FlyteNow Sues FAA (Uber for pilots)

qbynewbie said:
Excellent example of how money can change things.
Click to expand...
Then there shouldn't be any cost sharing. The premise is that the money doesn't matter among friends but with some level of stranger it does. Which goes to personality are you more likely to tell a stranger or a buddy(FB friend, old college roommate, relative, ex GF, wife) the flight can't be done? Assuming one is more dangerous how are you going to codify that into law?:lol:
 
qbynewbie said:
Excellent example of how money can change things.
Click to expand...
But money isn't even close to the whole answer. Unpaid pilots crash at a much higher rate than paid pilots. I also have noticed that paid pilots crash when then are not being paid (in their personal airplanes) at a higher rate than when they are getting paid.
 
Everskyward said:
But money isn't even close to the whole answer. Unpaid pilots crash at a much higher rate than paid pilots. I also have noticed that paid pilots crash when then are not being paid (in their personal airplanes) at a higher rate than when they are getting paid.
Click to expand...

So, then the clear solution, safety wise, is to pay private pilots all the time.

There...problem solved. :)
 
JeffDG said:
So, then the clear solution, safety wise, is to pay private pilots all the time.

There...problem solved. :)
Click to expand...
Haha. My theory on why paid pilots crash more when they are unpaid is that during those flights they are not bound by the procedures, regulations and supervision they get on the job. I think many pilots get into flying because of the "freedom" and also because some have adrenaline junkie tendencies. Those impulses are stifled by the job, so I think some find outlets elsewhere. Then there's the fact that your personal airplane is probably not nearly as well-equipped and capable as your work airplane.
 
Everskyward said:
Haha. My theory on why paid pilots crash more when they are unpaid is that during those flights they are not bound by the procedures, regulations and supervision they get on the job. I think many pilots get into flying because of the "freedom" and also because some have adrenaline junkie tendencies. Those impulses are stifled by the job, so I think some find outlets elsewhere. Then there's the fact that your personal airplane is probably not nearly as well-equipped and capable as your work airplane.
Click to expand...

I think you're on to something here. It's exactly why I got into flying in the first place. My second lesson in the Citabria says 'aileron rolls to the right, 1 turn spin and recovery'. Then, I started towing banners and gliders and it lost a bit of luster, although I was still having a lotta fun. I started on the comm rating, and it was b-o-r-i-n-g. I figured I could get paid a couple bucks for towing, and maybe a couple bucks for sightseeing, and the like but there was no way I wanted to drone along at 36k' for hours on end herding meat sacks around the sky to land in Detroit in Feb. Eff that.
 
Christian cg said:
The FAA allows ride sharing without any compensation but forbid flight sharing when compensation is present.
That means we are not talking about safety here, we are talking "money" and the FAA is acting as a lobby for the commercial operators who are scared that general aviation might take a few paying seats from them, the same reason Taxis are opposed to Uber.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
Why do you think they got rid of banner towing over stadiums? Safety? Nooooo......
MONEY! The team owners hate those advertising banners. They want all the advertising at their stadium!!
 
ClimbnSink said:
Then there shouldn't be any cost sharing. The premise is that the money doesn't matter among friends but with some level of stranger it does. Which goes to personality are you more likely to tell a stranger or a buddy(FB friend, old college roommate, relative, ex GF, wife) the flight can't be done? Assuming one is more dangerous how are you going to codify that into law?:lol:
Click to expand...

The money and friend issues are separate. The money is about the contract created. The friend/stranger is about what they can be expected to know about the pilot's capability. A friend can be expected a higher degree of informed consent with regards to judging the pilot's ability than a stranger. When you combine money and stranger, you create a contract with high liability.
 
Legislating out 'level of friend' seems impossible, so kill cost sharing. For the children.
Henning said:
The money and friend issues are separate. The money is about the contract created. The friend/stranger is about what they can be expected to know about the pilot's capability. A friend can be expected a higher degree of informed consent with regards to judging the pilot's ability than a stranger. When you combine money and stranger, you create a contract with high liability.
Click to expand...
 
qbynewbie said:
Yeah, throwing the baby out with the bath water is always a good idea. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
What do you propose? The imaginary you can share with a friend but not an internet friend system? Bulletin board notices with a pushpin are OK bulletin boards with pixels not so much. Sharing is unsafe for the masses but not for your linked in buddies. Tell us where the line is oh wise one.
 
The title of this thread this thread is completely incorrect, which may be contributing to the confusion in this thread.

See if you can perceive the difference:

Uber: Want to go to Llano for BBQ? Click on your Uber App and we'll take you to Llano.

FlyteNow: I'm flying to Llano for BBQ on Monday afternoon. Want to ride along?
 
ClimbnSink said:
What do you propose? The imaginary you can share with a friend but not an internet friend system? Bulletin board notices with a pushpin are OK bulletin boards with pixels not so much. Sharing is unsafe for the masses but not for your linked in buddies. Tell us where the line is oh wise one.
Click to expand...

MauleSkinner said:
Where do you find that bulletin board notices with a pushpin are OK?
Click to expand...

FlyteNow has claimed that bulletin board notices of flights are okay. For the seven and a half years that I've been flying, I've been under the strong understanding that they were not okay at all and that posting for passengers on a bulletin board could easily get you slammed for holding out.

What do I propose? Well, to be honest, the current system seems to be working just fine -- fine, that is, for everyone but FlyteNow, which wants to make a profit on the backs of private pilots. Unfortunately for them, their scheme involves holding out and it's highly unlikely to ever get approved even if withholding approval requires rewriting the regulations. Unfortunately for us, by suing the FAA, FlyteNow may in fact force them to tighten regulations in a way that turns out worse for GA and private pilots.
 
There were nonprofit rideshare boards that couldn't face the fire. The lack of profit meant no one had the geld to fight. You are proposing a Supreme Court level cop out- Can't define unsafe ridesharing but you think you'll know it if you see it. As for the potential loss of sharing, yeah, the ole murican don't exercise your rights you might lose them argument. That has worked well lately, we'll just save up all those privileges so we can exercise them in the future.
 
ClimbnSink said:
There were nonprofit rideshare boards that couldn't face the fire. The lack of profit meant no one had the geld to fight. You are proposing a Supreme Court level cop out- Can't define unsafe ridesharing but you think you'll know it if you see it. As for the potential loss of sharing, yeah, the ole murican don't exercise your rights you might lose them argument. That has worked well lately, we'll just save up all those privileges so we can exercise them in the future.
Click to expand...

That's a nonsensical statement that has nothing to do with the issues at hand but, hey, when all else fails bring up the mean old government.
 
Well, if a local BB with a push pin is not ok, and the internet is not ok, how is the passenger supposed to find the pilot and vice versa? Ouija board?

Wonder if voice is ok; 'hey Tom, it's Bill, I'm going to Llano on Sat, if you want to come?' 'Sure, sounds like fun I will pay half the fuel and oil.' 'OK, see you at the hangar at 9am'.

Is this acceptable? What if Bill calls Tom on an electronic device like a phone? Text? Smoke signal? This is why I think it should be allowed, notwithstanding that FlyteNow is getting a cut of the deal, which is where I think it breaks down. This is what moves it from a pro-rata deal, to a commercial deal.

But - I could be wrong! lol
 
I've made it easy for myself by essentially never taking payment from passengers. Once or twice, a pilot has bought some fuel but usually I just thank them and decline the offer.

However, I think that being able to share expenses with friends is sensible. It's just like going skiing. I can call up some friends and arrange a ski trip and get a couple of people to drive and have everyone else throw in some money to cover the expenses. All legit and no problem. However, if I want to charter a bus every weekend and start posting fliers about bus trips to the mountain leaving every Friday at noon and call this number for tickets, I may well have crossed the line into offering commercial bus service, which isn't fine.
 
If you charter a bus, I'm pretty sure you are going to get a CDL driver, and a comm DOT bus. Nothing wrong with promoting skiing, in fact - I've considered doing that in the DFW area several times. Leave the Galleria about 6PM for Taos - drink, drink, drink. Get in about 11PM, sleep it off. Ski Sat, drink, drink, drink. Sleep it off, ski Sun to 1PM, hop on bus - drink, drink, drink. Get to Galleria about midnight/1am and head home for work on Mon morning. All legal.
 
Oh, yeah, been there, done that, including the drink, drink, drink part! :D

But if wanted to buy an old bus and drive it myself and charge people for rides to the slopes then that wouldn't be so kosher. And it's a closer example to what we're talking about here (although imperfect!).
 
Right. That's why I reworded it! :D
 
If I post on a bulletin board that I need a safety pilot, and with the total crap from the Chief Counsel that flight time is "compensation", did I just "hold out" as offering reimbursement for a flight if the person unknown to me is one of those who needs flight time in their logbook to get a job flying someday?
 
denverpilot said:
If I post on a bulletin board that I need a safety pilot, and with the total crap from the Chief Counsel that flight time is "compensation", did I just "hold out" as offering reimbursement for a flight if the person unknown to me is one of those who needs flight time in their logbook to get a job flying someday?
Click to expand...

No, because you paid for all of it. If you paid for the plane and time, it's all fine. I have never paid to be someone's safety pilot.
 
denverpilot said:
If I post on a bulletin board that I need a safety pilot, and with the total crap from the Chief Counsel that flight time is "compensation", did I just "hold out" as offering reimbursement for a flight if the person unknown to me is one of those who needs flight time in their logbook to get a job flying someday?
Click to expand...

Henning said:
No, because you paid for all of it. If you paid for the plane and time, it's all fine. I have never paid to be someone's safety pilot.
Click to expand...

If the safety pilot is NOT a CPL, then it seems to me that NOT paying pro rata in that situation runs afoul of the rules. The PPL safety pilot accepted free loggable PIC time ("compensation", writ large) to act as a required crew member. Let's chew on that for a while, shall we?

Of course its not possible that the FAA has created this byzantine rule structure so that might encourage PPLs to fly less, or to simply say F8** it and hire a CFI for their recurrent safety/IPC needs? {/sarc}
 
DJTorrente said:
If the safety pilot is NOT a CPL, then it seems to me that NOT paying pro rata in that situation runs afoul of the rules. The PPL safety pilot accepted free loggable PIC time ("compensation", writ large) to act as a required crew member. Let's chew on that for a while, shall we?

Of course its not possible that the FAA has created this byzantine rule structure so that might encourage PPLs to fly less, or to simply say F8** it and hire a CFI for their recurrent safety/IPC needs? {/sarc}
Click to expand...

Has anything changed re: the Roberts interpretation?
 
DJTorrente said:
If the safety pilot is NOT a CPL, then it seems to me that NOT paying pro rata in that situation runs afoul of the rules. The PPL safety pilot accepted free loggable PIC time ("compensation", writ large) to act as a required crew member. Let's chew on that for a while, shall we?

Of course its not possible that the FAA has created this byzantine rule structure so that might encourage PPLs to fly less, or to simply say F8** it and hire a CFI for their recurrent safety/IPC needs? {/sarc}
Click to expand...

I have never logged safety pilot time, it never held any value for me.
 
I was cogitating on this brouhaha a bit more today, and thinking about the liberty vs safety aspects again. While I raked a bit of leaves I got to thinking that the majority of our problem stems from ADM. Then I was considering how we can better train ADM for the lesser PPL mortals to more toward the safety of the comm world.

My take, after some rationalization was that the PPL standards should be raised across the board. I know, that will reduce the number of pilot starts, and it's hardly a libertarian thing to do, but this is where I was headed. We should allow a more liberal use of our PPL, and fewer restrictions. We should be able to share and advertise trips to share expenses as a PPL, but here's the rub. My change would be hours and experience based, and not ratings based.

Sort of like the graduated drivers license for teens. When you get your PPL, you are about 45-75 hours. Once you pass the test, and get your cert you can fly by yourself anywhere you want(legally), take up to 3 family members or close relatives, and not ever be allowed to fly with a pro-rata share of any kind until you've reachced 200 hours of progressively more complex trips. So - 200 hours of going back and forth from San Diego to Palm Springs in the summer would not qualify for an uprating. After 200 hours, you can now take citizens who are not related to you, and you can pro-rata share with another PPL holder. After 400 hours of progressive experience you can now take citizens and pro-rata share and even advertise around like FlyteNow.

So, that would be a couple of CFI endorsements at 200 and 400 hours if you wanted to move up the ladder, just like TW or HP or complex.
 
I'm amazed that anyone felt it necessary to put the safety pilot question to the Chief Counsel.
 
docmirror said:
Well, if a local BB with a push pin is not ok, and the internet is not ok, how is the passenger supposed to find the pilot and vice versa? Ouija board?

Wonder if voice is ok; 'hey Tom, it's Bill, I'm going to Llano on Sat, if you want to come?' 'Sure, sounds like fun I will pay half the fuel and oil.' 'OK, see you at the hangar at 9am'.

Is this acceptable? What if Bill calls Tom on an electronic device like a phone? Text? Smoke signal? This is why I think it should be allowed, notwithstanding that FlyteNow is getting a cut of the deal, which is where I think it breaks down. This is what moves it from a pro-rata deal, to a commercial deal.

But - I could be wrong! lol
Click to expand...
No matter the communication device, calling your friend Tom in this case is acceptable. It's when you start calling random numbers for people you don't know (similar to posting an open invite on a bulletin board or website) that you'd run afoul of holding out issues.
 
MauleSkinner said:
No matter the communication device, calling your friend Tom in this case is acceptable. It's when you start calling random numbers for people you don't know (similar to posting an open invite on a bulletin board or website) that you'd run afoul of holding out issues.
Click to expand...

What if I post it to my facebook wall, including hundreds of "friends" I may or may not have ever met in real life? What if I post it to the wall of a FB "friend", where it will be seen by all of his/her friends who I may or may not know? (Haberkorn letter punted on this issue)

And exactly how does the method of communication relate to the safety of the flight operation? (I contend, it does not -- its merely a ruse to limit the number of operations, "for the children" nach).
 
Last edited:
Mauleskinner define friend. We're all friends here right.
 
DJTorrente said:
What if I post it to my facebook wall, including hundreds of "friends" I may or may not have ever met in real life? What if I post it to the wall of a FB "friend", where it will be seen by all of his/her friends who I may or may no know?

And exactly how does the method of communication relates to the safety of the flight operation? (I contend, it does not -- its merely a ruse to limit the number of operations, "for the children" nach).
Click to expand...

If you're going to use "friend" as a limiting factor, you're going to have to ask the FAA or the courts for a definition, but if it's someone I associate with outside of this possible flight, it's more likely to be acceptable than somebody I met for the first time for the sole purpose of making this flight.

As far as the method of communication, what matters is whether it's directly contacting said "friend" or broadcasting an open offer for the trip.
 
MauleSkinner said:
No matter the communication device, calling your friend Tom in this case is acceptable. It's when you start calling random numbers for people you don't know (similar to posting an open invite on a bulletin board or website) that you'd run afoul of holding out issues.
Click to expand...

I've never met you, but you seem like a nice enough sort, and you're a pilot. I think we'd get along well on a flight. Say, I'm making a flight next week to ____(fill in anything), and I'd like it if you could come along. We could split the cost of gas and oil. If you can't make it, would your buddy like to go in your place?

Have I broken the law? Are we close enough? Is this 'random'? Was asking your buddy over the line? This is moving into an area of law I like to call; 'arbitrary and capricious'. Laws should be well defined. Our country is moving away from well defined and into areas of arbitrary. I think it's a mistake.
 
docmirror said:
I've never met you, but you seem like a nice enough sort, and you're a pilot. I think we'd get along well on a flight. Say, I'm making a flight next week to ____(fill in anything), and I'd like it if you could come along. We could split the cost of gas and oil. If you can't make it, would your buddy like to go in your place?

Have I broken the law? Are we close enough? Is this 'random'? Was asking your buddy over the line? This is moving into an area of law I like to call; 'arbitrary and capricious'. Laws should be well defined. Our country is moving away from well defined and into areas of arbitrary. I think it's a mistake.
Click to expand...

IMO, inviting me could go either way, but inviting a random buddy of mine would be over the line.

No argument on the need for well-defined laws and statutes, but I'd say in this case there's enough history of violation and interpretation that the FAA's position regarding FlyteNow is very consistent with how it's enforced this rule in the past.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm amazed that anyone felt it necessary to put the safety pilot question to the Chief Counsel.
Click to expand...

There are a few on here who would. We all know who they are.....
 
MauleSkinner said:
IMO, inviting me could go either way, but inviting a random buddy of mine would be over the line...
Click to expand...

Getting too deeply into hair-splitting, and then trying to codify that, is why the rule books just keep getting thicker and thicker, to the point that they're so thick that no one can possibly know what's legal and what isn't anymore, because no one will be able to read and remember it all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top