The Legality of Ride Sharing in Aviation(blog.flytenow.com)
blog.flytenow.com
The Legality of Ride Sharing in Aviation
http://blog.flytenow.com/the-legality-of-ride-sharing-in-aviation
7 comments
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.
It really seems like this could persuade a lot of people to make bad decisions.
Is there a baseline that could be established to dictate what bad weather is? So that the decision is taken away from both the pilot and the passenger?
If this baseline were so easily quantifiable, then there would be volumes written about it and the community would have settled on one long ago. The apparent risk is different for everyone, and weather is highly unpredictable.
>> an implicit promise to fly at a certain time
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.
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.
> these rules are written on tombstones.
I love the way you phrased that.
I love the way you phrased that.
A couple of suggestions if the people behing Flytenow are reading this:
* 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.
* 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.
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?
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?
It may be FAR compliant, it may not be. But, like Lyft drivers getting tickets, if shit goes down, you're going to pay the price, not Flytenow.
I'm not gonna sacrifice my certificate to find out. I'd rather spend those legal fees on a CPL.
I'm not gonna sacrifice my certificate to find out. I'd rather spend those legal fees on a CPL.
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".
[1] http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=88055&st...
[2]http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc...
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...
Another pilot here. I also believe that FAA wouldn't recommend any pilot without at least a commercial pilot certificate to give rides to members of general public.
Personally, I do not hold CPL. Also, for many reasons, I would not be comfortable to fly with a random person from internet. edit: On the other hand, I might consider flying with someone who had passed some mild background checks and has shared rides before. For example, any of the following would probably do: student pilot or someone affiliated with a local flight school, house/business owner, graduate of ivy league, employee of a large company, etc.
Personally, I do not hold CPL. Also, for many reasons, I would not be comfortable to fly with a random person from internet. edit: On the other hand, I might consider flying with someone who had passed some mild background checks and has shared rides before. For example, any of the following would probably do: student pilot or someone affiliated with a local flight school, house/business owner, graduate of ivy league, employee of a large company, etc.
I'm a little confused about what threats you fear that you would not perceive in "house/business owner, graduate of ivy league, employee of a large company".
Well, we where talking about flying with a random person from internet ;) I'd think that one would want to check that someone had flown before and that this person is 'in good standing' in our society.
As to 'ivy league or big company', its an answer to the question: "will I be comfortable sharing a ride with, say, a random Stanford student or with Google/whatewher employee?". The answer is yes. Simply because I understand where these people are coming from and this is already good enough a connection.
As to 'ivy league or big company', its an answer to the question: "will I be comfortable sharing a ride with, say, a random Stanford student or with Google/whatewher employee?". The answer is yes. Simply because I understand where these people are coming from and this is already good enough a connection.
I thought that might be your reasoning, but it doesn't make sense to me. There are numerous examples of criminals, murderers and other deviant classes from big companies and ivy league schools. The Unabomber for example, graduated from Harvard, posessed a PhD and taught at UC Berkley.
Isn't it the same kind of reasoning that one would use when, say, hiring someone? That is, look for past credentials? And assume that past behaiviour would be a good predictor for the future?
I think the answer should be previous flight experience with commercial pilots + background check. And the reason for that is not terrorist threats, but just basic common sence. Flying is inherently dangerous, you can't just quit midflight. There've been described cases when flight instructors had to restrain inadequately behaiving flight students (scared, jamming controls, etc). And we've all been reading about cases when airliners crew had to restrain drunk/psyco passengers. This is what I'd be interested to avoid.
I think the answer should be previous flight experience with commercial pilots + background check. And the reason for that is not terrorist threats, but just basic common sence. Flying is inherently dangerous, you can't just quit midflight. There've been described cases when flight instructors had to restrain inadequately behaiving flight students (scared, jamming controls, etc). And we've all been reading about cases when airliners crew had to restrain drunk/psyco passengers. This is what I'd be interested to avoid.
> Isn't it the same kind of reasoning that one would use when, say, hiring someone? That is, look for past credentials? And assume that past behaiviour would be a good predictor for the future?
I guess I just don't see the connect between your criteria and behaving well on a flight. In your education/employment example I can see that connection.
I guess I just don't see the connect between your criteria and behaving well on a flight. In your education/employment example I can see that connection.
There is no regulation requiring a "prior personal relationship" to share costs.
You're correct that the text of FARs does not explicitly require a prior personal relationship. However, as they are applied and interpreted in practice, you're almost guaranteed to get in hot water if you fly-share as a private pilot on a regular basis with people you don't know. And that's really not news to anyone with a private pilot certificate or anyone who has spent time looking into getting one.
Agreed, there is no 14 CFR (part 61 or other) regulation that I'm aware of. But the regulations are very concise, and not thorough enough to evaluate every possible scenario.
The point of the FAA's letters is to address the many variations and nuances with real world application of the regulations. And they do so in very readable language (in contrast to regulations). I've found them to be the best guidance on the FAA's opinions & likely actions when the regulations are vague and/or unclear.
I personally use prior personal relationship as a strong guide. One personal exception: I believe I'd be ok sharing costs on a flight with members of my flying club (all pilots or student pilots) who I do not currently know, so long as the means of establishing the flight is more private (club newsletter) than public.
The point of the FAA's letters is to address the many variations and nuances with real world application of the regulations. And they do so in very readable language (in contrast to regulations). I've found them to be the best guidance on the FAA's opinions & likely actions when the regulations are vague and/or unclear.
I personally use prior personal relationship as a strong guide. One personal exception: I believe I'd be ok sharing costs on a flight with members of my flying club (all pilots or student pilots) who I do not currently know, so long as the means of establishing the flight is more private (club newsletter) than public.
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.
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.
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.
Very true. Infinite risk, finite reward.
ditto
Same here.
Flytenow would make this a more attractive proposition by agreeing to pay my attorney fees if the FAA takes action against me because of a Flytenow flight. That would include representing me before the FAA in administrative proceedings and in federal court as far as I choose. (I'm a private pilot, not a commercial pilot.)
Better yet, because I'm not aware of the funding behind Flytenow, put the estimated maximum cost in escrow with a trusted third party such as a bank so it would be available even if Flytenow runs out of money and ceases operation in the middle of the litigation.
Then I'd be more likely to try it, and as an additional benefit the FAA would be less likely to pursue Flytenow-affiliated pilots. (FedGov agencies would rather try to make a test case, all else being equal, of citizens lacking aggressive legal representation.)
Flytenow would make this a more attractive proposition by agreeing to pay my attorney fees if the FAA takes action against me because of a Flytenow flight. That would include representing me before the FAA in administrative proceedings and in federal court as far as I choose. (I'm a private pilot, not a commercial pilot.)
Better yet, because I'm not aware of the funding behind Flytenow, put the estimated maximum cost in escrow with a trusted third party such as a bank so it would be available even if Flytenow runs out of money and ceases operation in the middle of the litigation.
Then I'd be more likely to try it, and as an additional benefit the FAA would be less likely to pursue Flytenow-affiliated pilots. (FedGov agencies would rather try to make a test case, all else being equal, of citizens lacking aggressive legal representation.)
I wonder how much an insurance policy to cover this risk for Flytenow would cost them.
It probably can't be bought. Most insurance relies on there being some kind of probabilities associated with different outcomes, and that the insurer can sell enough policies such that they capture the law of large numbers and the idea of an expected outcome is valid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value
If Flytenow wants to cover this, they're going to be self-insuring and the policy is only good as far as the company has cash or credit to pay legal bills.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value
If Flytenow wants to cover this, they're going to be self-insuring and the policy is only good as far as the company has cash or credit to pay legal bills.
I guess it would be hard to underwrite something which is essentially a legal opinion, but there are underwriters who will do weird one-offs. Generally it's based on being able to reduce it to well-known probabilities, though.
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.
Letter (PDF): http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc...
Applying that distinction to real life would be pretty messy though.
Letter (PDF): http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc...
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.
[1] And the family on vacation, etc., etc.
[1] And the family on vacation, etc., etc.
I think you've cut straight to the core of the FAA's reasoning in this matter. And sound reasoning it is: According to a 2007 article in the Journal of the American Medical association, general aviation accounts for 94% of all aviation fatalities. [1] You are literally 82 times more likely to die in a private aircraft than in a commercial airliner.
But as you say, it's an issue of informed consent – perhaps the FAA can draft rules around making users of flight sharing services aware of the risks, while promoting safe practices by pilots (though one might argue that is exactly what commercial licensure is for).
[1] http://doctorgrayson.com/Aircraft.pdf
But as you say, it's an issue of informed consent – perhaps the FAA can draft rules around making users of flight sharing services aware of the risks, while promoting safe practices by pilots (though one might argue that is exactly what commercial licensure is for).
[1] http://doctorgrayson.com/Aircraft.pdf
"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.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc...
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...
From that same letter, the FAA seems to strongly imply it's ok to ask your friends if they want a ride on Facebook (say by posting in your own feed) but not ok to ask the General Public by 'holding out' (by posting in a public group on Facebook). "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."
Signing up for FlyteNow and playing around with the website makes it pretty clear there is 'holding out' going on here. Which is a shame because it's a rather nice idea and more akin to carpooling aggregators than Lyft or Uber. Being able to see if pilots have previous airline or military experience is a plus too.
Signing up for FlyteNow and playing around with the website makes it pretty clear there is 'holding out' going on here. Which is a shame because it's a rather nice idea and more akin to carpooling aggregators than Lyft or Uber. Being able to see if pilots have previous airline or military experience is a plus too.
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.
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?
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?
Under those facts as presented, the FAA counsel has ruled that fails the common-purpose test.
A different set of facts might be able to be judged as legal.
You: The weather is great this Saturday for 200 miles in every direction. I'm going flying for currency purposes. Anyone want to come along? Other: I want to go to Martha's Vineyard this weekend. You: I've heard there's a great restaurant on the airport there and I've always wanted to go. I've decided (just now) that I'm flying specifically to MVY this weekend. Would you like to come? Other: Yes. Can I pay for gas? You: Only half of it, because as a private pilot, I must pay my pro-rata share.
If you did that, you're skirting right on the line, but I think you're legal.
If the conversation goes like: You: The weather is great this Saturday for 200 miles in every direction. I'm going flying for currency purposes. Anyone want to come along? Other: I want to go to Martha's Vineyard this weekend. Could you take me? You: Sure; I'd love to do you the favor of taking you to someplace that I hadn't already decided to go! Other: Great. Can I pay for gas? You: Only half of it, because as a private pilot, I must pay my pro-rata share.
That would be clearly illegal, per the FAA counsel interpretation and the demand for a "common purpose" to the trip which isn't met. (Oh, and by the way, isn't required by the FARs either, but it's been a consistent [and reasonable, IMO] policy interpretation.)
A different set of facts might be able to be judged as legal.
You: The weather is great this Saturday for 200 miles in every direction. I'm going flying for currency purposes. Anyone want to come along? Other: I want to go to Martha's Vineyard this weekend. You: I've heard there's a great restaurant on the airport there and I've always wanted to go. I've decided (just now) that I'm flying specifically to MVY this weekend. Would you like to come? Other: Yes. Can I pay for gas? You: Only half of it, because as a private pilot, I must pay my pro-rata share.
If you did that, you're skirting right on the line, but I think you're legal.
If the conversation goes like: You: The weather is great this Saturday for 200 miles in every direction. I'm going flying for currency purposes. Anyone want to come along? Other: I want to go to Martha's Vineyard this weekend. Could you take me? You: Sure; I'd love to do you the favor of taking you to someplace that I hadn't already decided to go! Other: Great. Can I pay for gas? You: Only half of it, because as a private pilot, I must pay my pro-rata share.
That would be clearly illegal, per the FAA counsel interpretation and the demand for a "common purpose" to the trip which isn't met. (Oh, and by the way, isn't required by the FARs either, but it's been a consistent [and reasonable, IMO] policy interpretation.)
Long overdue response, but this is really helpful -- thanks for laying it out.
One thing to consider is whether, if the passenger wants to go somewhere where weather may not permit, you will fly there anyway. In other words, will you take more risks based on your passenger's desires?
I am completely unaffiliated with the FAA, but I suspect that kind of thought process will be involved before they yank your ticket.
I am completely unaffiliated with the FAA, but I suspect that kind of thought process will be involved before they yank your ticket.
[deleted]
My reading is that would not be allowed, since your purpose of the flight (flying) is different from your passengers (getting from A to B).
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.
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 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 seems like their operation would fall in the exact same legal situation as Angel flights, or Pilot's for Paws, or Lighthawk. None of which seem to have common-purpose. Now these organizations seem to ignore compensation issues, but there are cases where logging hours alone was deemed compensation so it is arguable that compensation does occur irregardless of monetary transactions. I can't help but notice though that these organizations often require 500 or 1000 hours of their volunteer pilots, which could likely make many of them CPL holders already.
I fly PnP somewhat regularly and have done Angel Flights in the past. There is no compensation at play for those flights, making them perfectly legal Part 91 operations. I pay, out of pocket, 100% of the costs of those flights.
The FAA has conclusively ruled (first in 1993) that the ability of a pilot, who is paying 100% of the costs of the flight, to claim a charitable deduction for those costs is NOT compensation.
Flight time that you paid 100% of the costs to do is never a problem in terms of a compensation concern for a private pilot.
From: http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2012/media/JulAug201...
As you probably know, the FAA interprets “compensation” as meaning the receipt of anything of value. However, the FAA Chief Counsel’s office has clarified the issue of charitable deductions in a number of interpretations. Specifically, it has stated that “since Congress has provided for the tax deductibility of some costs of charitable acts, the FAA will not treat charitable deductions of such costs, standing alone, as constituting ‘compensation or hire’ for the purpose of enforcing [the Federal Aviation Regulations].” (Note: This interpretation is specifically addressed in FAA Order 8900.1 (Volume 4, Chapter 5, Section 1, paragraph 4-922) which also states that “inspectors should not treat the tax deductibility of costs as constituting ‘compensation or hire’ when flights are conducted for humanitarian purposes.”)
It would be hard to argue that Flytenow's operations fall into the category of "conducted for humanitarian purposes", plus the fact that money is changing hands, so this situation isn't at all like AngelFlight, PnP, Dove Flights (Citation Special Olympics airlift), etc. in the eyes of the FAA.
The FAA has conclusively ruled (first in 1993) that the ability of a pilot, who is paying 100% of the costs of the flight, to claim a charitable deduction for those costs is NOT compensation.
Flight time that you paid 100% of the costs to do is never a problem in terms of a compensation concern for a private pilot.
From: http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2012/media/JulAug201...
As you probably know, the FAA interprets “compensation” as meaning the receipt of anything of value. However, the FAA Chief Counsel’s office has clarified the issue of charitable deductions in a number of interpretations. Specifically, it has stated that “since Congress has provided for the tax deductibility of some costs of charitable acts, the FAA will not treat charitable deductions of such costs, standing alone, as constituting ‘compensation or hire’ for the purpose of enforcing [the Federal Aviation Regulations].” (Note: This interpretation is specifically addressed in FAA Order 8900.1 (Volume 4, Chapter 5, Section 1, paragraph 4-922) which also states that “inspectors should not treat the tax deductibility of costs as constituting ‘compensation or hire’ when flights are conducted for humanitarian purposes.”)
It would be hard to argue that Flytenow's operations fall into the category of "conducted for humanitarian purposes", plus the fact that money is changing hands, so this situation isn't at all like AngelFlight, PnP, Dove Flights (Citation Special Olympics airlift), etc. in the eyes of the FAA.
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.
[1] http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
[1] http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
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.
You're right that you can't make money, but you can be paid more than your pro-rata share of the flight costs.
Suppose you and 3 passengers take a flight where the direct costs total $400.
Your pro-rata share of $400 is $100. Your passengers could pay you up to $300. $300 is more than $100, so you can clearly be paid more than your pro-rate share.
The FAR says you can't pay LESS than your pro-rata share. In this case, you aren't.
Suppose you and 3 passengers take a flight where the direct costs total $400.
Your pro-rata share of $400 is $100. Your passengers could pay you up to $300. $300 is more than $100, so you can clearly be paid more than your pro-rate share.
The FAR says you can't pay LESS than your pro-rata share. In this case, you aren't.
Well, no, it isn't. It's a cost-split: there is no way to make money from this as a pilot. What it does do is reduce your costs of operation.
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.