US Court of Appeals Takes on Ridesharing in Aviation(blog.flytenow.com)
blog.flytenow.com
US Court of Appeals Takes on Ridesharing in Aviation
http://blog.flytenow.com/us-court-of-appeals-takes-on-ridesharing-in-aviation
4 comments
> (daily crashes in USA)
I'm sorry, but a quick Google finds less than a dozen in the US this year. I couldn't find a definitive list, but searching "small plane crash 2015" found mostly the same events.
A puddle-jumper being flown by a certified commercial pilot shouldn't be a whole lot more dangerous than a commercial flight.
But yes, a small aircraft flown by someone who just got their license? You're taking your life into your hands, especially if there's a chance of poor weather.
I'm sorry, but a quick Google finds less than a dozen in the US this year. I couldn't find a definitive list, but searching "small plane crash 2015" found mostly the same events.
A puddle-jumper being flown by a certified commercial pilot shouldn't be a whole lot more dangerous than a commercial flight.
But yes, a small aircraft flown by someone who just got their license? You're taking your life into your hands, especially if there's a chance of poor weather.
Pilot here, I can assure you that a "puddle jumper" being flown by a certified commercial pilot is way more dangerous than a commercial flight. The certification necessary for an airliner is miles above (no pun intended) the certification for a GA (general aviation aircraft).
An airliner's resistance to weather, its ability to out-climb (it's pressurized) turbulence and ice, its ability to still fly with half of its engines destroyed, is something that doesn't exist in general aviation aircraft. An airliner can only be flown with 2 crew members, pilot and copilot, so that one being incapacitated doesn't end the flight right there. Such measures don't exist in general aviation.
Even airports are different. Big airports have control towers and radars to avoid midair collisions, excellent weather reports. The places I go to sometimes don't have either, I have to overfly the runway at 500 feet to look at the windsock and make an informed guess.
An airliner's resistance to weather, its ability to out-climb (it's pressurized) turbulence and ice, its ability to still fly with half of its engines destroyed, is something that doesn't exist in general aviation aircraft. An airliner can only be flown with 2 crew members, pilot and copilot, so that one being incapacitated doesn't end the flight right there. Such measures don't exist in general aviation.
Even airports are different. Big airports have control towers and radars to avoid midair collisions, excellent weather reports. The places I go to sometimes don't have either, I have to overfly the runway at 500 feet to look at the windsock and make an informed guess.
The NTSB maintains a database of all airline accidents that are recorded every year.. I did a basic search with the following parameters:
USA, 2014, Airplanes only, Fatal accidents only -- This returned 147 results of fatal accidents, the majority of which were Pipers / Cessnas / Beechcraft..
Expanding the list to include non-fatal accidents returns 310 results.. So not quite 1 per day, but still a lot of plane crashes.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx
USA, 2014, Airplanes only, Fatal accidents only -- This returned 147 results of fatal accidents, the majority of which were Pipers / Cessnas / Beechcraft..
Expanding the list to include non-fatal accidents returns 310 results.. So not quite 1 per day, but still a lot of plane crashes.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx
OK, point taken.
Small planes crashes are common enough that they don't often make it beyond local news. The NTSB recorded 1,471 accidents and 440 fatalities in general aviation for the year 2012: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/2012%20Aviatio.... That's like one 747 going down each year.
to take that commercial license you have to fly hundreds of hours. with and without instructors.
guess how much those hours cost.
i lost count of how many times I've flown just for the hell of it with friends getting those hours for a few hundred bucks.
guess how much those hours cost.
i lost count of how many times I've flown just for the hell of it with friends getting those hours for a few hundred bucks.
I think the point is ... With friends. Who almost always return to the same airfield as you both took off from.
But this is a fascinatingly grey area. If you were to fly from airfield A to B and back, taking a different passenger each time, how would you characterise the transaction?
I can see taking my kids up in an airplane of a friend of a friend, and handing over a hundred or whatever for fuel. But "some guy". Hard to imagine.
But this is a fascinatingly grey area. If you were to fly from airfield A to B and back, taking a different passenger each time, how would you characterise the transaction?
I can see taking my kids up in an airplane of a friend of a friend, and handing over a hundred or whatever for fuel. But "some guy". Hard to imagine.
For a private pilot, unless the passengers share a common purpose for travel with the pilot, money isn't allowed to change hands, even if it is just "for fuel".
You would need at least a commercial pilot license for this type of transaction. (A CPL is a lesser license than an airline transport pilot license, which is what you need to work for an airline. The former only requires 100 hours of time.)
You would need at least a commercial pilot license for this type of transaction. (A CPL is a lesser license than an airline transport pilot license, which is what you need to work for an airline. The former only requires 100 hours of time.)
It's even more complicated and crazy than that.
* If I fly my friends with me to the beach for the weekend, they can chip in and cover their share of expenses. Legal for me to do as a PPL under FAR 61.113(c).
* If I fly myself to a conference for work, my employer can reimburse me for my expenses. Legal for me to do as a PPL under FAR 61.113(b)(1).
BUT.
* If I take a coworker with me to the conference, I can't be reimbursed as a PPL. I must either fund it out of my own pocket or must have a CPL under FAR 61.113(b)(2) as held by the Mangiamele opinion (which I can't find the original PDF of right now, unfortunately).
> You would need at least a commercial pilot license for this type of transaction.
And a class 2 medical certificate, which may be difficult to get.
* If I fly my friends with me to the beach for the weekend, they can chip in and cover their share of expenses. Legal for me to do as a PPL under FAR 61.113(c).
* If I fly myself to a conference for work, my employer can reimburse me for my expenses. Legal for me to do as a PPL under FAR 61.113(b)(1).
BUT.
* If I take a coworker with me to the conference, I can't be reimbursed as a PPL. I must either fund it out of my own pocket or must have a CPL under FAR 61.113(b)(2) as held by the Mangiamele opinion (which I can't find the original PDF of right now, unfortunately).
> You would need at least a commercial pilot license for this type of transaction.
And a class 2 medical certificate, which may be difficult to get.
Common purpose of travel seems a good phrase - but surely your Collegue and you have common purpose - or is that common, non commercial, purpose?
> common, non commercial, purpose?
This is, IIRC, what the Mangiamele opinion held. If our common purpose is business, even if it's non-aviation business, the second person is considered a paid passenger when the pilot is reimbursed.
I get what the FAA is trying to do - they're trying to keep PPLs from running charters, air taxis, under-the-radar airlines, etc. But some of the 61.113 rules and opinions are just silly, and that section really needs a complete rewrite.
I don't need a CDL to drive my coworker with me to the conference, even if I am reimbursed by my employer. I shouldn't need a CPL to make that same trip in an airplane.
This is, IIRC, what the Mangiamele opinion held. If our common purpose is business, even if it's non-aviation business, the second person is considered a paid passenger when the pilot is reimbursed.
I get what the FAA is trying to do - they're trying to keep PPLs from running charters, air taxis, under-the-radar airlines, etc. But some of the 61.113 rules and opinions are just silly, and that section really needs a complete rewrite.
I don't need a CDL to drive my coworker with me to the conference, even if I am reimbursed by my employer. I shouldn't need a CPL to make that same trip in an airplane.
Here is the document of the Mangiamele opinion: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc...
[deleted]
The FAA has a lot of power to wield against private pilots and they don't want to lose it. They don't particularly care how much it stifles General Aviation.
>When you rideshare a single-engine piston plane, there is a question of your life.
And that's pretty obvious. People are adults they can make decisions for themselves.
The only legitimate (IMO) concern that the FAA has in this is that there will be some people who will try to operate their own little mini-illegal charter service. The path of least effort for the FAA is simply to prevent anything that has even the slightest whiff of commerce.
>When you rideshare a single-engine piston plane, there is a question of your life.
And that's pretty obvious. People are adults they can make decisions for themselves.
The only legitimate (IMO) concern that the FAA has in this is that there will be some people who will try to operate their own little mini-illegal charter service. The path of least effort for the FAA is simply to prevent anything that has even the slightest whiff of commerce.
Which is a shame. In Belize I was able to get a kind of taxi service to an island for like $90, in a single engine plane, which was great fun. Obviously there is some danger but I'd much rather be able to make the choice than have the government ban such things.
You can do that in the US, too. But the FAA requires a commercial pilot license (and slightly higher standards for the plane) rather than a private pilot license. Belize, fwiw, also has private pilot and commercial pilot licenses.
> The only legitimate (IMO) concern that the FAA has in this is that there will be some people who will try to operate their own little mini-illegal charter service.
You just described flytenow.
You just described flytenow.
Maybe, a little. When I look at Flytenow, I don't get the "we're mis-representing what we're selling" vibe. When I think "fly by night", I mainly think, uninsured.
Charter Flight Service: We have ATP rated pilots who will take you in our aircraft which are inspected and maintained per FAR Part 135 (at least as well as anyone else is); including carrying the right amount of insurance.
Flytenow: A brokering service for some dudes who have their own airplanes and will take you along for a ride if your schedules and destinations intersect, and if you pitch in a few bucks. Also probably has a bit of insurance, though I couldn't begin to imagine how they'd get it.
Charter Flight Service: We have ATP rated pilots who will take you in our aircraft which are inspected and maintained per FAR Part 135 (at least as well as anyone else is); including carrying the right amount of insurance.
Flytenow: A brokering service for some dudes who have their own airplanes and will take you along for a ride if your schedules and destinations intersect, and if you pitch in a few bucks. Also probably has a bit of insurance, though I couldn't begin to imagine how they'd get it.
Most likely the plane is a rental. Rental costs can be split but if you own the plane, you cannot split maintenance, insurance, etc.
A single engine plane, I'd want to get to know the mechanic that last overhauled it and watch them work.
The pilot, has to in near-constant disaster-drilling mode and flying regularly.
Without those, which is most cases, I'm not stepping foot in said bug-smasher, because you're gambling with your life with someone whom may not be both experienced and competent enough to survive failure, no matter how well-intentioned or seemingly confident.
The pilot, has to in near-constant disaster-drilling mode and flying regularly.
Without those, which is most cases, I'm not stepping foot in said bug-smasher, because you're gambling with your life with someone whom may not be both experienced and competent enough to survive failure, no matter how well-intentioned or seemingly confident.
We ask verified pilots on Flytenow how often they have been flying, you can see their total hours and previous 30 & 90 day hours as well. We don't let pilots post who haven't flown regularly, recently.
On the other hand, nearly 100 people in the US die in car accidents every day... GA is definitely far riskier than commercial airlines, but driving also is.
If you look at the numbers of people that drive per day versus the number of people that fly in GA aircraft per day your perceptions of which option is riskiest might shift...
Either way, it's orders of magnitude more dangerous than commercial aviation (not something you can say for Uber vs buses) and one thing guaranteed to increase that risk is GA pilots trying to reach specific destinations at specific times to satisfy their paying customers.
Which reminds me, I've got a GA "flight experience" to pick a date for ;-)
Either way, it's orders of magnitude more dangerous than commercial aviation (not something you can say for Uber vs buses) and one thing guaranteed to increase that risk is GA pilots trying to reach specific destinations at specific times to satisfy their paying customers.
Which reminds me, I've got a GA "flight experience" to pick a date for ;-)
Even after adjusting for miles (or hours) traveled?
I don't think comparisons can be drawn there. It's impossible to do a 2000 mile drive in a day. I regular do two of those flights. Likewise, there are not many 20-minute flights.
It seems to me that the only relevant statistic is likelihood of death per embarkation.
It seems to me that the only relevant statistic is likelihood of death per embarkation.
Found an interesting answer on StackExchange;
http://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/211
Speaking of crash data - we made a viewer for it. It's pretty hacked together right now, but we'd love to get some feedback on it: https://github.com/flytenow/icarus
Could someone give a quick summary of flightsharing and how this ruling affects it?
This isn't a ruling, it was a hearing that will eventually lead to a ruling.
What this is about is that the FARs prohibit private pilots from flying passengers "for hire" but allow them to "share expenses." There are a number of tests to determine whether a private pilot who takes money from passengers is flying "for hire" or merely "sharing expenses" and one of them is the so-called "holding-out" rule: if you advertise your willingness to take passengers, then you are presumed to be flying for hire and you need (at least) a commercial license. Advertising on Flightshare is considered "holding out" by the FAA.
(I'm a private pilot.)
What this is about is that the FARs prohibit private pilots from flying passengers "for hire" but allow them to "share expenses." There are a number of tests to determine whether a private pilot who takes money from passengers is flying "for hire" or merely "sharing expenses" and one of them is the so-called "holding-out" rule: if you advertise your willingness to take passengers, then you are presumed to be flying for hire and you need (at least) a commercial license. Advertising on Flightshare is considered "holding out" by the FAA.
(I'm a private pilot.)
Not remotely an expert, but the basic idea is that hobbyist pilots are licensed to fly for their personal entertainment/transportation only.
They are not licensed as airlines, so selling tickets at a profit is a definite no-no. But they can take their friends along for the ride and split the cost of fuel.
A number of apps/websites have popped up that blur the line between "operating an illegal airline" and "doing the equivalent of a carpool in a Cessna." That's the gray area that needs to be fleshed out.
They are not licensed as airlines, so selling tickets at a profit is a definite no-no. But they can take their friends along for the ride and split the cost of fuel.
A number of apps/websites have popped up that blur the line between "operating an illegal airline" and "doing the equivalent of a carpool in a Cessna." That's the gray area that needs to be fleshed out.
This sucks.
However, in a few places like Alaska, I think the anti-government sentiment is strong enough that they really don't care what the FAA says. Good luck regulating fur trappers near the Arctic and helpful neighbors with planes.
However, in a few places like Alaska, I think the anti-government sentiment is strong enough that they really don't care what the FAA says. Good luck regulating fur trappers near the Arctic and helpful neighbors with planes.
This does NOT suck.
General aviation is a fairly risky activity, and usually the pilot (and friends of the pilot) accept that risk when flying. With a service like Flytenow it's possible (in my opinion probable) that 'enthusiasts' don't fully appreciate how much greater the risks are of a short trip in someone's Cessna 172 versus a commercial flight on a 737.
I don't believe that the FAA wants, or should be able, to regulate pilots' abilities to share flights with their friends. In my mind, they see Flytenow's business model as one that encourages people to take risks they normally wouldn't and don't completely understand.
General aviation is a fairly risky activity, and usually the pilot (and friends of the pilot) accept that risk when flying. With a service like Flytenow it's possible (in my opinion probable) that 'enthusiasts' don't fully appreciate how much greater the risks are of a short trip in someone's Cessna 172 versus a commercial flight on a 737.
I don't believe that the FAA wants, or should be able, to regulate pilots' abilities to share flights with their friends. In my mind, they see Flytenow's business model as one that encourages people to take risks they normally wouldn't and don't completely understand.
And that's fine. Those individuals are well aware of the risks and their numbers are small enough to not warrant the attention of regulation. But for the general public? This is just asking for trouble.
This is fascinating - it's like Pornography and erotica. I can tell the difference between a ride share and an airline when I see it, but writing it down ... No.
I mean, if Uber drivers were forced to state where they were travelling from and to at a certain time, and only if users entered that route was the ride share matched, their model would collapse (ie I see pornography)
But do that for aircraft, and ... It's totally indistinguishable from an airline schedule.
But yeah. It's not a rideshare, you are floating the rules, get wrists slapped.
I mean, if Uber drivers were forced to state where they were travelling from and to at a certain time, and only if users entered that route was the ride share matched, their model would collapse (ie I see pornography)
But do that for aircraft, and ... It's totally indistinguishable from an airline schedule.
But yeah. It's not a rideshare, you are floating the rules, get wrists slapped.
If you feel uncomfortable with your Uber diver, you can tell them to stop, and you can get out of the car.
What happens in the sky?
What happens in the sky?
What I do is watch the pilot do the preflight. If he doesn't do it by the book, I won't fly with him.
For example, checking if there's gas in the tank. Bob Denver forgot to do that, ran out of fuel, crashed and died.
Make sure he warms up the engine all the way before takeoff, and does the magneto check at full power. Not doing this causes engine failure shortly after takeoff - a common fatal mistake.
If the weather looks dodgy, don't fly no matter what the pilot says. JFK jr flew into haze without being instrument rated, and died.
Failing last 3 are the most common causes of general aviation crashes.
For example, checking if there's gas in the tank. Bob Denver forgot to do that, ran out of fuel, crashed and died.
Make sure he warms up the engine all the way before takeoff, and does the magneto check at full power. Not doing this causes engine failure shortly after takeoff - a common fatal mistake.
If the weather looks dodgy, don't fly no matter what the pilot says. JFK jr flew into haze without being instrument rated, and died.
Failing last 3 are the most common causes of general aviation crashes.
And few, if any, commercial aviation customers understand anything remotely close to why a preflight is necessary, what happens when your single pilot is incapacitated, or why GA doesn't fly when commercials still can.
Ridesharing for GA aviation is a terrible idea, yet again "disrupting" by breaking the law and ignoring higher than normal risks.
Ridesharing for GA aviation is a terrible idea, yet again "disrupting" by breaking the law and ignoring higher than normal risks.
You have to wait for them to stop before you get out. The same is true albeit to a lesser degree for the Uber.
Parachute.
The first time I flew , I parachuted out . Six people in an old Piper that rattled like hell . . seemed safer to jump . . later the jump master said their were lose interior panels that caused all that noise an were left to entice jumpers . . out !
In college I worked at an FBO where there was a skydiving operation. Lots of old cranks would come in and say "It's crazy to jump out of a perfectly good airplane!" to which I would respond "Boy have we got the airplane for you!" or "Wait 'til you see the plane before you make up your mind."
The big picture is that the FAA doesn't want the public to confuse the safety record of an airline with somebody flying a puddle-jumper (daily crashes in USA). The flying public just expects to get there without doing a risk evaluation, and puddle-jumpers are far riskier than airlines.
When you rideshare with Uber, there is a question of insurance.
When you rideshare a single-engine piston plane, there is a question of your life.