FlyteNow v. FAA

JimNtexas said:
Yes, and in your alternate reality some private pilot wants to sell seats.

You should find that person and set him or her straight. Your problem is that person doesn't not exist in the real world!!!!!

It has been both public law and FAA policy that it is NOT 'selling seats' to share expenses on a private GA trip!!! You don't have be 'friends' with the person, you can even, according to both public law and the FAA, put a note on your college or workplace bulletin board informing people that you're going from A to B, and if anyone wants to ride along please share the direct costs.

In the case that is the subject of this thread the FAA is saying that while a note on a physical bulletin board is fine, the same note in this web forum magically makes the same flight a 'charter'.

That's just clearly insane in the present quantum reality.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that? This is an interpretation by the Office of the General Counsel addressed to the AOPA's legal beagle:

"Dear Mr. Yodice:

This is in response to your letter last week to Mr. Donald Byrne of our office, enclosing a draft of your column, "Notes From the Washington Counsel", for May 1978. We think it important to clarify the FAA's position on certain points that you intend to discuss in your column.
We do not agree that a pilot who wants to build up time toward his commercial pilot certificate may carry expense sharing passengers or cargo to a destination at which he has no particular business. This kind of operation is not permitted by Section 61.118(b).
We should also point out that advertising in any form, including the use of a college bulletin board, raises a question of whether, in light of all the circumstances involved, the pilot is holding himself or herself out as available to provide transportation to the public. If the evidence indicated that common carriage is in fact involved, the pilot would be in violation of Part 135.
With respect to the method by which expenses are shared, it is not necessary that there be a mathematically exact division of each operating expense, such as aircraft rental. However, it would give rise to a presumption that the pilot was not actually sharing expenses if he or she paid less than a pro-rata share of the total operating costs or the flight.
Finally, you have correctly stated our position with respect to what expenses may be shared. It remains our opinion that only direct costs such as gas, oil, landing and parking fees, and the like are operating expenses of a flight within the meaning of Section 61.118 (b). Indirect costs such as insurance and maintenance may not be shared.
We hope that our comments will be of some assistance to you in advising AOPA members on the matter of sharing expenses.

Sincerely,"


Bob Gardner
 
MAKG1 said:
Though this is a terrible forum for trying to make changes to the rules...
Click to expand...

It's rare for an individual acting alone to be able to get laws or government policies changed. Consequently, an indispensable part of the process is to recruit as many allies as possible to the effort. There are few better venues for that than the Internet, and in the realm of aviation, this message board would seem to be as good a place as any.
 
JeffDG said:
RW games: I don't like the message, so I'll just criticize the method in which it was delivered.
Click to expand...

No, I just find it humorous how lawyers like to throw Latin phrases around rather than attempting to communicate in plain language.

Oh, I forgot to say "on point". :rolleyes:
 
JeffDG said:
Funny how the FAA could easily publish an NPRM putting the words "common purpose" into the regulation about expense sharing, but yet they haven't. They keep trying to work around the law they wrote with lawyer's letters.
Click to expand...

Funnier yet how your advocates AOPA and EAA haven't pushed the issue through lobbying..........
 
dtuuri said:
I don't think it's insane at all and whole-heartily agree with it. A pilot is pretty well known around the local FBO. There, one has a chance to size up another's competence before sharing the cockpit (or back seat). Not so when marketing on the world-wide web.

dtuuri
Click to expand...


Guys if you don't like the way the law and the current regs are written, get the FAA to change them!

Cost sharing is and has been legal for decades. Tim Berners-Lee did not change that!!!
 
RotorAndWing said:
No, I just find it humorous how lawyers like to throw Latin phrases around rather than attempting to communicate in plain language.
Click to expand...

Some tales would have us believe that the supposedly "legal" writing habit of repeating the same idea twice using synonyms (e.g., "free and clear") comes from the Anglo-Saxon era when lawyers had to communicate is both Anglo and Saxon languages, which were dissimilar.

Be that as it may, what I said was

DJTorrente said:
Splitting expenses is only "compensation" and/or "selling seats" because the FAA said so, not because it is so. Malum prohibitim, not Malum in se.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

The bold portion not plain enough language for you? I'll try to dumb it down in the future.

That there exists an idiom in a dead language that aptly describes what the FAA is doing might lead one to believe that the FAA is not quite so clever (nor indispensable) as they would like others to believe.
 
The Waze interpretation, as well as public law, authorize expense sharing and posting notes on Bulletin boards.

The FAA wants to send that down the memory hole. But they can't really do that in this reality.
 
JimNtexas said:
The Waze interpretation, as well as public law, authorize expense sharing and posting notes on Bulletin boards.

The FAA wants to send that down the memory hole. But they can't really do that in this reality.
Click to expand...

Not sure when Waze was written, but Haberkorn says otherwise. The FAA has been pretty consistent on what they consider "holding out".

Edit to add - there was nothing in the Chief Counsel database under the name "Waze"
 

Attachments

  • haberkorn - (2011) legal interpretation.pdf
    73.4 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
MikeELP said:
Cap'n Ron does it all the time!! Throw in some ergo hocs and quid pros and other Latin babble and you're an attorney. :D

At least R&W admits that he is NOT an attorney. :yes:
Click to expand...

Omnia dicta fortiora si dicta latina.
 
bobmrg said:
Where did you get that? This is an interpretation by the Office of the General Counsel addressed to the AOPA's legal beagle:

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...
The FlyteNow briefs and the interpretation letter to John Yodice refer back to a 1976 interpretation letter to Paul Ware, a college student who asked about posting on the college bulletin board:

For instance, if you plan to go to St Louis for the weekend, there would be nothing wrong with your advertising on the school bulletin board for other students to accompany you in order to defray your costs.​

It's contained in the Joint Appendix filed by FlyteNow.

I'm collecting the main documents in the case is a public Dropbox folder
 
Last edited:
I received a message the folder wasn't reachable. The url was incorrect. Thank you!


The correct one is in the other post but just in case it's this.
 
So... think the FAA will warn EAA about this one...?

---
Need a Ride to AirVenture?
RideShare matches passengers, ride providers for AirVenture

Maximize your annual trek to EAA AirVenture Oshkosh by using RideShare, a free, online service that pairs people looking for transportation to Oshkosh with those who may have a spare seat available. Just hop onto the RideShare page, where you can view all the rides offered and all the rides requested.

To register for a ride you are seeking, or to list a ride you are offering click the New Ride button then complete the online form. Personal information will not be shown on searches. Instead, a link to contact you is provided. An e-mail will be sent to you from the interested party, and it is your option to reply or contact that party.
---

Pretty close to the same thing as is in court right now...

Just for fun I was Googling... just out of curiosity... to see how many of these things there are now...

http://www.skypool.com/
http://www.pilotsharetheride.com/
http://www.flightshare.com/
http://www.xconomy.com/san-diego/20...ial-airpooler-offers-ride-sharing-in-the-sky/
http://www.sharemysky.org/about_the_association/

It's interesting that they only went after ...
https://flytenow.com/


(God awful website design, by the way... for most of them. Rich... you should make some money to help them fix that before they all get shut down. LOL!)
 
RotorAndWing said:
Here's what happens with 135 certificates. The office that certifies the applicant and oversees the certificate is responsible for that operation. Let them certify someone, and have that person crash and all hell breaks loose starting from the NTSB and FAA HQ and works down. If during certification it was discovered something was looked over or missed, now those people are going to be held responsible.
Click to expand...

Define "held responsible"?

Will they be sued personally in a civil court for damages? Lose their job? Lose their pension? Get a slap on the wrist and keep right on trucking?

(It's an honest question. What really happens to all those multitudes of people "held responsible"? I see very very very little actual personal responsibility required of government workers, in general... they really don't have much skin in the game for most things. But you've seen this process, so I'm curious if it's significantly different. Were your personal assets ever at risk, like most of us in the private sector, for gross negligence?)
 
denverpilot said:
Define "held responsible"?

Will they be sued personally in a civil court for damages? Lose their job? Lose their pension? Get a slap on the wrist and keep right on trucking?

(It's an honest question. What really happens to all those multitudes of people "held responsible"? I see very very very little actual personal responsibility required of government workers, in general... they really don't have much skin in the game for most things. But you've seen this process, so I'm curious if it's significantly different. Were your personal assets ever at risk, like most of us in the private sector, for gross negligence?)
Click to expand...

Go do some reading on it. The FAA defines it under "Scope of Employment".
 
denverpilot said:
Hmm. Ok. And the root cause of that was... Because they thought FAA would leave them alone in the future? LOL.

Root cause, sir. Root cause.
Click to expand...

Ok...root cause...somebody wants to hold out in an aviation business and not be held up to the standard that the FAA requires for commercial operations, so they "went after" the FAA for not blessing their operation.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
Hmm. Ok. And the root cause of that was... Because they thought FAA would leave them alone in the future? LOL.

Root cause, sir. Root cause.
Click to expand...

Your "root cause" also applies to AirPooler. AirPooler and FlyteNow each asked the FAA Chief Counsel's office for an opinion on the operation. So, using your definition, the FAA still didn't single out FlyteNow.
 
Right -- Flytenow asked the question, and then decided they couldn't stand the answer. The FAA hammer fell only on the nail which stuck itself up.

Any guess, Mark, on when a decision might be forthcoming? Things like this often take years, IIRC.
 
What will happen with the other like businesses should the decision go against them?
 
Ron Levy said:
Any guess, Mark, on when a decision might be forthcoming? Things like this often take years, IIRC.
Click to expand...
No guess, Ron. The median time for decisions on cases in the US Court of Appeals is less than 12 months from filing to decision. It's about 14 months for the DC Circuit. Some of that depends on whether the Court plans to hear oral argument.

There's no pending orders in the case and no one has filed a motion for permission to make additional filings. I check the docket about once a month to see if there is any activity.
 
Kritchlow said:
What will happen with the other like businesses should the decision go against them?
Click to expand...
if the decision goes against FlyteNow, it will essentially be upholding the FAA's views of the application of the commercial blueprint to these types of activities. There is also the possibility that like businesses (or even FlyteNow itself) will read a negative decision as leaving open some possibilities and give that a try.

No way to tell until and unless a decision is reached.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Go do some reading on it. The FAA defines it under "Scope of Employment".
Click to expand...


Well after reading what came up, that didn't answer the direct question that I asked. I asked what ACTUALLY happens. Not to be referred to a boring standard boilerplate document that says the policy is to indemnify or not at their discretion. (Which is basically a "duh" document.)

Any statistics on how many complaints are filed vs how often indemnity is chosen?

I was more specifically asking you, since you saw it in person.

Roughly how many complaints that held water did you see, and how many times was indemnity and having the taxpayer pay for defense, were there?

You don't have to get into specifics. I'm just curious how the numbers compare with private sector liability cases. In theory, the number should be similar.
 
I strongly support the public choice we have made to separate private operations from commercial operations. Most of these Uberish arrangements are "holding out" to the public and for that reason I oppose them.

It is clear however, from the number of these efforts and many more that remain under the radar, that the public is realizing that the benefits of GA have been egregiously squandered as the result of a third-world like regulatory framework.

There is a rational alternative: https://www.facebook.com/freedomtoflyforprivatebenefit

New posts on the timeline have been disabled but the comments are open. Please join us in the discussion.

Until I figure out how to reorder the posts on the timeline, start reading from the bottom up.
 
RotorAndWing said:
My scenario was to attempt to show the difference between an air carrier (part 135) pilot and a Private Pilot wanting compensation.



My take on it is this: The regulations in place have been there since I started flying, and that is true for everyone on this board. The choice is there, if you want compensation, get a commercial license. If you want to sell seats, get an Operating Certificate.
Click to expand...

Take all you want R&W. 'Selling seats' and cost sharing are entirely different things, I'm sorry you don't like that, but I say again: words mean things.

Cost sharing of direct operating expenses is legal, and a PPL can share expenses with anyone he likes.
 
A brief update: The FlyteNow case has been scheduled for oral argument. Considering that many appellate cases disposed of just on the written submissions, it seems the DC Circuit is at least interest enough to want to hear more.

The oral argument is scheduled for September 25. It is the first of three (unrelated) cases scheduled for that that day.
 
Turningfinal said:
The Oshkosh ride share fulfills the "common purpose" clause IMO.
Click to expand...


the big difference is that on the EAA board money is not even mentioned. they are just talking about giving rides to OSH. If they share costs, thats between the two people. in the flytenow case, flytenow is getting a cut. that asks the question is flytenow selling seats or just hooking up people wanting to share costs.

bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top