: I wouldn't want to be the test-case in doing something contrary to a chief counsel opinion. You can take that chance if you want to.

And I think that's precisely what FlyteNow is doing. They're seeking declaratory relief rather than waiting for an FAA violation, but basically, they're challenging the FAA's interpretation.

I think it's an interesting case. I think also that the FAA, along with other agencies, are increasingly using opinion letters as a substitute for notice-and-comment rulemaking, and that's an entirely appropriate item to take before an impartial magistrate.

 

[David7700]

And I think that's precisely what FlyteNow is doing. They're seeking declaratory relief rather than waiting for an FAA violation, but basically, they're challenging the FAA's interpretation.



I think it's an interesting case. I think also that the FAA, along with other agencies, are increasingly using opinion letters as a substitute for notice-and-comment rulemaking, and that's an entirely appropriate item to take before an impartial magistrate.

That is what FlyteNow is doing, but I disagree that the opinion letter was being used to create a new rule, as I've listed earlier. It's not even an expansion of an existing policy.

 

[JeffDG]

That is what FlyteNow is doing, but I disagree that the opinion letter was being used to create a new rule, as I've listed earlier. It's not even an expansion of an existing policy.

That may be, but they are doing it. Take the Mangiamele interpretation letter. It effectively read out part of 61.113(b) with no notice-and-comment.

Additionally, I think this brief makes an interesting case that the "holding out" language in Part 119 is explicitly limited to Part 119 operations and inapplicable to Part 91 operations, so again, that's certainly an arguable case of regulation-by-opinion rather than regulation-by-rulemaking.

I think the constitutional questions are less likely to bear fruit and the arguments made for them are less compelling.

 

[DJTorrente]

Holding out is advertising your services to broad spectrum of people. And a much larger number. Let's say I want to cost share and fly once a month. Without FlyteNow, I'm not going to get many people. With FlyteNow, I will.

The point of not holding out is to limit (as much as possible) the people I cost-share with to just those that probably know me fairly well or who are in the best position to judge my ability as a pilot and how I maintain my airplane.

I'm sorry to jump back to this, but I really bristle at your unavoidable implication that flying by private pilots simply needs to be limited as much as possible -- for our own safety, of course. Per my post #119, that's not enhancing the safety of aviation, its merely keeping people safe from aviation.

 

[qbynewbie]

I'm sorry to jump back to this, but I really bristle at your unavoidable implication that flying by private pilots simply needs to be limited as much as possible -- for our own safety, of course. Per my post #119, that's not enhancing the safety of aviation, its merely keeping people safe from aviation.

Then why not allow every pilot -- private or otherwise -- to buy, rent or otherwise procure an airplane, open an office, hang out a sign, and start selling air travel to the public?

And, while we're at it, why not let every driver to buy, rent or otherwise procure a bus, open an office, hang out a sign, and start selling bus travel to the public.

We don't need no stinking regulations protecting the public!

 

[docmirror]

I also disagree with David in that this opinion, along with the way the TFRs remain over Mickey-land, along with the permanent NOTAM about tuning in to 121.5 are all symptoms of an agency that just makes things up, and finds a convenient mechanism in existing rules to exploit their growing control without actually having to answer to legislators.

So far, the only pushback we've seen recently was the PBOR, and I think even that has been watered down so much that it's rarely useful except to make the FAA keep more records(tapes), and give a notice to a pilot before they administratively cut his nuts off. Another prev mentioned method was the opinion letter regarding known ice from some power-mad petty dictator at the FAA that had the entire GA fleet basically grounded if there was a cloud in the sky. That one was so egregious that the FAA had to back down.

Yes it's a complex case, yes there is a lot of minutia and historical precedent, yes it's tilting at windmills. But I hope they win, or at a minimum slow the tide of over regulation. I won't even bring up the ADS-B fiasco.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, paragraph (b) concerns flying in the context of employment, which isn't an issue here.

Paragraph (a) concerns flying for profit,which is not what cost sharing is. The FAA doesn't like to admit it but words mean things. "Compensation" has specific meanings in law, and "sharing" isn't "compensation".

Where do you see the word "profit" in that regulation? It's just not there. The issue is "compensation", not "profit", and compensation occurs with the payment of even a penny, regardless of whether a profit is made or not. In any event, paragraph (a) is a blanket prohibition, with certain specified exceptions, of which paragraphs (b) and (c) are two. Paragraph (c) simply does not stand on its own as a blanket approval to collect money from passengers, but rather provides approval to share expenses on a pro rata basis within certain limited conditions.

Note also that the FAA can't just decree that mentioning you are flying from A to B on a web forum on a specific day is somehow forbidden speech.

I agree. But they can "decree" that it's not legal for you to collect money from your passengers under those conditions. IOW, the speech is constitutionally protected, but the acceptance of payments is not.

Read the plaintiff's brief it's very strong, it even cites the infamous 'Levy Letter' in support of their argument.

Two big flaws in their use of that letter in their argument. First, pilotsharetheride.com wasn't collecting money from passengers; FlyteNow would be. Second, that letter came from a Regional Counsel, not the Chief Counsel, and is thus subject to review, revision, or outright reversal by the Chief Counsel.

 

[DJTorrente]

Then why not allow every pilot -- private or otherwise -- to buy, rent or otherwise procure an airplane, open an office, hang out a sign, and start selling air travel to the public?

And, while we're at it, why not let every driver to buy, rent or otherwise procure a bus, open an office, hang out a sign, and start selling bus travel to the public.

We don't need no stinking regulations protecting the public!

Reductio ad absurdum. That isn't what I said and you know it.

Of course you know that if a PPL buys himself a turbine aircraft and gets a type rating in it, his checkride is to the same ATP standards as the CPL or ATP. Thus the CPL from some pilot mill has demonstrated no more skill than the PPL. Why are you so cavalier with the CLP's passengers' lives but not the PPL's passengers?

I could improve flight safety by 90% today -- simply prohibit 90% of all flight operations across the board. Accidents will plummet! I'll be a hero, right? My point is that lets have some regulations that are supported by data and effective to improve safety without arbitrarily restricting flight operations. And lets check the innate nanny-state impulse (privilege?!? ) just a little bit.

 

[dtuuri]

How close a relationship do you need to have for a person to be considered a "friend"?

Close enough to hold your wallet while you go for a swim. Close enough to baby-sit your kids while you go to a movie. Close enough to take care of your pets while you're on vacation. In other words, close enough to trust their behavior. If you can't trust your "friends", you shouldn't be in an airplane with them anyway.

dtuuri

 

[ClimbnSink]

Let's have the feds define friends and ban private pilots from flying with passengers that don't meet the definition. It is the only way to be safe. We can have ramp checks where they see how long you have been Facebook friends with your passengers. You guys deserve the world you live in.

 

[JeffDG]

I also disagree with David in that this opinion, along with the way the TFRs remain over Mickey-land, along with the permanent NOTAM about tuning in to 121.5 are all symptoms of an agency that just makes things up, and finds a convenient mechanism in existing rules to exploit their growing control without actually having to answer to legislators.

I'm with you on most of the stuff about 'crats just making stuff up in the absence of legislative authority to do so, but the Mickey Land TFRs are mandated by Congress. As are the Stadium TFRs

 

[David7700]

Reductio ad absurdum. That isn't what I said and you know it.

Of course you know that if a PPL buys himself a turbine aircraft and gets a type rating in it, his checkride is to the same ATP standards as the CPL or ATP. Thus the CPL from some pilot mill has demonstrated no more skill than the PPL. Why are you so cavalier with the CLP's passengers' lives but not the PPL's passengers?

I could improve flight safety by 90% today -- simply prohibit 90% of all flight operations across the board. Accidents will plummet! I'll be a hero, right? My point is that lets have some regulations that are supported by data and effective to improve safety without arbitrarily restricting flight operations. And lets check the innate nanny-state impulse (privilege?!? ) just a little bit.

You've gotten way off track here.

This is an existing regulation. It is existing case law. Now someone wants to circumvent it.

The regulations exist because to fly commercially, the FAA (and all of us, you must admit) have determined that if you are going to hold yourself out to the public as offering a flying service in exchange for money, you need additional ratings (which means training and experience) and the aircraft needs additional maintenance/check-ups.

The passengers who use FlyteNow won't care that they are just paying $X as their prorata share of the flight under some law or regulation. They will look at that as a ticket price. They are paying for a flight and the pilot and aircraft are not being held to the same standards as all other commercial air transportation.

Now we both know that an Air France pilot out of their pilot-mill flying an A330 over the Atlantic on autopilot does not have the same level of airmanship as many pilots here who hand-fly all day everyday, fly taildraggers, gliders, and everything else. But overall, the general private pilot population is not as proficient as a commercially rated pilot that flied for a living.

 

[David7700]

Close enough to hold your wallet while you go for a swim. Close enough to baby-sit your kids while you go to a movie. Close enough to take care of your pets while you're on vacation. In other words, close enough to trust their behavior. If you can't trust your "friends", you shouldn't be in an airplane with them anyway.

dtuuri

Let's have the feds define friends and ban private pilots from flying with passengers that don't meet the definition. It is the only way to be safe. We can have ramp checks where they see how long you have been Facebook friends with your passengers. You guys deserve the world you live in.

There is nothing about friends in the regs. But if you cannot hold out, that is who you most often fly and split costs with.

 

[poadeleted20]

Additionally, I think this brief makes an interesting case that the "holding out" language in Part 119 is explicitly limited to Part 119 operations and inapplicable to Part 91 operations, so again, that's certainly an arguable case of regulation-by-opinion rather than regulation-by-rulemaking.

First, I don't see that language in the brief or in the regulation. Second, the FAA's position is that offering air transportation to the general public makes it an operation covered by Part 119. The question to be resolved, then, is whether offering on FlyteNow is in effect offering air transportation for hire/compensation to the general public, and not merely expense sharing as permitted by 61.113(c). But at the end of the day, I think that a "win" by FlyteNow will merely result in the elimination of 61.113(c) and an end to any expense sharing or the inclusion of a new specific prohibition on any "holding out", advertising, or otherwise offering rides in that process.

 

[docmirror]

I'm with you on most of the stuff about 'crats just making stuff up in the absence of legislative authority to do so, but the Mickey Land TFRs are mandated by Congress. As are the Stadium TFRs

Guess I should learn more before I go shouting about stuff. I didn't know that, and it makes me even more sad.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm sorry to jump back to this, but I really bristle at your unavoidable implication that flying by private pilots simply needs to be limited as much as possible -- for our own safety, of course. Per my post #119, that's not enhancing the safety of aviation, its merely keeping people safe from aviation.

...and that's the FAA's charter from Congress -- to provide an appropriate and higher level of safety to the general public when they're paying for air transportation than when they're getting the ride for free,

 

[ClimbnSink]

There is nothing about friends in the regs. But if you cannot hold out, that is who you most often fly and split costs with.

If your passengers ain't friends they are members of the ticket buying public. And must be kept away from incompetent private pilots and their ill maintained death traps. Byebye young eagles and angelflights.

 

[qbynewbie]

Reductio ad absurdum. That isn't what I said and you know it.

Of course you know that if a PPL buys himself a turbine aircraft and gets a type rating in it, his checkride is to the same ATP standards as the CPL or ATP. Thus the CPL from some pilot mill has demonstrated no more skill than the PPL. Why are you so cavalier with the CLP's passengers' lives but not the PPL's passengers?

I could improve flight safety by 90% today -- simply prohibit 90% of all flight operations across the board. Accidents will plummet! I'll be a hero, right? My point is that lets have some regulations that are supported by data and effective to improve safety without arbitrarily restricting flight operations. And lets check the innate nanny-state impulse (privilege?!? ) just a little bit.

I will happily grant that the stick and rudder skills of many private pilots are every bit as good as those of their commercial and ATP brethren. I'll even stipulate that many private pilots bring superb judgment to their flight operations; heck, I know that I try to and I know that lots of others do, too.

But what you DID write is this:

I really bristle at your unavoidable implication that flying by private pilots simply needs to be limited as much as possible -- for our own safety, of course.

Nobody that I see is trying to limit flying by private pilots -- as much as possible or otherwise. What the current regulations do limit (and, in fact, prohibit) is the act of offering transport to the public for compensation. No pilot -- private, commercial or ATP -- is allowed to do that. It has nothing to do with the rating and everything to do with making sure that transport offered to the public is reasonably safe. I think that's a good thing. I fly on the airlines, I take Amtrak from time to time, I drive on the roads all the time, I take taxis and even the occasional ferry. I do all of these things with an easy mind because I know that we as a society have set good standards for what people need to do if they want to run an airline or a train system or a busline or be a cab driver or even put down roads that the rest of us can drive on. I don't worry when I take elevators, even to high floors, because I know that safety standards are in place for people who build and install them and I know that operators have to have regular elevator inspections, just like airports need to do with their moving walkways.

What FlyteNow wants to do is throw all of this out the window and let Aunt Mary and Uncle John go to a website, find a flight going to NYC, book passage, go to the airport and fly with whoever the pilot happens to be who offered that flight. In whatever plane he or she brings, in whatever condition it's in, with whatever weather considerations the pilot thinks is appropriate.

Most of the time, that would probably work well but we don't design safety standards with a "most of the time it'll probably be okay" mentality.

I don't worry about the electrical cables in the walls of my house getting too hot and burning the house down because I know the manufacturer had to meet safety standards when manufacturing those cables and building codes set standards and mandatory inspections for how we wire buildings.

It's not about limiting flight at all. Instead, it's all about the difference between private travel and offering travel to the public for compensation.

 

[David7700]

I also disagree with David in that this opinion, along with the way the TFRs remain over Mickey-land, along with the permanent NOTAM about tuning in to 121.5 are all symptoms of an agency that just makes things up, and finds a convenient mechanism in existing rules to exploit their growing control without actually having to answer to legislators.

So far, the only pushback we've seen recently was the PBOR, and I think even that has been watered down so much that it's rarely useful except to make the FAA keep more records(tapes), and give a notice to a pilot before they administratively cut his nuts off. Another prev mentioned method was the opinion letter regarding known ice from some power-mad petty dictator at the FAA that had the entire GA fleet basically grounded if there was a cloud in the sky. That one was so egregious that the FAA had to back down.

Yes it's a complex case, yes there is a lot of minutia and historical precedent, yes it's tilting at windmills. But I hope they win, or at a minimum slow the tide of over regulation. I won't even bring up the ADS-B fiasco.

Look at how long the SUAS regulations are taking. That is an example of the regulation enacted by the FAA. These opinion letters are not regulations. They are interpretations of what the agency's position would be in a certificate action--if a pilot got busted.

These interpretations, then, tell us what the existing law is (in the FAA's opinion). Sometimes they are wrong. But not often.

I do not care whether FlyteNow wins or loses, but I think they are going to lose. Probably greater than a 90% chance. But I won't be upset if they win--surprised but not upset. I think if they win, there are going to bea host of other problems, even aside from the safety concerns. I have said, insurance is one of them.

This is not a question of whether I want more or less government intrusion in my life. I have to look at the existing law and the existing system--then I decide what I think the outcome will be. And I think the existing framework of regulation makes sense.

As I've said before, I think the CFRs need to be amended to include "holding out" (instead of having it buried in opinions and case law) and to give us a clear idea of where the line is. But people may not like that result.

Listening to many of you here, it almost sounds like you advocate a total change, if not repeal, of the regulations. It sounds like you'd like for Henning's deckhand to be able to pay you 100% of the fuel to fly him to San Diego. For anyone to pay you anything to fly them anywhere. Hell, that would be great for GA. That would be great for me if I could go around and find people to supplement my flying and pay my expenses.

So tell me, what are the problems with opening it up to that? Why are we not arguing for that? Why stop at holding out and only paying half and allowing FlyteNow to operate.

 

[poadeleted20]

If your passengers ain't friends they are members of the ticket buying public. And must be kept away from incompetent private pilots and their ill maintained death traps. Byebye young eagles and angelflights.

You're still missing the main point:

It's the money, stupid!

...and there's no money being paid by the passengers for Young Eagles or Angel Flight rides. The FAA is happy to let the passenger beware when there's no charge for the ride (i.e., when you're getting it free, "you get what you pay for"), but when you're paying for the ride, Congress says you are entitled to a higher level of safety.