Forgetting the legality of the matter for a moment: Inexperienced pilots plus small planes plus the pressure of an implicit promise to fly at a certain time is a bad mix.
CPLs get extra training and experience that GAs don't that helps them say "I know you're paying lots of money and are very important and all that but we're not flying through that".
My gut instinct on services like this is that somebody is going to die. The FAA is making an ass of themselves in the tech community with the drone nonsense right now, but these rules are written on tombstones.
The opposite situation might even be worse. Pilot-in-command says you're go, but you're not keen on the weather. Suddenly the PIC is super pissed that you're not sharing the cost of the ride anymore, and you have a lot of very bad options. Pay for a ride you aren't going to take, get in an airplane in circumstances you feel aren't safe, or piss off this individual who's going to bad mouth you to everyone he knows.
It really seems like this could persuade a lot of people to make bad decisions.
Is there such implicit promise? The information of the site seems to strongly imply that the pilot decide when and if a trip happens, and only if the trip actually happens will anyone be charged money.
The FAQ even says that this is not a airline or charter service, and one is simply sharing a ride on a airplane and splitting the costs. If that feeling of basically hitchhiking is not instilled, then flytenow might want to consider making that part more prominent on the website.
Definitely on those two. Also, I'm confused on why the "region" is really a city and not a full geographic area.
To clarify: is the point of the service to offer flight sharing for convenient flights all over New England to get to remote or local airports faster? Or is this only to go flying/sightseeing for fun?
Pilot, not attorney. I'll be shocked if FAA permits this -- though happy to see anything that helps make more general aviation enthusiasts.
What I infer through having read various FAA letters in the past is that there needs to be a personal relationship between the parties (preferably established in-person) in a context outside of "share airplane ride".
Of relevance is the FAA's 1985 Chero letter [1] about a similar Pilot/Passenger sharing: "The PPA system is not a casual one of an individual pilot wishing to take some friends or acquaintances with him on a trip. The PPA system would violate the letter, as well as the spirit, of Section 61.118."
The Haberkorn Letter (2009) [2] has relevant content:
"You question whether advertising, on Facebook, the specific time and date of your trip to your "friends/family/acquaintances" would be acceptable as a private pilot, since you do not consider yourself to be holding out to "the general public." As described above, holding out is accomplished when one communicates to the public, or a segment to the public, that transportation services are indiscriminately available to any person with whom contact is made."
In a later paragraph:
"You question whether you may post the specific time and date that you are travelling to Long Island on an FBO's bulletin board in order to carry two additional passengers with in exchange for a pro rata reimbursement of the operating expenses. Again, the FAA cautions that this type of advertising may be construed as holding out (see explanation in question 1
above)."
And in a later paragraph in regards to being reimbursed via PayPal:
"Whether or not such payment comes through an online payment system such as Paypal has no bearing on the legality of this situation. However, payment through Paypal would suggest that there is an interest in carrying passengers with whom there is no previous personal relationship and that the offer to accept passengers is being made to the general public (see concerns raised in question 1 above)."
With regards to how Flytenow describes things: "Flytenow facilitates common purpose because pilots, rather than enthusiasts, unilaterally dictate the destination (and purpose) of an adventure, and enthusiasts express shared interest in the specific date, points of operation, and adventure."
The last time I checked United Airlines unilaterally dictates the destination of their adventures and the specific dates and points of operation. These characteristics do not seem to me to turn the flight into a "bona fide common purpose".
Again, without having explicitly stated it I believe the FAA wants expense-sharing passengers to be:
- friends
- family
- acquaintances
And not just those artificially constructed for the purpose of working around FAA rulings. At least, this is how I'll interpret the FAA rulings & letters until they explicitly state otherwise. Again, IANAL, hope they rule favorably, but wouldn't risk my license to learn the answer is "no".
Even with a Commercial Airmans Certificate (aka CPL), you would also need a Air Operators Certificate before you can advertise services to the general public. This helps ensure the operator has procedures in place.
IANAL but because "funds" change hands and involves people with no prior relationship, its commercial enough to be a problem.
Organizations such as Angelflight do facilitate volunteer pilots flying people around for charitable purposes such as transport for medical care. This is legal as the pilot doesn't receive any compensation for the flight.
It is interesting to me that you compare to Lyft, which looks very much like a taxi service to me, whereas Flytenow looks more like a ride sharing bulletin board. For what it's worth (IANAL), I agree with their interpretation and would not be worried about it.
EDIT: Of course, it is easy to imagine scenarios where a pilot, using this system, could get themselves in trouble. The same could be said, however, of a traditional bulletin board, so the onus is on the pilot to make sure it doesn't look too much like transportation for hire.
It's interesting to read the linked letter from FAA counsel. The interpretation is that if the pilot was going to fly from A to B anyway, they can take passengers from A to B because the passengers and the pilot have a common purpose of getting from A to B. But if the pilot is only flying from A to B because the passengers want to do it, then the pilot has a different purpose than the passengers, and it's illegal. The pilot should also in theory have "business to conduct" at point B, rather than just flying there for the fun of it.
Applying that distinction to real life would be pretty messy though.
I believe it is supposed to be messy. My understanding of those regulations is that they are intended to prevent unqualified pilots from engaging in commercial flights for passengers that may not be able to give informed consent about the dangers involved, while still allowing a private pilot to take Aunt Mildred up so she can see her house[1]. It's a messy problem.
"if you are traveling to Long Island for a wedding but your passengers express an interest in going to Long Island to attend a baseball game." "Based on these facts, there appears to be a bona fide common purpose, as the destination was dictated by the pilot, not the passengers, and both you and your passengers have personal business to conduct in Long Island"
You can't just go there to transport people, but if you want to grab a burger at the airport restaurant while the people coming with want to go explore the city, that's allowable as you both have a purpose in going to that destination besides just transporting people.
It's worth mentioning that the definition of common purpose in this letter is considerably looser that what the FAA has used in the past. I'm having trouble finding the link at the moment, but I seem to remember private pilots getting in trouble when they carried passengers (on the pilot's schedule, not the passengers', as in this case) who had a different purpose for the flight--in other words, both pilot and passengers had a purpose for the flight, but it wasn't a "common purpose."
The FAA letter also calls into question the legality of the entire purpose of Flytenow: The letter explicitly states that publically posting the particulars of the flight (destination, date, and time) is probably illegal.
And if other pilots are like me, destination is often irrelevant -- I have a general intention/desire to fly (log hours, stay current, etc.), and I'll go wherever weather, time and budget permit.
If I want to log two hours of cross-country flight time on a given day, which I will do regardless of having a passenger, is it against regulation to let that ride-sharing passenger pick the destination and split the bill?
That letter also seems to contradict the assertions in the blog post about both whether the "holding out" test would apply to the kind of flights offered through Flytenow and how the "holding out" test is applied.
I know the prevailing philosophy in the start-up world is that its better to ask forgiveness than ask permission...but legally I would take the conservative approach and suspend services to pilots with only a private license, and pending the FAA response only permit those with a commercial license?
Hell flytenow could even sponsor the cost of pilots getting their commercial, in exchange for exclusivity until the amount is reimbursed.
If they suspend service to pilots without a commercial license, they harm their overall position, IMO.
It is not enough to have a commercial rating. If you are engaging in an (technically, almost any) operation which requires a commercial rating, you also need a 2nd class medical certificate and most of those operations would fall into part 135 (charter) or part 121 (scheduled airline service).
The items that a commercial pilot can do under part 91 that a private pilot cannot are very limited in scope:
1. Tow banners
2. Tow gliders
3. Provide sightseeing flights in a 25 mile radius (and landing back at the same airport)
4. Fly certain types of cargo
5. Fly powerline patrol, aerial fishspotting, aerial photography
6. Conduct demo flights for aircraft sales purposes
7. Part of the path towards becoming a paid flight instructor.
None of those are "fly passengers in air taxi operations".
The company seems to be taking the position that they are helping to coordinate already legal Part 91 flights, and it would be inconsistent of them to require a commercial certificate to do that.
It's interesting to read this in light of discovering "What Colour are your bits?" [1]. I am not a pilot, but it seems that the FAA considers the "colour" of your flight to be a very important thing.
This will be good for beginner pilots to make some cash. I used to attend a flight school and knew some graduates making minimum wage as entry-level flight instructors, and there are stories abound of commercial pilots not doing much better (Google "LAX ghetto"). They're basically glorified bus drivers. By cutting out all the mega airport overhead (airlines pay the airport for facilities, terminal use, baggage handling, and of course the TSA) we could see a much greater proportion of airfare go straight to the pilot, traveling in this way.
You can't make money this way since you can not be paid more than your pro-rata share of the flight costs. By definition that means the money you get from passengers is going to be less than what you paid to fly.
[+] [-] noonespecial|11 years ago|reply
CPLs get extra training and experience that GAs don't that helps them say "I know you're paying lots of money and are very important and all that but we're not flying through that".
My gut instinct on services like this is that somebody is going to die. The FAA is making an ass of themselves in the tech community with the drone nonsense right now, but these rules are written on tombstones.
[+] [-] yock|11 years ago|reply
It really seems like this could persuade a lot of people to make bad decisions.
[+] [-] belorn|11 years ago|reply
Is there such implicit promise? The information of the site seems to strongly imply that the pilot decide when and if a trip happens, and only if the trip actually happens will anyone be charged money.
The FAQ even says that this is not a airline or charter service, and one is simply sharing a ride on a airplane and splitting the costs. If that feeling of basically hitchhiking is not instilled, then flytenow might want to consider making that part more prominent on the website.
[+] [-] maxcan|11 years ago|reply
I love the way you phrased that.
[+] [-] scjody|11 years ago|reply
* Provide a link from your blog back to the main website, so if I start by reading this (or any other) blog post, it's easy for me to learn more.
* Let me see what's available before signing up! I'm curious, but not that curious about what you're offering.
[+] [-] andzt|11 years ago|reply
To clarify: is the point of the service to offer flight sharing for convenient flights all over New England to get to remote or local airports faster? Or is this only to go flying/sightseeing for fun?
[+] [-] maxcan|11 years ago|reply
I'm not gonna sacrifice my certificate to find out. I'd rather spend those legal fees on a CPL.
[+] [-] lake_rogue|11 years ago|reply
What I infer through having read various FAA letters in the past is that there needs to be a personal relationship between the parties (preferably established in-person) in a context outside of "share airplane ride".
Of relevance is the FAA's 1985 Chero letter [1] about a similar Pilot/Passenger sharing: "The PPA system is not a casual one of an individual pilot wishing to take some friends or acquaintances with him on a trip. The PPA system would violate the letter, as well as the spirit, of Section 61.118."
The Haberkorn Letter (2009) [2] has relevant content: "You question whether advertising, on Facebook, the specific time and date of your trip to your "friends/family/acquaintances" would be acceptable as a private pilot, since you do not consider yourself to be holding out to "the general public." As described above, holding out is accomplished when one communicates to the public, or a segment to the public, that transportation services are indiscriminately available to any person with whom contact is made."
In a later paragraph:
"You question whether you may post the specific time and date that you are travelling to Long Island on an FBO's bulletin board in order to carry two additional passengers with in exchange for a pro rata reimbursement of the operating expenses. Again, the FAA cautions that this type of advertising may be construed as holding out (see explanation in question 1 above)."
And in a later paragraph in regards to being reimbursed via PayPal:
"Whether or not such payment comes through an online payment system such as Paypal has no bearing on the legality of this situation. However, payment through Paypal would suggest that there is an interest in carrying passengers with whom there is no previous personal relationship and that the offer to accept passengers is being made to the general public (see concerns raised in question 1 above)."
With regards to how Flytenow describes things: "Flytenow facilitates common purpose because pilots, rather than enthusiasts, unilaterally dictate the destination (and purpose) of an adventure, and enthusiasts express shared interest in the specific date, points of operation, and adventure."
The last time I checked United Airlines unilaterally dictates the destination of their adventures and the specific dates and points of operation. These characteristics do not seem to me to turn the flight into a "bona fide common purpose".
Again, without having explicitly stated it I believe the FAA wants expense-sharing passengers to be: - friends - family - acquaintances
And not just those artificially constructed for the purpose of working around FAA rulings. At least, this is how I'll interpret the FAA rulings & letters until they explicitly state otherwise. Again, IANAL, hope they rule favorably, but wouldn't risk my license to learn the answer is "no".
[1] http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=88055&st...
[2]http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc...
[+] [-] neurotech1|11 years ago|reply
IANAL but because "funds" change hands and involves people with no prior relationship, its commercial enough to be a problem.
Organizations such as Angelflight do facilitate volunteer pilots flying people around for charitable purposes such as transport for medical care. This is legal as the pilot doesn't receive any compensation for the flight.
[+] [-] goodcanadian|11 years ago|reply
EDIT: Of course, it is easy to imagine scenarios where a pilot, using this system, could get themselves in trouble. The same could be said, however, of a traditional bulletin board, so the onus is on the pilot to make sure it doesn't look too much like transportation for hire.
[+] [-] bake|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pubman|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smackfu|11 years ago|reply
Applying that distinction to real life would be pretty messy though.
Letter (PDF): http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc...
[+] [-] mcguire|11 years ago|reply
[1] And the family on vacation, etc., etc.
[+] [-] voska|11 years ago|reply
You can't just go there to transport people, but if you want to grab a burger at the airport restaurant while the people coming with want to go explore the city, that's allowable as you both have a purpose in going to that destination besides just transporting people.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc...
[+] [-] forgotketchup|11 years ago|reply
The FAA letter also calls into question the legality of the entire purpose of Flytenow: The letter explicitly states that publically posting the particulars of the flight (destination, date, and time) is probably illegal.
[+] [-] bake|11 years ago|reply
If I want to log two hours of cross-country flight time on a given day, which I will do regardless of having a passenger, is it against regulation to let that ride-sharing passenger pick the destination and split the bill?
[+] [-] dragonwriter|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] will_brown|11 years ago|reply
Hell flytenow could even sponsor the cost of pilots getting their commercial, in exchange for exclusivity until the amount is reimbursed.
[+] [-] sokoloff|11 years ago|reply
It is not enough to have a commercial rating. If you are engaging in an (technically, almost any) operation which requires a commercial rating, you also need a 2nd class medical certificate and most of those operations would fall into part 135 (charter) or part 121 (scheduled airline service).
The items that a commercial pilot can do under part 91 that a private pilot cannot are very limited in scope: 1. Tow banners 2. Tow gliders 3. Provide sightseeing flights in a 25 mile radius (and landing back at the same airport) 4. Fly certain types of cargo 5. Fly powerline patrol, aerial fishspotting, aerial photography 6. Conduct demo flights for aircraft sales purposes 7. Part of the path towards becoming a paid flight instructor.
None of those are "fly passengers in air taxi operations".
The company seems to be taking the position that they are helping to coordinate already legal Part 91 flights, and it would be inconsistent of them to require a commercial certificate to do that.
[+] [-] bentcorner|11 years ago|reply
[1] http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
[+] [-] nether|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blktiger|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsr_|11 years ago|reply