New Bill Would Make FlyteNow Legal

I like this bill. If you can turn the public perspective of GA around and get the public on-board you get a lot more ammunition for initiatives like PBOR, etc. Right now the only people fighting that fight are GA pilots. The average consumer doesn't give a crap about it. Make them care and you gain an ally for the cause.

Sure there are going to be accidents, there are accidents in cars, buses, trains and walking down the frickin' street. Life IS a risk.

Get the consumer on board, get them used to the idea of flying/ride-sharing, etc. Get them comfortable with hopping on a plane with a trusted pilot and skipping over traffic, etc. Show them the benefit of getting to the other side of the state in an hour instead of four.

Now after they are comfortable will all that, tell them it goes away or becomes difficult to find as a result of NOT passing the 3rd class reform. Here in Sarasota they tried to ban Uber from operating in a certain area. The public, who got so used to the convenience and pricing banded together and shut down that ban.

Make GA an accessible option that appeals to people. If you want GA to grow, you can't be a hermit or hold to the belief that it's an exclusive club for a few anymore, you have to engage the public.
 
But feel free to put a note on your university or workplace bulletin board saying you're flying to Port A and anyway who wants to contribute gas money can come along.

Because that is and always has been legal, according to the Chief Counsel.

It's a distinction without a difference.

If the FAA wants to ban cost sharing then they should public a NPRM and outlaw it.

This is a ridiculous comparison that keeps coming up time and time again. First, putting a "note" on a bulletin board outside of an FBO virtually never happens, so the FAA never really cared. Even if it did happen from time to time, you can pretty well bet that it was an infinitesimally small number of times, and nobody looks at bulletin boards anyway, so the audience reached was next to nobody. Hell, it hardly ever even happens using FBO bulletin boards, despite how often that one gets thrown around too. In fact, I cannot recall EVER seeing a "note" on an FBO bulletin board offering a ride to X Airport on X date, and I worked at one.
 
Richard, I agree that's one area that needs work, but making something safer isn't necessarily going to make it more popular. You gotta play into the convenience factor for people.

You could make roller coasters safer, but that ain't gonna fill up seats quicker. What about cars? You are much more likely to die in a car then you are flying somewhere.

Over 37,000 people die in road crashes each year
An additional 2.35 million are injured or disabled
Over 1,600 children under 15 years of age die each year
Nearly 8,000 people are killed in crashes involving drivers ages 16-20
Road crashes cost the U.S. $230.6 billion per year, or an average of $820 per person
Road crashes are the single greatest annual cause of death of healthy U.S. citizens traveling abroad

More people die in a car per day globally then then entire YEAR in GA. The accident rate thing is just more "magical" because it involves something people aren't used to seeing everyday. A car crashes and people die, great 1 hr delay...a plane crashes OMG shut down GA now!
 
Despite what all the forward-thinkers and proponents of the new "sharing" economy say, the services being offered through Flytenow are effectively charter operations, plain and simple. The general public, on the whole, has no ****ing idea how safe or unsafe GA is, and is not in a position to make any reasonable evaluation of the pilot, airplane, weather, etc. so he or she can weigh the risks. The government has long-regulated virtually all forms of public transportation, this isn't some new "overreach." Flytenow, and a number of pilots looking to reduce their cost burden, simply want to be relieved of those regulations in the name of "innovation" or "spreading the love of GA" or some other nonsense.

It's the same thing with Uber - everyone wants to call it something different, but Uber is nothing more than a fancy taxi service.
 
I don't think Uber is anything like what is being proposed for airplanes. What's being proposed is more like carpooling.
 
I don't think Uber is anything like what is being proposed for airplanes. What's being proposed is more like carpooling.
Additionally, Uber drivers are in it to make a profit. FlyteNow at least is very explicit in saying it is cost sharing and you have to submit the Hobbs time to them and they disburse the funds. There is no profit to be made in this, at least not in theory. I'm sure some will try and find a way to make money off of it.

One of my concerns is that some pilots may attempt to make flights they wouldn't have without FlyteNow due to weather or maintenance or some other factor.
 
Love the anti argument- GA is so unsafe we can't let more people ride in little airplanes.:lol:
 
Richard, I agree that's one area that needs work, but making something safer isn't necessarily going to make it more popular. You gotta play into the convenience factor for people.

I'm not saying making it safer is sufficient; I'm saying that it's necessary. If you make it more convenient without improving people's perception of the risk, I suspect the effort will fail, and the only way to improve the public's perception of GA safety is to actually make it safer.

You could make roller coasters safer, but that ain't gonna fill up seats quicker. What about cars? You are much more likely to die in a car then you are flying somewhere.

Over 37,000 people die in road crashes each year
An additional 2.35 million are injured or disabled
Over 1,600 children under 15 years of age die each year
Nearly 8,000 people are killed in crashes involving drivers ages 16-20
Road crashes cost the U.S. $230.6 billion per year, or an average of $820 per person
Road crashes are the single greatest annual cause of death of healthy U.S. citizens traveling abroad

More people die in a car per day globally then then entire YEAR in GA. The accident rate thing is just more "magical" because it involves something people aren't used to seeing everyday. A car crashes and people die, great 1 hr delay...a plane crashes OMG shut down GA now!

Accident rates are obtained by dividing the number of accidents by the number of trips, miles, hours, or whatever. The raw number of accidents is not a "rate," so it doesn't tell you whether the higher number of road deaths is because driving is more dangerous, or because there is a lot more driving than GA flying.

The only reason the average person is much more likely to die in a road vehicle than a GA aircraft is that the average person seldom rides in a GA aircraft, if at all. That's not much of a selling point.
 
Last edited:
Love the anti argument- GA is so unsafe we can't let more people ride in little airplanes.:lol:

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that without improving the safety record, not many people will WANT to ride in "little airplanes."

I have no objection to legalizing it. I just have doubts that Flytenow will get enough takers to make it a successful venture.
 
Yes, but part of the problem is the denominator in accident rates (which is passenger miles, etc) not just the numerator. In other words, flying more often would help the stats too.

Flying more often would only improve the stats if the additional flights had a lower probability of accidents than existing flights. What reason is there to believe that would be so?
 
Flying more often would only improve the stats if the additional flights had a lower probability of accidents than existing flights. What reason is there to believe that would be so?

?? Perhaps a pilot that can afford to fly 4 times a month is safer than one that can afford once per month. :dunno:
 
So if I understand this right it makes something like Flytenow possible. Great for them.

What it also makes possible is for people who are heading somewhere (read me) to say, "Hey I am going to Tennessee next weekend. I have two open seats with a max weight of people and baggage (besides me and mine) of XXX pounds. If you want to come along and split the cost give me a call!" I don't have to use Flytenow. I can post it on an underwater basket weaving website that I follow, or where ever. As it is right now if I tried something like that I would get hauled in for offering services.
 
?? Perhaps a pilot that can afford to fly 4 times a month is safer than one that can afford once per month. :dunno:

Probably, but it's extremely unlikely to make that pilot five times safer, which is about what it would take to get it down to the automotive fatality rate.
 
Imagine this scenario:

Bob is 24 year old private pilot with 85 hours. He got his ticket last year and works in IT. He's kind of bored with his job and hopes to one day fly for the airlines. It does pay for some flying, as he can afford a couple hours every month to fly. He knows that it's going to take more than a few hours every month to get him where he's trying to go, not to mention the cost of an instrument rating, commercial, etc.

Bob discovers the website part134andahalf.com. He can post his flights, and solicit the general public to join him on flights, sharing his expenses. "Wow", he thinks, "I'll be able to build flight time in no time!". His $160/hr cessna 172 rental could potentially only cost him $40/hr if he can find three passengers. So he signs up and posts his flights. He doesn't have anywhere in particular to fly to, so he posts a flight to a popular summer destination only accessable by boat or plane. He posts the trip for this Friday, but as of thursday night, no takers.

So he cancels his flight for friday and posts the flight for Saturday morning.

Sure enough, Friday afternoon he gets an email from the website. Two people have booked two seats. He emails Karoline, who booked a flight for her and her boyfriend Jon. He tells her to meet him at the local airport at 8:00am Saturday. She emails him back and agrees. Friday night she emails him and asks if her sister Lauren could join them on the trip, offering to pay him cash for the third seat since she didn't book it through the site. "Sure", he replies, figuring that weight will be tight, but he can ask the FBO not to top off the plane from it's previous flight. It will only be an hour out to the island.

Saturday morning Bob checks weather for the day. It's typical summer weather, hazy with a chance of T-storms in the afternoon. He decides he's OK with the weather. All four meet at the airport as planned. He realizes he forgot to ask for Lauren's weight, and determines that Karoline is likely a good fourty pounds heavier than the buck fourty she claimed on the trip request. On top of that, the flight before him in the 172 topped off the fuel, and the FBO claims they can't offload. He looks at his weight and balance and figures they'll be OK; he once read on the internet that the 172 flies perfectly fine 30% overgross. Let's fly!

The flight to the island goes as planned. Bob parts ways with his passengers, and they agree to meet at 6pm to return home. He goes off and does his thing. Around three o'clock he checks his ipad for weather, and notices a lot of convective activity forming to the west, moving eastbound. He figures if they can take off by 5, they can beat the worst of it. He texts his passengers and asks if its OK to leave at 5pm. They mention that they're on the other side of the island and it will take at least an hour and a half to get back to the airport by bus but will try to get back by then.

5 o'clock comes and goes and the trio has yet to arrive. Bob finally gets a text from Karoline letting him know they're 15 minutes away. He preflights the plane for a speedy departure. He checks the weather again; the storms are building. Finally the passengers arrive and he loads up their baggage. He looks at the radar, and notices the line of storms has now blockaded his route home. He makes an executive decision to let the storm pass before lifting off. As such, he ends up spending the better part of two and half hours with his passengers. Luckily the airport cafe was open so they all grabbed a bite to eat. Lauren wasn't happy about the delay, as she planned to meet her boyfriend for dinner.

Throughout the meal Bob checks the weather for improvement. The rain comes, and cells start to break up. By 8 o'clock he looks at the ceilings, visibilities for his route and it looks iffy, but figures he should be able to pull off the flight. He's not night current so he really want to take off right away. He loads up the gang and plan heads off for departure. There's a line of departing aircraft, and by the time he's wheels up its about 8:30. It's getting dark, and he finds himself having to dodge clouds on his way home. Finally the sun has set, he's over the water, getting bounced around and doing his best to avoid buildups with no horizon to speak of...

I don't really need to finish that story, but many of us here has scared ourselves at one point or another. We've also had to cancel flights, disappoint passengers, etc. It's not an easy thing to do, and the dynamics change when there's an exchange of money, even without a profit motive.

Should he have scrubbed the return flight? Taken off without the passengers? The 135 and 121 world have dealt with these issues for decades. As such, they're required to have more capable pilots, flying more capable aircraft, with a backbone of a dispatcher to help with the go-no go plan. They also have op specs that guide what they can cannot do. Air carriers have a hard enough time dealing with these issues; is it realistic for us to expect a 86 hour pilot to be able to do the same?

The point that I'm making is that the business model for flight sharing, as proposed, will result in more accidents, a lower public opinion of general aviation, and ultimately more regulation. Be careful what you wish for.
 
I don't think Uber is anything like what is being proposed for airplanes. What's being proposed is more like carpooling.

Article in TechCrunch about Flytenow disagrees. "So I Flew In An “Uber For Tiny Planes”
http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/20/uber-for-x-in-a-tiny-plane/

Sure, it's doesn't have the same convenient app that Uber does (yet) but its "sharing economy" concept registers the same to the public.

PS....read the first comment at the bottom. This guy wants to commute to/from Tahoe a few times a week.
 
Article in TechCrunch about Flytenow disagrees. "So I Flew In An “Uber For Tiny Planes”
http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/20/uber-for-x-in-a-tiny-plane/

Sure, it's doesn't have the same convenient app that Uber does (yet) but its "sharing economy" concept registers the same to the public.

PS....read the first comment at the bottom. This guy wants to commute to/from Tahoe a few times a week.

Wow. What could possibly go wrong with that? :rofl:
 
Article in TechCrunch about Flytenow disagrees. "So I Flew In An “Uber For Tiny Planes”

http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/20/uber-for-x-in-a-tiny-plane/



Sure, it's doesn't have the same convenient app that Uber does (yet) but its "sharing economy" concept registers the same to the public.



PS....read the first comment at the bottom. This guy wants to commute to/from Tahoe a few times a week.


Despite the title of the article, if someone want s ride from here to there on Uber, they don't need to wait for a driver, coincidentally, to be going to the same location.
 
Imagine this scenario:

Bob is 24 year old private pilot with 85 hours. He got his ticket last year and works in IT. He's kind of bored with his job and hopes to one day fly for the airlines. It does pay for some flying, as he can afford a couple hours every month to fly. He knows that it's going to take more than a few hours every month to get him where he's trying to go, not to mention the cost of an instrument rating, commercial, etc.

Bob discovers the website part134andahalf.com. He can post his flights, and solicit the general public to join him on flights, sharing his expenses. "Wow", he thinks, "I'll be able to build flight time in no time!". His $160/hr cessna 172 rental could potentially only cost him $40/hr if he can find three passengers. So he signs up and posts his flights. He doesn't have anywhere in particular to fly to, so he posts a flight to a popular summer destination only accessable by boat or plane. He posts the trip for this Friday, but as of thursday night, no takers.

So he cancels his flight for friday and posts the flight for Saturday morning.

Sure enough, Friday afternoon he gets an email from the website. Two people have booked two seats. He emails Karoline, who booked a flight for her and her boyfriend Jon. He tells her to meet him at the local airport at 8:00am Saturday. She emails him back and agrees. Friday night she emails him and asks if her sister Lauren could join them on the trip, offering to pay him cash for the third seat since she didn't book it through the site. "Sure", he replies, figuring that weight will be tight, but he can ask the FBO not to top off the plane from it's previous flight. It will only be an hour out to the island.

Saturday morning Bob checks weather for the day. It's typical summer weather, hazy with a chance of T-storms in the afternoon. He decides he's OK with the weather. All four meet at the airport as planned. He realizes he forgot to ask for Lauren's weight, and determines that Karoline is likely a good fourty pounds heavier than the buck fourty she claimed on the trip request. On top of that, the flight before him in the 172 topped off the fuel, and the FBO claims they can't offload. He looks at his weight and balance and figures they'll be OK; he once read on the internet that the 172 flies perfectly fine 30% overgross. Let's fly!

The flight to the island goes as planned. Bob parts ways with his passengers, and they agree to meet at 6pm to return home. He goes off and does his thing. Around three o'clock he checks his ipad for weather, and notices a lot of convective activity forming to the west, moving eastbound. He figures if they can take off by 5, they can beat the worst of it. He texts his passengers and asks if its OK to leave at 5pm. They mention that they're on the other side of the island and it will take at least an hour and a half to get back to the airport by bus but will try to get back by then.

5 o'clock comes and goes and the trio has yet to arrive. Bob finally gets a text from Karoline letting him know they're 15 minutes away. He preflights the plane for a speedy departure. He checks the weather again; the storms are building. Finally the passengers arrive and he loads up their baggage. He looks at the radar, and notices the line of storms has now blockaded his route home. He makes an executive decision to let the storm pass before lifting off. As such, he ends up spending the better part of two and half hours with his passengers. Luckily the airport cafe was open so they all grabbed a bite to eat. Lauren wasn't happy about the delay, as she planned to meet her boyfriend for dinner.

Throughout the meal Bob checks the weather for improvement. The rain comes, and cells start to break up. By 8 o'clock he looks at the ceilings, visibilities for his route and it looks iffy, but figures he should be able to pull off the flight. He's not night current so he really want to take off right away. He loads up the gang and plan heads off for departure. There's a line of departing aircraft, and by the time he's wheels up its about 8:30. It's getting dark, and he finds himself having to dodge clouds on his way home. Finally the sun has set, he's over the water, getting bounced around and doing his best to avoid buildups with no horizon to speak of...

I don't really need to finish that story, but many of us here has scared ourselves at one point or another. We've also had to cancel flights, disappoint passengers, etc. It's not an easy thing to do, and the dynamics change when there's an exchange of money, even without a profit motive.

Should he have scrubbed the return flight? Taken off without the passengers? The 135 and 121 world have dealt with these issues for decades. As such, they're required to have more capable pilots, flying more capable aircraft, with a backbone of a dispatcher to help with the go-no go plan. They also have op specs that guide what they can cannot do. Air carriers have a hard enough time dealing with these issues; is it realistic for us to expect a 86 hour pilot to be able to do the same?

The point that I'm making is that the business model for flight sharing, as proposed, will result in more accidents, a lower public opinion of general aviation, and ultimately more regulation. Be careful what you wish for.

Exactly. I understand the people pushing this think it will make GA less expensive for them (it probably won't), and draw in new people (it won't). Your average 100 or 200, or even 4 or 500 hour, private pilot is not equipped to deal with the pressures that third-party, paying passengers bring into the mix.

The reality is if Flytenow prevails in the courts, the FAA will simply change the rules to make them explicit. If Congress passes a mandate to force the FAA to allow this kind of thing, I guarantee it will come with onerous regulations that will effectively kill it. I'm not a friend of the FAA, but I do think they're right on this one.
 
Despite the title of the article, if someone want s ride from here to there on Uber, they don't need to wait for a driver, coincidentally, to be going to the same location.

Yeah but if you read the article, the writer states that there were no flights to anywhere listed...but got an email from the owner the next day and, voila, all the sudden there was a flight! Granted it could have been a free flight to get publicity in the article.

Not hard to imagine a scenario where "enthusiasts" could request flights separate of the Flytenow website and then they "magically" appear on the site soon afterwards.
 
Yeah but if you read the article, the writer states that there were no flights to anywhere listed...but got an email from the owner the next day and, voila, all the sudden there was a flight! Granted it could have been a free flight to get publicity in the article.



Not hard to imagine a scenario where "enthusiasts" could request flights separate of the Flytenow website and then they "magically" appear on the site soon afterwards.


Then the FAA could crack down on the people who are doing this. That doesn't change how Flytenow is supposed to work, and doesn't make it like Uber.
 
Meh once people figure out these little planes can't haul two modern sized murricans that'll be the end of it.:D
 
Then the FAA could crack down on the people who are doing this. That doesn't change how Flytenow is supposed to work, and doesn't make it like Uber.

What would the FAA crack down on? The website? The people posting ride requests? They requesters could do so anonymously. The FAA would have to provide that the the pilot didn't post his ride as a result of a request somewhere else. The pilots wouldn't need to do anything other than read the site. I'm pretty sure the FAA can't pull your ticket for that.
 
What would the FAA crack down on? The website? The people posting ride requests? They requesters could do so anonymously. The FAA would have to provide that the the pilot didn't post his ride as a result of a request somewhere else. The pilots wouldn't need to do anything other than read the site. I'm pretty sure the FAA can't pull your ticket for that.


The people giving the rides, that is, if they could prove that the offers were more than coincidence.
 
Uber has the following advantages:

1. The operation is insured
2. The drivers have been background checked
3. The status of the vehicle inspection and operator license has been verified.

The unwashed understand going for rides in cars and what the risks are. They don't understand flying. Even at the best the risks of dying in GA are ten times what they are in a car.
 
OK, now I'm not so sure!

Thanks Richard.

This is the scenario that worries me. I think our friends and family are much more willing to deal with trip adversity than random strangers. That's why the FAA is OK with us sharing expenses with them. F&F have limited expectations, and generally know what kind of person they're deal with for a pilot. Your mom is not going to demand hotel rooms and meal vouchers when one of your mags dies on you.

The general public doesn't understand the differences between 91 and 155/121 operations. Instead, they have incredibly high expectations, and those with the most unreasonable expectations are generally the most vocal (see yelp if you don't believe me). And it doesn't matter much (or how little) they paid for the service. People complain about free stuff all the time.

One of the key factors in the onset of get-there-itis is the natural desire of people to satisfy others. Whether it's getting home for a child's birthday party, making it to a wedding on time, or making the monday morning meeting, people want to please others. Combine that with the justification for taking on such an expensive hobby, we often set unreasonable expectations and present the best possible outcome. Let's be real, how often do we include ALL the costs or ALL the time when somebody asks us home much time or money it would take to fly them somewhere.

Should this be allowed, and bad things happen, ultimately all cost sharing will be prohibited, not just internet cost sharing. This is not a battle we want to fight for. I suspect AOPA and EAA would agree.
 
So if I understand this right it makes something like Flytenow possible. Great for them.

What it also makes possible is for people who are heading somewhere (read me) to say, "Hey I am going to Tennessee next weekend. I have two open seats with a max weight of people and baggage (besides me and mine) of XXX pounds. If you want to come along and split the cost give me a call!" I don't have to use Flytenow. I can post it on an underwater basket weaving website that I follow, or where ever. As it is right now if I tried something like that I would get hauled in for offering services.

Depends on if you were considered to be "holding out".

The FAA purposely has not defined holding out because there are many nuances, as the Haberkorn letter suggests.

It's one thing to post a note on a bulletin board saying you're travelling from point A to point B at a certain time. It's a totally different thing to post a flyer to that bulletin board advertising that you'll serve as a broker connecting pilots with passengers. It's not about the media, it's about the intent.

For similar reasons, the FAA isn't going to go after folks posting empty seats to Airventure.
 
Thanks Richard.

This is the scenario that worries me. I think our friends and family are much more willing to deal with trip adversity than random strangers. That's why the FAA is OK with us sharing expenses with them. F&F have limited expectations, and generally know what kind of person they're deal with for a pilot. Your mom is not going to demand hotel rooms and meal vouchers when one of your mags dies on you.

The FAA is fine with you flying random strangers as long as you aren't holding out or paying less than your pro rata share. In all of these scenarios, the pilot is still paying part of the cost of the flight rather than making a profit on it, so what incentive does he have to kill himself and his passengers?
 
The FAA is fine with you flying random strangers as long as you aren't holding out or paying less than your pro rata share. In all of these scenarios, the pilot is still paying part of the cost of the flight rather than making a profit on it, so what incentive does he have to kill himself and his passengers?

I think I've pretty clearly addressed what motivates otherwise conscientious pilots to inadvertently kill themselves.
 
Love the anti argument- GA is so unsafe we can't let more people ride in little airplanes.:lol:

I think the arguement is the public isn't aware of the safety record, which is about equal to riding a motorcycle.
Sorry to say that's unacceptable risk for many.
 
The FAA has not made it clear in any way how much and what types of communications constitute holding out vice which ones are necessary to establish common purpose to meet the cost-sharing exemption.

In essence, the FAA has used the smut defense for holding out -they know it when they see it. More clear lines are needed.
 
I think the arguement is the public isn't aware of the safety record, which is about equal to riding a motorcycle.
Sorry to say that's unacceptable risk for many.

So, make them click through that information 5 times before they get to the screen where they contact the pilot.

"I have read the GA risk and expectations information"

"are you sure you read the ..."

"seriously, did you read the information regarding..."

"I acknowledge blah blah"

"I am aware due to the nature of GA travel, my 'adventure' may be canceled/cut short, I may be left stranded, etc. yada yada"

"are you sure you read the ....."

Are you saying there aren't ways to educate people?
 
So, make them click through that information 5 times before they get to the screen where they contact the pilot.

"I have read the GA risk and expectations information"

"are you sure you read the ..."

"seriously, did you read the information regarding..."

"I acknowledge blah blah"

"I am aware due to the nature of GA travel, my 'adventure' may be canceled/cut short, I may be left stranded, etc. yada yada"

"are you sure you read the ....."

Are you saying there aren't ways to educate people?

Sure... Acknowledgment is good, but what they are acknowledging needs to be clear from clutter and honest. Perhaps even comparing the risk to riding a motorcycle. If that's the case I have no issues.
 
Back
Top