Interesting new Wings Course

[Let'sgoflying!]

"The FAA and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) discuss protecting your pilot certificate in the new WINGS-credit course ALC-1093, Cost Sharing, Time Building, and Posting on Social Media.

The first chapter of the course covers important information that pilots and aircraft owners need to know and understand regarding flying passengers and property safely and legally.

The second chapter is about time building, which is not as intuitive as cost sharing and pertains to flying to build time and experience. It explores topics like whether you can fly your airplane and be reimbursed by your company.

The third chapter covers important information that pilots and aircraft owners need to know and understand when it comes to posting on social media, holding out for compensation or hire, and what may be used as evidence should safety regulations be compromised."

Take the course at https://bit.ly/alc-1093

 

[tlglenn]

Possibly prompted by these guys:

This flight-sharing service is like Uber Pool for private planes

It's like carpooling, but on a private plane.

mashable.com

I flew on a private plane with Blackbird, the flight-sharing startup that's like the UberPool for planes — here's what it's like

Hailing a plane is no longer a concept of the future. On Blackbird, a flight-sharing startup that's like the Uber Pool for planes, you can hop a flight on a private plane for as cheap as $50.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Clip4]

If you are a pilot, you are supposed to already know this.

 

[Pinecone]

Except the actual interpretation and enforcement changes.

Like, in the past if a friend asked you to fly him to some place for some reason, you could split the gas. Now, unless YOU have a reason to make the trip, you cannot split the gas. Heck, as I understand the current climate, he can't even buy you lunch.

MUCH tighter, but with the same regs.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Like, in the past if a friend asked you to fly him to some place for some reason, you could split the gas. Now, unless YOU have a reason to make the trip, you cannot split the gas. Heck, as I understand the current climate, he can't even buy you lunch.

Actually it was more restrictive in the past. I guess "the past" depends on perspective; I'm only going back to 1977. Until the "shared destination" Haberkorn letter in 2011, the rule was interpreted to require not only a shared destination but a shared purpose for the flight.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Possibly prompted by these guys:

This flight-sharing service is like Uber Pool for private planes

It's like carpooling, but on a private plane.

mashable.com

I flew on a private plane with Blackbird, the flight-sharing startup that's like the UberPool for planes — here's what it's like

Hailing a plane is no longer a concept of the future. On Blackbird, a flight-sharing startup that's like the Uber Pool for planes, you can hop a flight on a private plane for as cheap as $50.

www.businessinsider.com

II think it's more an offshoot of the current FAA focus on illegal charter. I've done webinars on the subject. I think mostly got started because of COVID. Corporate and shared jets being underutilized increased their use for what the FAA saw as illegal charters disguised as dry leases. Wealthy person with zero aviation knowledge wants to go somewhere but not deal with airlines and looking for a cheap charter. Suddenly, here's a cheaper jet and the only thing the passenger needs to do is sign an agreement saying the passenger, not the owner of the jet, has "operational control" of the flight, chose the pilot and crew, and is responsible for what happens.

Problem is that once you start looking at those relationships, you see others. Transportation disguised a flight instruction, demo flights, shard expense flights, etc, were sure to be included.

 

[TCABM]

…Transportation disguised a flight instruction….

I see that happen several times a week.

 

[Palmpilot]

If you are a pilot, you are supposed to already know this.

The training for my various pilot certificates contained not one word about where to find FAA interpretations of the regs, and many of them are not obvious from the plain language of the regs themselves.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I see that happen several times a week.

You must be in an interesting place. I've seen it but not very often.

 

[TCABM]

You must be in an interesting place. I've seen it but not very often.

Nope. Just a pt 61 flight school that has leaseback aircraft with the student pilot owner taking an XC trip to the same airport ~275nm away. 4hrs later, the return flight happens. Scheduled as dual training with CFI.

It could be the schedule doesn’t accurately reflect the nature of the flight, but the schedule does have the capability to do exactly that.

 

[Clip4]

The training for my various pilot certificates contained not one word about where to find FAA interpretations of the regs, and many of them are not obvious from the plain language of the regs themselves

I sure there are a lot of the home study crowd this is all news too.

 

[Palmpilot]

I sure there are a lot of the home study crowd this is all news too.

What difference does it make whether it was home study or not? My ground school for the private was an in-person class. The instrument, commercial, and multi were King Schools videos. None mentioned where to find Chief Counsel interpretations, or even that they existed.

 

[Clip4]

What difference does it make whether it was home study or not? My ground school for the private was an in-person class. The instrument, commercial, and multi were King Schools videos. None mentioned where to find Chief Counsel interpretations, or even that they existed.

Not everything in the Wings course was chief council opinions ie. Holding out. I am also really uncertain how one completes a commercial certificate without knowledge of most of the topics in the course and certainly by the CFI level.

 

[WannaBePiloto]

If you are a pilot, you are supposed to already know this.

I can tell you must be a ton of fun to hang out with. Take a chill pill buddy. The guy was just trying to share some knowledge.

 

[JimNtexas]

Possibly prompted by these guys:

This flight-sharing service is like Uber Pool for private planes

It's like carpooling, but on a private plane.

mashable.com

I flew on a private plane with Blackbird, the flight-sharing startup that's like the UberPool for planes — here's what it's like

Hailing a plane is no longer a concept of the future. On Blackbird, a flight-sharing startup that's like the Uber Pool for planes, you can hop a flight on a private plane for as cheap as $50.

www.businessinsider.com

Note these are 2018 articles

 

[Palmpilot]

Not everything in the Wings course was chief council opinions ie. Holding out. I am also really uncertain how one completes a commercial certificate without knowledge of most of the topics in the course and certainly by the CFI level.

Sorry, I thought you were responding to the post immediately preceding yours. Is knowledge of the existence and location of wings courses required in the Part 61 requirements to obtain a pilot certificate?

 

[RyanShort1]

Nope. Just a pt 61 flight school that has leaseback aircraft with the student pilot owner taking an XC trip to the same airport ~275nm away. 4hrs later, the return flight happens. Scheduled as dual training with CFI.

It could be the schedule doesn’t accurately reflect the nature of the flight, but the schedule does have the capability to do exactly that.

Just out of curiosity: Do you think that that is morally wrong?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Nope. Just a pt 61 flight school that has leaseback aircraft with the student pilot owner taking an XC trip to the same airport ~275nm away. 4hrs later, the return flight happens. Scheduled as dual training with CFI.

So, no training taking place? CFI just flying the owner around could be the schedule doesn’t accurately reflect the nature of the flight, but the schedule does have the capability to do exactly that.

Sorry, without more, i don’t see how that equates to a grey charter

 

[midlifeflyer]

Just out of curiosity: Do you think that that is morally wrong?

I don’t see a problem with it either, but morality is not the issue. There’s a lot of things that are prohibited which have nothing to do with morality.

 

[RyanShort1]

I don’t see a problem with it either, but morality is not the issue. There’s a lot of things that are prohibited which have nothing to do with morality.

Either? It sounds like you just assumed my position (which I did not reveal) and I’m well aware of your last statement.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Either? It sounds like you just assumed my position (which I did not reveal) and I’m well aware of your last statement.

Sorry. You are absolutely correct. I assumed that when you asked whether he thought it was morally wrong, you were indicating you didn’t.

 

[midlifeflyer]

How are those problematic? If the pilot is commercial and pre-determines where he/she is flying the plane, what makes it anything other than a ride-share?
If they were advertising the ability to select the destination and schedule, sure, that's a poorly disguised charter, but....?

I guess you answered your own question. But if you want to see what the FAA thought about it, 2019 Chief Counsel letter to Blackbird’s attorney.

For a simplified explanation, providing airplane and crew from a single source implicates Part 119 unless there is an exception. And 61.113 ride sharing in the US doesn’t not include advertising its availability.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Thanks for the link to that letter - it's fairly harsh and leaves little room for interpretation.

It's consistent with the FAA's long-standing position on ride-sharing.

 

[Chrisgoesflying]

Possibly prompted by these guys:

This flight-sharing service is like Uber Pool for private planes

It's like carpooling, but on a private plane.

mashable.com

I flew on a private plane with Blackbird, the flight-sharing startup that's like the UberPool for planes — here's what it's like

Hailing a plane is no longer a concept of the future. On Blackbird, a flight-sharing startup that's like the Uber Pool for planes, you can hop a flight on a private plane for as cheap as $50.

www.businessinsider.com

This company doesn’t even exist anymore. FAA effectively shut them down years ago. I thought that was the wrong decision. I think they had it tabled in congress to allow those types of companies to operate but it never made it to be voted on. In Europe (which is arguably way more restrictive when it comes to GA), they allow those types of companies and they’re very successful. Check out Wingly. It would be nice to have something like that over here.

 

[morleyz]

This company doesn’t even exist anymore. FAA effectively shut them down years ago. I thought that was the wrong decision. I think they had it tabled in congress to allow those types of companies to operate but it never made it to be voted on. In Europe (which is arguably way more restrictive when it comes to GA), they allow those types of companies and they’re very successful. Check out Wingly. It would be nice to have something like that over here.

I don't really have an opinion yet, but I'm curious where you draw the line. Should a couple of ATPs working for Delta be able to throw themselves on a Blackbird-like service and John Travolta decides to rent out his 727 to fly 150 passengers from New York to LA in their spare time?

 

[Chrisgoesflying]

I don't really have an opinion yet, but I'm curious where you draw the line. Should a couple of ATPs working for Delta be able to throw themselves on a Blackbird-like service and John Travolta decides to rent out his 727 to fly 150 passengers from New York to LA in their spare time?

Good question. I guess it wouldn't be hard to put some limitations on that e.g. only planes with up to six seats qualify. There are so many flights with one person on the plane and 3-5 empty seats going where others need to go that same day as well, every day. They end up driving. I frequently fly for work between two mid sized airports that don't have a commercial connection. I can imagine others drive between those two cities daily (8 hour drive vs. 3 hour flight). People do all that talk about environment and emission - well, putting another 2 people on those planes will save two additional separate car rides to that destination. Not saying that's the reason why I think having something like this would be nice to have over here - but that could be a reason for those who are opposed to this but care about this whole emission thing.

 

[midwestpa24]

Nope. Just a pt 61 flight school that has leaseback aircraft with the student pilot owner taking an XC trip to the same airport ~275nm away. 4hrs later, the return flight happens. Scheduled as dual training with CFI.

It could be the schedule doesn’t accurately reflect the nature of the flight, but the schedule does have the capability to do exactly that.

I've done things like that with a student before, but they were a bona fide student. We combined a required flight training lesson on cross countries with a business trip the student needed to make anyway. It was actual flight training, not just hopping a ride, and helped demonstrate to the student the usefulness and planning for such business trips in the future.

Now I wouldn't attempt the same thing with someone that wasn't a regular student, as the FAA could easily find issue with that.

This company doesn’t even exist anymore. FAA effectively shut them down years ago. I thought that was the wrong decision. I think they had it tabled in congress to allow those types of companies to operate but it never made it to be voted on. In Europe (which is arguably way more restrictive when it comes to GA), they allow those types of companies and they’re very successful. Check out Wingly. It would be nice to have something like that over here.

That company may not exist, but every few months another entrepreneur type with little knowledge of aviation regulations and thinking he is smarter than the last guy, believes they found the magic loophole for their new service. The thing they forget, the FAA is the judge, jury, and executioner of FAA regulations, and FAA regulations are written broadly enough to allow them to close any loophole someone thinks they find.

 

[Chrisgoesflying]

That company may not exist, but every few months another entrepreneur type with little knowledge of aviation regulations and thinking he is smarter than the last guy, believes they found the magic loophole for their new service. The thing they forget, the FAA is the judge, jury, and executioner of FAA regulations, and FAA regulations are written broadly enough to allow them to close any loophole someone thinks they find.

I was that entrepreneur back in 2020 in Canada and contemplated starting a similar business. I got a legal opinion from a lawyer and then approached Transport Canada with it before spending any significant money on building the business. TC basically said they don't really care about the legal opinion and chances are they would shut me down anyways so I moved on to the next thing very quickly lol. I don't care enough about this to fight the gov't over it. Now, them taking all my money as "taxes", that I am willing to fight over haha.

 

[Wheels]

Nope. Just a pt 61 flight school that has leaseback aircraft with the student pilot owner taking an XC trip to the same airport ~275nm away. 4hrs later, the return flight happens. Scheduled as dual training with CFI.

It could be the schedule doesn’t accurately reflect the nature of the flight, but the schedule does have the capability to do exactly that.

The schedule may not show it properly but as long as the CFi holds a second or first class medical why would this be a problem?

Even if there isn’t any instruction going on it is perfectly legal for the owner of a plane to hire a commercial pilot to fly his plane for him.

 

[midwestpa24]

I was that entrepreneur back in 2020 in Canada and contemplated starting a similar business. I got a legal opinion from a lawyer and then approached Transport Canada with it before spending any significant money on building the business. TC basically said they don't really care about the legal opinion and chances are they would shut me down anyways so I moved on to the next thing very quickly lol. I don't care enough about this to fight the gov't over it. Now, them taking all my money as "taxes", that I am willing to fight over haha.

"The Uber of the skies" You seem to hear a lot of this kind of thought. People outside of aviation think it is a technological limitation that can be fixed with the right app and marketing. They fail to consider the regulatory environment and cost. There have been numerous start-ups that were quickly shut down. I think the same thing is going to happen with all of this eVTOL Air Mobility market. Without major changes to Aircraft Certification and Part 135 Regulations, there is no financially viable business model. They are competing head to head against existing helicopter operators in a very small marketplace.

Just look at all the noise complaints existing airports already get, to the point of public outcry and shutdown. You think the general public will tolerate these big occupied drones buzzing all over and landing in their neighborhoods?

 

[iamtheari]

If you are a pilot, you are supposed to already know this.

I can't think of any Wings course that doesn't cover things that certificated pilots are supposed to already know.

"The Uber of the skies" You seem to hear a lot of this kind of thought. People outside of aviation think it is a technological limitation that can be fixed with the right app and marketing. They fail to consider the regulatory environment and cost. There have been numerous start-ups that were quickly shut down. I think the same thing is going to happen with all of this eVTOL Air Mobility market. Without major changes to Aircraft Certification and Part 135 Regulations, there is no financially viable business model. They are competing head to head against existing helicopter operators in a very small marketplace.

They also fail to consider that automobile safety mostly relies on crashworthiness, not driving skills or in-car road reports. That's the fundamental difference between a quasi-commercial driving operation and a quasi-commercial flying one. And it is reflected in how ride-share businesses work.

Uber and Lyft mostly vet the car. Drivers must have a valid driver license, some kind of insurance, and a car built within the past 15 years with no damage, four doors, and a safety inspection. It is reasonable to entrust your life with a barely-vetted driver in a modern car with crumple zones, side airbags, and shoulder belts. It is much less reasonable to entrust your life to a barely-vetted pilot flying any kind of plane.

 

[Chrisgoesflying]

It is much less reasonable to entrust your life to a barely-vetted pilot flying any kind of plane.

True, but then looking at the Wingly model in Europe, it doesn’t seem like the airplanes fall out of the air and there is carnage in the air caused by pilots on their platform. ‍

 

[midwestpa24]

True, but then looking at the Wingly model in Europe, it doesn’t seem like the airplanes fall out of the air and there is carnage in the air caused by pilots on their platform. ‍

I can't speak to what happens in Europe, but at least in the US aviation is treated differently.

If an Uber car gets in an accident, even a fatal one, it barely makes the local news. If one of these Uber of the Sky aircraft crashes, it will be national news. Politicians will get involved demanding safety reforms to prevent it from ever happening again. Just look at the Colgan Air crash and the impacts it created to the aviation industry. The general public expect and tolerate car accidents, they don't tolerate airplane accidents.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I can't speak to what happens in Europe, but at least in the US aviation is treated differently.

Definitely. Perhaps interesting though, I have discussed the Wingly model with ASIs, some of whom have said we need something like that here.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

If you are a pilot, you are supposed to already know this.

I can tell you must be a ton of fun to hang out with. Take a chill pill buddy. The guy was just trying to share some knowledge.

I take no offense, in fact it may not be a comment of denigration to me at all.

Contrary to the intent of the comment however, I am pretty sure that these are valid topics; the FAA and the AOPA are pretty good at getting the word out - on things they know are actively being done wrong with regularity.

I am hearing there are tons of 134&1/2 going on in my area, and there must be a lot of Sham Dry Leases as well, if you are to consider the very detailed GA Dry Lease Guide that is available.

We see discussions here regularly about cost sharing and time logging so that must be currently an issue.

And social media posts from our inflight activities has definitely been a hot topic in the last few years.

Yes, we should know about these things - but it's like common sense; it's not common!

 

[tlglenn]

Keep in mind that bureaucracy can be slow. The course you see today might've been years in the making.

 

[Clip4]

I take no offense, in fact it may not be a comment of denigration to me at all.

Contrary to the intent of the comment however, I am pretty sure that these are valid topics; the FAA and the AOPA are pretty good at getting the word out - on things they know are actively being done wrong with regularity.

I am hearing there are tons of 134&1/2 going on in my area, and there must be a lot of Sham Dry Leases as well, if you are to consider the very detailed GA Dry Lease Guide that is available.

We see discussions here regularly about cost sharing and time logging so that must be currently an issue.

And social media posts from our inflight activities has definitely been a hot topic in the last few years.

Yes, we should know about these things - but it's like common sense; it's not common!

I agree there are plenty of 134.5 operations out there, but don’t assume the people trying it don’t know it violates the regs.

 

[rhkennerly]

If you are a pilot, you are supposed to already know this.

And we never undergo refresher training on any topic?

 

[RyanShort1]

And we never undergo refresher training on any topic?

That should only make it easier to remember, no?

 

[Half Fast]

So I took this new course this afternoon. Key takeaways:

1) The FAA can (and does) call almost anything "compensation" including building flight time. (IMHO, since it's impossible to fly without accumulating flight hours, it seems to me that the FAA can, if it chooses, say a pilot is being compensated on any flight.)​

2) If the passenger suggests the flight and destination and the pilot wasn't already planning to go there, there is no common purpose for the flight.​

3) If the pilot suggests the flight and destination to the passenger, the pilot might be considered to be "holding out."​

The end result of this is that if the FAA wants to cite you for violating 61.113 on anything other than a solo flight, they can probably figure out a way to do it. It's kinda like the laws of thermodynamics: you can't win, you can't break even, you can't quit the game.

The course was very wishy-washy, with lots of "Be very careful about this" and "Pilots should be cautious of doing this" and "It depends" kind of ca-ca. There need to be some clearly defined written rules/interpretations, but instead there's lots of arm waving. It would have been much better if someone from FAA Legal had been on the panel and given some real opinions you could rely on. At one point the FAA guy said, "There's no regulation but this is the FAA's position, and do you want to be a test case?" Completely unprofessional garbage, but about what I expected.

The safety inspector from the FAA said several times that the FAA's primary concern was "the safety of the passengers in the back of the plane." But, he also went on to say that hauling cargo was no different and the FAA lumps persons and packages together, so the bust is the same whether or not passenger safety is involved.

I found it interesting to learn that the FAA has subpoena powers. Not surprising but it hadn't occurred to me that if the FAA wants your flight video they don't have to go through a court first. Fortunately they can't get something that doesn't exist even with a subpoena, and private pilots have no requirement to log flights (other than as necessary for currency), much less record passengers or keep records of expenses or document the purpose of a flight.

Best to keep a low profile. Even if you consider your flight completely legal, the FAA can probably make a case that it wasn't if they want to.