New Bill Would Make FlyteNow Legal

[StinkBug]

Love the anti argument- GA is so unsafe we can't let more people ride in little airplanes.

I'm not saying it's not safe, I'm saying that it's not AS safe as commercial travel, and as soon as someone crashes while carrying a paying passenger (and they will) their family is going to lawyer up and sue the estate, flytenow, the insurance company, the airport, the FAA and anyone else they can. They are then going to use the fact that the deceased was a paying passenger to show that they had an expectation of safety that was not met. They will attack the pilots history, the maintenance records, and everything else surrounding the flight....


....AND THEY WILL WIN.

That my friends is why this is a bad idea. You can wax poetic about an informed adult making their own choices, but at the end of the day when there are bodies in the wreckage any little waiver will be shredded by the mere mention that the general public does not understand aviation and this non-pilot passenger could never be expected to know the danger they were in. It's a slam dunk case for any first year litigator.

 

[Brad Z]

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?

Why not extend that to the discount airline world? Image SpiritZero airlines: no flight attendants, stand in the aisles, no opspecs, no mx requirements, no dispatchers, no training requirements for the pilots, etc. All the passengers have to do is sign a waiver acknowledging that there is little to no safety oversight and they're good to go. Sure there's a good chance they'll crash, but they're cheap. Why not?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Unfortunately most people who oppose amazing change like this, never look back and say "Oh now I see".

Luckily more of us are having the foresight to outnumber the teetotalers. Now they're becoming the minority voice and we can get on with actually making general aviation better, instead of pretending we did.

I can't see any good coming from this. There will be more pressure for inexperienced pilots to fly when they shouldn't, which will lead to more regulations, likely including the end of any cost-sharing whatsoever.

How's that good for GA?

As has been said before, this may be determined by the insurance industry, esp. after a couple of crashes.

I doubt it'll even get that far - I bet they'll stop this in its tracks before it ever happens. If FlyteNow wants to pay for my insurance, though, I'm in!

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.

This. And everything else BradZ said.

 

[MauleSkinner]

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?

...and just like the Van's lawsuit, they'll agree that it's safe enough right up until the accident, then lawyer up because it's unsafe.

 

[Lindberg]

I'm not saying it's not safe, I'm saying that it's not AS safe as commercial travel, and as soon as someone crashes while carrying a paying passenger (and they will) their family is going to lawyer up and sue the estate, flytenow, the insurance company, the airport, the FAA and anyone else they can. They are then going to use the fact that the deceased was a paying passenger to show that they had an expectation of safety that was not met. They will attack the pilots history, the maintenance records, and everything else surrounding the flight....


....AND THEY WILL WIN.

That my friends is why this is a bad idea. You can wax poetic about an informed adult making their own choices, but at the end of the day when there are bodies in the wreckage any little waiver will be shredded by the mere mention that the general public does not understand aviation and this non-pilot passenger could never be expected to know the danger they were in. It's a slam dunk case for any first year litigator.

Are you a first-year litigator? If so, you may be in for some surprises. Then again, the insurance industry is very good about handicapping such things. If this is really a big problem, tort liability and insurance companies wool straighten it out.

 

[Henning]

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?

It really basically comes down to an issue of 'informed consent', i.e. The consumer has the information required to to decide the flight is safe. The FAA takes on that roll of information provider through Pt 135/121/125... enforcement. At the same time they are providing a standard for the actuaries to base their premium models on. This is important with air carriers because Strict Liability applies,many basically there is no limit.

However this doesn't exist with GA and the relative liability risks are low and limited. So I would think that as long as the insurance is in place and the network provides a disclaimer as to the expected levels of performance and condition of the pilot and aircraft, all the major issues are covered.

 

[Everskyward]

I don't think anyone needs to worry about the public thinking someone's Cessna 182 is as safe as a 737. Even when commenting on two airplanes flown by the same operator the impression is that the jet is safer than the turboprop.

 

[mr_happyland]

Problem is the public doesn't know what they don't know. Most people have no idea that accidentally flying into a cloud is dangerous...until it happens. Most don't know if their pilot is instrument rated or what the hell that even means.

 

[Everskyward]

Problem is the public doesn't know what they don't know. Most people have no idea that accidentally flying into a cloud is dangerous...until it happens. Most don't know if their pilot is instrument rated or what the hell that even means.

So? I doubt many, if any, people know the true risk of everything they do.

 

[Henning]

So? I doubt many, if any, people know the true risk of everything they do.

Right, but the question is one of liability and the FAA's (read taxpayer's) exposure. It's manageable, but it is an issue of establishing informed consent. Rule of law really screws things up.

 

[MikeELP]

Nailed it!

dtuuri

+2 Brad!! Well put.

 

[JimNtexas]

Sorry to butt in again, but the entire philosophy of NPRM is alien to a republic.

It's either one way or the other. Publish the rule, and the people abide by it, or use the legislature which has been empaneled for such work. But to propose a rule, as if the voting public had any kind of effect on the result is just disingenuous.

You're mistaken. If the FAA publishes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking then they have to actually write a proposed rule and publish it. The public has to be given a chance to comment it on. The Congress can read the proposed rule and weigh in if they so choose. Courts can be involved.

A NPRM is the right way to handle this 'problem', if it is a problem.

The current system of some clerk writing a 'letter', or the FAA just issuing unilateral dictates is really horrible, especially for GA.

Even if you think cost sharing equals Delta Airlines flying Cherokees then you should insist that the FAA revise the FARs formally, rather than emitting this vague smokescreen that contridicts the black letter words in the CFR.

If the FAA can backdoor ban cost sharing, then what CAN'T they ban through the backdoor?

 

[Phoenix]

Now we are worried people think little airplanes are too safe.

 

[Everskyward]

Now we are worried people think little airplanes are too safe.

I caught that irony too...

 

[Palmpilot]

It's certainly not the reality I'm familiar with!

 

[docmirror]

You're mistaken. If the FAA publishes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking then they have to actually write a proposed rule and publish it. The public has to be given a chance to comment it on. The Congress can read the proposed rule and weigh in if they so choose. Courts can be involved.

A NPRM is the right way to handle this 'problem', if it is a problem.

The current system of some clerk writing a 'letter', or the FAA just issuing unilateral dictates is really horrible, especially for GA.

Even if you think cost sharing equals Delta Airlines flying Cherokees then you should insist that the FAA revise the FARs formally, rather than emitting this vague smokescreen that contridicts the black letter words in the CFR.

If the FAA can backdoor ban cost sharing, then what CAN'T they ban through the backdoor?

No, actually I'm not. The specific power to write laws was provided for the various legislatures(fed, states). A law to abrogate the writing of laws and to enable a non-legislature with that power violates the limits of the constitution. That's not to say it isn't done all the time, in every dept of the govt, but it's not legal. Sadly, our scotus is as lame as our legislatures.

You are looking at individual leaves, on one branch of one tree. I'm talking about the entire forest.

 

[Phoenix]

Another bit of hilarity. How can young eagles be good and flytenow bad? OK to fly kids who have no idea of the danger, while their parents have the same GA danger understanding as a flytenow passenger. And we think flying the kids is great but consenting adults, who have the desire, need for airplane travel and presumably a job(so they could become pilots themselves if they like it/find it useful way to travel) should be prevented from going flying in a little plane. Hey lady your kid can fly but it is too dangerous for you. I can't explain it, it's too complicated, now get lost.
What'd Pogo say?

 

[Brad Z]

Another bit of hilarity. How can young eagles be good and flytenow bad? OK to fly kids who have no idea of the danger, while their parents have the same GA danger understanding as a flytenow passenger. And we think flying the kids is great but consenting adults, who have the desire, need for airplane travel and presumably a job(so they could become pilots themselves if they like it/find it useful way to travel) should be prevented from going flying in a little plane. Hey lady your kid can fly but it is too dangerous for you. I can't explain it, it's too complicated, now get lost.
What'd Pogo say?

Not even close to being the same. 1) neither young eagles or their parents are paying for the flight, and 2) young Eagles flights are not transporting people from point A to point B.

 

[Henning]

Another bit of hilarity. How can young eagles be good and flytenow bad? OK to fly kids who have no idea of the danger, while their parents have the same GA danger understanding as a flytenow passenger. And we think flying the kids is great but consenting adults, who have the desire, need for airplane travel and presumably a job(so they could become pilots themselves if they like it/find it useful way to travel) should be prevented from going flying in a little plane. Hey lady your kid can fly but it is too dangerous for you. I can't explain it, it's too complicated, now get lost.
What'd Pogo say?

One critical difference, exchange of money. Nobody pays to take a Young Eagle flight.

 

[Everskyward]

Not even close to being the same. 1) neither young eagles or their parents are paying for the flight, and 2) young Eagles flights are not transporting people from point A to point B.

I'm pretty sure that Phoenix's comment was related to the perceived safety of Part 91 flights, not if someone was paying.

 

[Henning]

I'm pretty sure that Phoenix's comment was related to the perceived safety of Part 91 flights, not if someone was paying.

But paying is what causes the difference right now. If there was no exchange of money the service wouldn't be in question. Not until there is an exchange of money do any of the factors come into play.

 

[Everskyward]

But paying is what causes the difference right now. If there was no exchange of money the service wouldn't be in question. Not until there is an exchange of money do any of the factors come into play.

Then the safety angle and fear of lawsuits is moot. You could get sued by a stranger (or a friend) whether they are sharing expenses or not.

 

[Brad Z]

Then the safety angle and fear of lawsuits is moot. You could get sued by a stranger (or a friend) whether they are sharing expenses or not.

Which is probably why you don't see many people "holding out" free flights, and therefore no one suing anyone...and consequently no regulation of it.

 

[Henning]

Then the safety angle and fear of lawsuits is moot. You could get sued by a stranger (or a friend) whether they are sharing expenses or not.

Not moot, the rules change as to what your reasonable expectations are when you pay for a service. The lawsuit issue revolves around the difference in reasonable expectations. You can always get sued regardless, the question is can the FAA (taxpayer) get sued?

 

[Everskyward]

Which is probably why you don't see many people "holding out" free flights, and therefore no one suing anyone...and consequently no regulation of it.

The irony is saying Part 91 is not safe enough for this but safe enough for Young Eagles, etc.

As far as lawsuits are concerned, it would seem like the people providing the flight and FlyteNow would be most at risk. There is no risk to those who oppose the idea and would not be involved in giving flights.

 

[denverpilot]

Another bit of hilarity. How can young eagles be good and flytenow bad? OK to fly kids who have no idea of the danger, while their parents have the same GA danger understanding as a flytenow passenger. And we think flying the kids is great but consenting adults, who have the desire, need for airplane travel and presumably a job(so they could become pilots themselves if they like it/find it useful way to travel) should be prevented from going flying in a little plane. Hey lady your kid can fly but it is too dangerous for you. I can't explain it, it's too complicated, now get lost.

What'd Pogo say?

Not even close to being the same. 1) neither young eagles or their parents are paying for the flight, and 2) young Eagles flights are not transporting people from point A to point B.

One critical difference, exchange of money. Nobody pays to take a Young Eagle flight.

Which is probably why you don't see many people "holding out" free flights, and therefore no one suing anyone...and consequently no regulation of it.

This will hit too close to home for some here, and they're good people that I like very much, so I feel a little bad for pointing it out, but every Angel Flight organization "holds out" free flights to the general public, as long as they're sick.

And these organizations get a pass on Mangiamele and needing to be 135 and use Commercial pilots, via black letter law.

Morally right. No argument there. Legally, an interesting problem for FAA that they created themselves.

Flytenow could easily make the argument that sick people shouldn't get different legal treatment than they.

 

[Henning]

The irony is saying Part 91 is not safe enough for this but safe enough for Young Eagles, etc.

As far as lawsuits are concerned, it would seem like the people providing the flight and FlyteNow would be most at risk. There is no risk to those who oppose the idea and would not be involved in giving flights.

The FAA is not really about safety, safety is a by product of the mission. The primary function of the FAA is to control liability and maintain insurability. The government is here to insure the markets are safe, and that means actuaries have to have some accurate base assumptions to work with. It's no different than the functions of Class Societies in the maritime world like the original Lloyds Register, only in aviation we have subsididized the cost through the taxpayer. Naturally to keep the cost of business down, the insurance companies dictate minimum standards. Most all of this legislative stuff is written by industry lawyers and handed to their congressional rep to be made into law. It's the FAA's job to enforce those standards to control liability. The result of controlling liability leads to increased safety. However, there is always a point of diminishing returns, and that point is very low in GA where the typical exposure is under a million and a half dollars and contractually limited. What we will likely see as the result of adopting this is insurance companies applying a higher commercial level premium if you want to participate. Flytenow may do well to find their own underwriter and license to sell the product.

 

[Phoenix]

Right. Angel Flight and Young Eagles have both had fatals. The world didn't end for everyone else. The idea is silly that a private pilot under part 91 can safely fly my 11 year old daughter on a Young Eagles flight, safely fly a sick adult or child to a hospital on an Angel Flight(get-there-itis pressure), but would be an instant lawn dart if I shared expenses to fly with them via Flytenow. And that our resulting fireball would be the end of GA in America. Is it ego that makes some not want to share our freedom to fly

 

[denverpilot]

Right. Angel Flight and Young Eagles have both had fatals. The world didn't end for everyone else.

I didn't want my idea to make anyone make light of those. The world DID end for those involved.

The issue is equal application of law. If the law says one risk is reasonable, and the other is not, it doesn't pass a rationality analysis.

Nobody says law has to be rational though, and the very large and powerful law industry/business tries hard to convince people that it is. Scales of Justice and all that rot.

Any trial lawyer knows better.

Granted also that YE and Angel Flight do usually push some very mild higher standards and that helps keep scrutiny off of the non-Commercial nature of the training and aircraft. (Shouldn't let CAP off the hook here either, for intellectual honesty...)

If we used that yardstick, Flytenow should be able to apply those exact standards to volunteer pilots and FAA would find it equal to those other "benevolent" organizations.

Pandora's box.

 

[Brad Z]

This will hit too close to home for some here, and they're good people that I like very much, so I feel a little bad for pointing it out, but every Angel Flight organization "holds out" free flights to the general public, as long as they're sick.

And these organizations get a pass on Mangiamele and needing to be 135 and use Commercial pilots, via black letter law.

Morally right. No argument there. Legally, an interesting problem for FAA that they created themselves.

Flytenow could easily make the argument that sick people shouldn't get different legal treatment than they.

Again, pilots aren't being compensated and passengers aren't paying.

The FAA has granted exceptions to volunteer pilot organizations from 61.113. Go to http://aes.faa.gov to see them. They require much higher standards, such as flight risk assessments, minimum hours, and a 2nd class medical. And these pilots aren't profiting from their flights either, just covering some portion of their expenses.

 

[denverpilot]

Again, pilots aren't being compensated and passengers aren't paying.



The FAA has granted exceptions to volunteer pilot organizations from 61.113. Go to http://aes.faa.gov to see them. They require much higher standards, such as flight risk assessments, minimum hours, and a 2nd class medical. And these pilots aren't profiting from their flights either, just covering some portion of their expenses.

I'm well aware of the rules regarding them.

You are incorrect (according to FAA, not me) that they are not receiving compensation for the flight. FAA considers the logged time, compensation, and has stuck by that interpretation numerous times. No matter who paid for the gas. That's why they needed a waiver in the first place.

FAA also allows Private rated glider tow pilots. Can't cozy up to volunteer Private Pilot volunteer or even just specialty groups like glider pilots, and then say there's a safety problem with doing it elsewhere.

Simplifying it a bit, glider tow pilots need a sign off that they know what the heck is going on, 100 hours, and a few tows in a glider and they're good to go. The club can even charge for the tow.

FAA also allows CAP pilots with appropriate CAP permission to take non-CAP passengers aloft. (Usually politicians, law enforcement, or emergency managers, but they still can't expect that a CAP pilot in a T182T is safer than hiring a 135 company to do that mission.)

CAP also flies cadet missions not meeting Commercial standards, and unlike YE, the pilot is not paying for the gas.

(Yes, I know CAP has minimums for these pilots that exceed Private minimums. They do not exceed Commercial minimums.)

There's all sorts of "cut-outs" for (logbook and fully) compensated flying below the level of "safety" required for Commercial operations by Private rated pilots. FAA using that as the basis for their argument against Flytenow is blown away by their own approval of it by other special interests.

If Flytenow decided tomorrow to start their website back up with pilots having to show proof of those same lower than Commercial standards, and have pilots sign that they would receive no direct cost sharing whatsoever, wouldn't that make these things equal on paper?

(I'm not arguing for or against. I'm pointing out the logical fallacy in their argument against it, since they themselves make these cut outs for special interest groups regularly. The difference is popularity and the possible bad PR of not allowing them, no other significant difference legally.)

One significant difference is that all of these groups do have oversight of their pilots in some fashion, while that oversight is not heavily defined in the regs. Sign offs by others seem to cover it. Aircraft maintenance, not a word is said about that meeting 135 regs in any of these cut outs.

Would similar "peer" review cover something like Flytenow and make FAA magically happy with them? I doubt it. But you can take your State's Senator aloft in a government owned T182T to do a PR photo op, and not pay a dime to do it, with a CAP Form 5 and FAA doesn't say "boo". Or drag someone aloft at the gliderport who doesn't know you from Adam and they can hand their check to the club. Or a cancer patient can schedule a weekly trip to get chemo.

The "safety" needs of those people isn't as high as others per the regs is all I'm pointing out.

 

[Brad Z]

I'm well aware of the rules regarding them.

You are incorrect (according to FAA, not me) that they are not receiving compensation for the flight. FAA considers the logged time, compensation, and has stuck by that interpretation numerous times. No matter who paid for the gas. That's why they needed a waiver in the first place.

FAA also allows Private rated glider tow pilots. Can't cozy up to volunteer Private Pilot volunteer or even just specialty groups like glider pilots, and then say there's a safety problem with doing it elsewhere.

Simplifying it a bit, glider tow pilots need a sign off that they know what the heck is going on, 100 hours, and a few tows in a glider and they're good to go. The club can even charge for the tow.

FAA also allows CAP pilots with appropriate CAP permission to take non-CAP passengers aloft. (Usually politicians, law enforcement, or emergency managers, but they still can't expect that a CAP pilot in a T182T is safer than hiring a 135 company to do that mission.)

CAP also flies cadet missions not meeting Commercial standards, and unlike YE, the pilot is not paying for the gas.

(Yes, I know CAP has minimums for these pilots that exceed Private minimums. They do not exceed Commercial minimums.)

There's all sorts of "cut-outs" for (logbook and fully) compensated flying below the level of "safety" required for Commercial operations by Private rated pilots. FAA using that as the basis for their argument against Flytenow is blown away by their own approval of it by other special interests.

If Flytenow decided tomorrow to start their website back up with pilots having to show proof of those same lower than Commercial standards, and have pilots sign that they would receive no direct cost sharing whatsoever, wouldn't that make these things equal on paper?

(I'm not arguing for or against. I'm pointing out the logical fallacy in their argument against it, since they themselves make these cut outs for special interest groups regularly. The difference is popularity and the possible bad PR of not allowing them, no other significant difference legally.)

One significant difference is that all of these groups do have oversight of their pilots in some fashion, while that oversight is not heavily defined in the regs. Sign offs by others seem to cover it. Aircraft maintenance, not a word is said about that meeting 135 regs in any of these cut outs.

Would similar "peer" review cover something like Flytenow and make FAA magically happy with them? I doubt it. But you can take your State's Senator aloft in a government owned T182T to do a PR photo op, and not pay a dime to do it, with a CAP Form 5 and FAA doesn't say "boo". Or drag someone aloft at the gliderport who doesn't know you from Adam and they can hand their check to the club. Or a cancer patient can schedule a weekly trip to get chemo.

The "safety" needs of those people isn't as high as others per the regs is all I'm pointing out.

What is this "waiver" you speak of?

 

[denverpilot]

What is this "waiver" you speak of?

Technically an "exemption" (from the FARs).

Right in the title of the FAA website that was linked to for the rules above. "Automated Exemption System."

(The link doesn't work by the way. It takes you to the main site at which you can search for exempted organizations by name.)

Volunteer organizations must apply for, and been granted one, to be considered a valid exempted organization.

The website is only slightly better designed than the WINGS Part Deux / FAASTeam website. (You've been warned. Ha.)

 

[Brad Z]

Technically an "exemption" (from the FARs).

Right in the title of the FAA website that was linked to for the rules above. "Automated Exemption System."

(The link doesn't work by the way. It takes you to the main site at which you can search for exempted organizations by name.)

Volunteer organizations must apply for, and been granted one, to be considered a valid exempted organization.

The website is only slightly better designed than the WINGS Part Deux / FAASTeam website. (You've been warned. Ha.)

Those exemptions only apply to VPO's that reimburse pilots for expenses. If the pilot is not reimbursed for expenses, no exemption is necessary.

 

[denverpilot]

Those exemptions only apply to VPO's that reimburse pilots for expenses. If the pilot is not reimbursed for expenses, no exemption is necessary.

And FAA has claimed and won numerous times stating that flight time in a logbook is remuneration.

Doesn't matter if I pay for the gas. If I get anything else out of the flight, even "future goodwill", and had no common purpose to go there in the first place, I'm screwed. See Mangiamele.

But we are talking about the safety concepts and pilot skill set and mechanical maintenance requirements, not the remuneration. The examples given aren't all non-profit. See gliders.

If there's loopholes galore that allow Private rated pilots to do all sorts of things that typically a Commercial rated pilot and aircraft would need to do, that they couldn't do without all the loopholes, there must not be as much concern for those loophole organization's passengers, as for passengers of a ride sharing system. Logically anyway.

It's really not possible to argue it both ways. But they do. It's quite entertaining from a purely logical standpoint.

Only 100 hours and some basic hand signal training? Hop in and tow this glider up. FAA says it's cool. Even pulling a non-pilot paying passenger in the glider back there.

Meet whatever numbers CAP says is cool for a Form 5? You're good to go to load up the Senator and show him the fire burn area. We'll send some kids over in a minute for their O-rides, too. It's cool.

Be a benevolent organization that'll schedule flights for the general public as long as they need to get to a hospital? No problem! Just fill out this website form and we'll recommend some mildly higher standards that aren't that significant. Certainly not 135 Commercial standards.

Schedule ten pilots to give rides to children they've never met at YE rally? Go for it.

But...

A website for scheduling general flights given to the public at half the operating cost of the aircraft?!

"Oh my GOD man! It doesn't meet the Commercial STANDARDS! Think of the children!!!"

(Oh wait. We already allow lots of children to be put at the same risk... Hmm.)

Ok, think of the danger to the houses below!!!

(Oh wait, we already allow that too...)

Then think of the terrible and horrible dangers possible to consenting adults who don't know you're only a Private Pilot!!!

(Oh wait, as long as you both had a reason to go there and it won't generate any "goodwill" from your passenger, we even allow that...)

Then think of the possible dangers if you do it in a homebuilt airplane!!!

(Oh, we allow that too? There's a big sign that says EXPERIMENTAL when they get in? Well crap...!)

Okay... You're "holding out".

(Wait, there's a website with a schedule for most of the above?)

Okay the airplanes must be maintained to a higher standard!

(Wait, we don't make any of them do that either?)

Heh heh.

I'm pretty much expecting the next step is a guy walks out with stripes on and says via his mic on his belt... For as arbitrary and different as all of the various loopholes are...

"Encroachment. Toward the airlines. Fifteen yard penalty. Automatic, first down!"

 

[Henning]

I didn't want my idea to make anyone make light of those. The world DID end for those involved.

The issue is equal application of law. If the law says one risk is reasonable, and the other is not, it doesn't pass a rationality analysis.

Nobody says law has to be rational though, and the very large and powerful law industry/business tries hard to convince people that it is. Scales of Justice and all that rot.

Any trial lawyer knows better.

Granted also that YE and Angel Flight do usually push some very mild higher standards and that helps keep scrutiny off of the non-Commercial nature of the training and aircraft. (Shouldn't let CAP off the hook here either, for intellectual honesty...)

If we used that yardstick, Flytenow should be able to apply those exact standards to volunteer pilots and FAA would find it equal to those other "benevolent" organizations.

Pandora's box.

It does when you apply the differing standards under tort law, and what defines them. I'm not saying that it creates a difference in ultimate safety, but it does create a diffent liability environment as soon as money changes hands. That means the insurance industry needs to be cool with it and prepared with a line of product to meet the demand.

 

[denverpilot]

It does when you apply the differing standards under tort law, and what defines them. I'm not saying that it creates a difference in ultimate safety, but it does create a diffent liability environment as soon as money changes hands. That means the insurance industry needs to be cool with it and prepared with a line of product to meet the demand.

Who pays after they're dead, isn't FAA's problem. Nor is it what they claim is any of the problem they perceive with Flytenow or why they've fought it.

We can discuss the tort issues if you like, but if you go there, consider that CAP is "self insured" for some of their excepted stuff and falls under Federal insurance of all things, for others. Commercial glider ops can have a Private Pilot towing and carry significantly discounted large group insurance via SSA almost exclusively at every gliderport out there. YE has a weird insurance relationship with EAA HQ buying a large group policy.

FAA approves all of it. FAA doesn't care who's paying for the tort claims.

We're talking about the logical disconnect between them approving multiple loopholes in Commercial training and maintenance requirements for some large national and regional groups, but not this particular one.

Even the requirements for Private Pilots between the different exemptions aren't the same.

If that's not the very definition of "arbitrary", I don't know what is.

Flytenow should be filing every YE scheduled event website they can find as evidence, and every glider club's online flight schedule where a Private Pilot was scheduled to fly the tow plane, and asking for a copy of thE link to CAPs cadet flight schedule to be also placed into evidence.

If they want to kill the silly concept that a membership based and secured website schedule is "holding out" as a non-commercial operation, that is. All of those require you be a member to see them, and all are "staffed" by non-Commercial pilots who chose to be members and take whatever tort risks their flying entails.

Don't see the connection between tort and FAA. Certainly see a connection to the pilot's assets. And the organization's assets. Flytenow would be instantly named in any lawsuit after an accident, no doubt.

 

[Henning]

Who pays after they're dead, isn't FAA's problem. Nor is it what they claim is any of the problem they perceive with Flytenow or why they've fought it.

We can discuss the tort issues if you like, but if you go there, consider that CAP is "self insured" for some of their excepted stuff and falls under Federal insurance of all things, for others. Commercial glider ops can have a Private Pilot towing and carry significantly discounted large group insurance via SSA almost exclusively at every gliderport out there. YE has a weird insurance relationship with EAA HQ buying a large group policy.

FAA approves all of it. FAA doesn't care who's paying for the tort claims.

We're talking about the logical disconnect between them approving multiple loopholes in Commercial training and maintenance requirements for some large national and regional groups, but not this particular one.

Even the requirements for Private Pilots between the different exemptions aren't the same.

If that's not the very definition of "arbitrary", I don't know what is.

Flytenow should be filing every YE scheduled event website they can find as evidence, and every glider club's online flight schedule where a Private Pilot was scheduled to fly the tow plane, and asking for a copy of thE link to CAPs cadet flight schedule to be also placed into evidence.

If they want to kill the silly concept that a membership based and secured website schedule is "holding out" as a non-commercial operation, that is. All of those require you be a member to see them, and all are "staffed" by non-Commercial pilots who chose to be members and take whatever tort risks their flying entails.

Don't see the connection between tort and FAA. Certainly see a connection to the pilot's assets. And the organization's assets. Flytenow would be instantly named in any lawsuit after an accident, no doubt.

The FAA's problem with it is that they are tasked with maintaining the profitable insurability of the industry which is a balance of activity level and activity liability that maintains a vibrant industry with predictable losses at a level that allow for affordable premiums. i don't think the FAA is necessarily against it, but implementing it requires some CYA to cover their own (taxpayer) liability. It's really going to require the insurance industry to figure out (if they haven't already) how they are going to handle the increased perceived liability from this new contractual state. It could go as easy as insurance requiring an additional rider to participate in Flytenow or other compensated ride share. Even if they just decide on that real quick, you still have to allow time for the actuaries to work up new tables and algorithms to figure the premiums. For those with Commercial tickets, the present commercial rates would probably apply, but what about PPs,? The soonest I would expect this is a couple of years, and that is if everyone was already onboard.

 

[Henning]

The real test for the status of Flytenow will come after the first accident that a lawyer argues that the contract for carriage determines Air Carrier status for the flight, and that Strict Liability should apply. If they manage to win Strict Liability status, then this line of endevour will be sunk like file sharing.

 

[Palmpilot]

And FAA has claimed and won numerous times stating that flight time in a logbook is remuneration.

Doesn't matter if I pay for the gas. If I get anything else out of the flight, even "future goodwill", and had no common purpose to go there in the first place, I'm screwed. See Mangiamele.

If flight time in a log book that the pilot paid for 100% were considered remuneration, that would have the effect of outlawing ALL flight by private pilots.

In the case where goodwill was an issue, the fact that the pilot logged the time was not the deciding factor.