FAA Oversteps in Ride-Sharing Decision

[JimNtexas]

Flying Magazine Editorial by Robert Goyer

The money quote, which is IMHO 100% on target:

The fact that the FAA based its opinion not on the current law but on an expired statute shows that it knows it’s completely out of line here. It also exposes the level of ... I hate to have to say it, but in this case, one could make a strong argument that an agency that knowingly rules on a case in a way that makes its conservative position stronger despite not having the legal basis for it is corrupt. It is an abuse of power.

[snip]

If the FAA doesn't like that state of affairs, they should change the regs and not issue opinions arbitrarily and with utter disregard for the rule of law.

(emphasis added)

The FAA has created a backdoor rule making process that skips all the normal legal requirements that apply when they want to legally issue or change a real regulation.

The writer wants the alphabet groups to pressure the FAA, and that's a good thing.

The Pilot's Bill of Rights was a good step in right direction because it clarified that Chief Counsel letters are just opinions, not law. But I don't think FAA itself groks that yet.

But what really needs to happen is that these dictates need to challenged in Federal Court. I hope Airpooler does just that.

In the meantime, what can the ordianry pilot do?

DON'T WRITE THE FAA AND ASK FOR OPINIONS!!!!!!!!

IF ANYONE EVEN SUGGESTS THAT THEN GIVE THEM A GOOD JOHN WAYNE STYLE SLAP!

The FAA lawyers will always, 100% of the time, provide the most restrictive possible interpretation of whatever question anyone asks them.

If you just must ask a question because your job depends on it then you need to hire a lawyer with a lot of political clout to ask for you. Clearly a former FAA law clerk isn't enough, just ask Airpooler.


The default position of the FAA law office is that GA suffers from insufficient micromanagement, and that's what you'll get when you give the FAA law clerks an opening to invent new rules!!

 

[poadeleted20]

The FAA has created a backdoor rule making process that skips all the normal legal requirements that apply when they want to legally issue or change a real regulation.

Oh, humbug. As Mark pointed out several days ago, the rules on "holding out" to the public have been around longer than the FAA has existed. It's never been legal without a commercial operating certificate no matter how much anyone has wanted to believe they could do this. All the FAA has done here is answer a question about a specific scenario, and I'm sure Ms. McPherson already knew the answer when she wrote the letter. Suggesting that AirPooler isn't really holding out to the general public was at best naïve. This wasn't legal before this letter was written, and the only thing accomplished by its writing was to ensure that we pilots understood that without being roped into to doing something illegal by a company trying to make a profit while we take all the legal and financial risk.

What will it take for the FAA to convince pilots these regs really mean what they say?

 

[TUPilot]

Oh, humbug. As Mark pointed out several days ago, the rules on "holding out" to the public have been around longer than the FAA has existed. Suggesting that AirPooler isn't really holding out to the general public was at best naïve.

Exactly... long before this letter anyone who actually has experience as a commercial operator knew this was coming. There is a lot more involved here than simply "I paid no more than my pro-rata share". If I advertise in the local paper for plane rides it doesn't matter if I pay for my pro-rata share, it is illegal unless I'm complying with specific regulations (such as 135 of an sightseeing LOA under 91). It boggles my mind that this is even an discussion!

 

[poadeleted20]

But Goyer's statement might help him sell a few more magazines (and increase his advertising revenue as a result), so consider his motivations.

 

[CTLSi]

This is not the outrage to have...what Holder, Nixon (MO Dem Gov), and the race hustlers are doing in Ferguson are up to is far worse...

 

[JimNtexas]

The specifics of the Airpooler case are not really the main point of this post, however it's pretty clear that the FAA's opinion letter is pretty weak at best, because the regs didn't contemplate this sort of thing when they were written years ago. A much stronger case against Airpooler could have been made than what is in the Airpooler letter.

What the FAA should do is start a formal rulemaking process to clarify the status of Ubber type ride sharing apps.

It's clear to anyone who looks objectively at many of the opinions that FAA law clerks have written over the last decade that many are not founded in the actual law of the land.

The Federal Courts have been pushing back on the illegal use of administrative procedures to publish rules that exceed the authority granted by Congress. Just ask the IRS, EPA, or the FAA clerk that wrote the opinion on drones.

In the case of the IRS and EPA at least they followed formal rulemaking procedures.

The FAA doesn't even bother with that, they just write a letter and put in a binder that is often hidden from the general public.

That's now how laws are made in a free country!

 

[poadeleted20]

The specifics of the Airpooler case are not really the main point of this post, however it's pretty clear that the FAA's opinion letter is pretty weak at best, because the regs didn't contemplate this sort of thing when they were written years ago.

The only thing that is clear to me is the folks behind AirPooler bet a lot of money that they could sneak one past the FAA, and they lost the bet.

A much stronger case against Airpooler could have been made than what is in the Airpooler letter.

How much stronger a case can one make than saying "This is holding out to the public in violation of Part 119"?

What the FAA should do is start a formal rulemaking process to clarify the status of Ubber type ride sharing apps.

Why? They don't have to rewrite the regulations every time someone comes up with a new advertising medium. Let's face it -- this ain't legal, and it never has been, and that goes all the way back to college ride boards with handwritten 3x5 cards.

 

[Jim Logajan]

The FAA has created a backdoor rule making process that skips all the normal legal requirements that apply when they want to legally issue or change a real regulation.

Opinion letters have never been considered by courts to be regulatory. You can find references to this effect in this post: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1411235&post1411235

There is no statutory or regulatory requirement that the Chief Counsel follow any formal vetting of whatever they put in those letters. This becomes evident when you find that a later letter may correct or repudiate the contents of an earlier letter.

What such letters do accomplish is to provide notice of the line of argument the FAA might employ should they decide to take legal action. Also, the courts wont (or should not) treat the letters as evidence that a person "should have known the FAA would treat X as illegal" because the letters are, as can be seen by the letterheads, not directed at the public. Putting scanned copies up on a web page doesn't remotely meet the requirements for public dissemination.

 

[poadeleted20]

What such letters do accomplish is to provide notice of the line of argument the FAA might employ should they decide to take legal action. Also, the courts wont (or should not) treat the letters as evidence that a person "should have known the FAA would treat X as illegal" because the letters are, as can be seen by the letterheads, not directed at the public. Putting scanned copies up on a web page doesn't remotely meet the requirements for public dissemination.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse", and the FAA Chief Counsel is permitted to advance an interpretation of a regulation for the first time as part of an enforcement action. So, that "advance notice" is a good warning that if you do whatever it is they said in the letter wasn't legal, you are not going to fare well in court, and lack of a prior interpretation is no excuse for violating the law as later interpreted.

Further, the courts generally give considerable deference to a Federal agency's interpretations of its own regulations. I know some folks here think otherwise, but I'd ask them to show when the US Court of Appeals ever failed to defer to the FAA's interpretation of its own regulations in a pilot enforcement action. Witness credibility? Yes. Evidence? Yes. Jurisdictional issues? Yes. Interpretation of the FAR's? No.

All things considered, doing something the Chief Counsel has said violates an FAA regulation is sticking your head in the lion's mouth.

 

[TommyG]

Flying Magazine Editorial by Robert Goyer

The money quote, which is IMHO 100% on target:


(emphasis added)


DON'T WRITE THE FAA AND ASK FOR OPINIONS!!!!!!!!

IF ANYONE EVEN SUGGESTS THAT THEN GIVE THEM A GOOD JOHN WAYNE STYLE SLAP!

What don't you do with a can of worms??

Open it!!!!

 

[Jim Logajan]

I know some folks here think otherwise, but I'd ask them to show when the US Court of Appeals ever failed to defer to the FAA's interpretation of its own regulations in a pilot enforcement action. Witness credibility? Yes. Evidence? Yes. Jurisdictional issues? Yes. Interpretation of the FAR's? No.

It does not take long to find such cases if one takes even a miniscule effort to look; found this one within minutes of starting my search:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/5472.PDF

Stated at its simplest, the Administrator here asks us to affirm the interpretation that the presence of drug metabolites in an airman’s urine prior to a flight amounts to prima facie evidence that the airman was “using” a prohibited substance at the time of his or her operation of an aircraft contrary to § 91.17(a)(3). However, the Administrator has presented no evidence of any actual prohibited substance in the system of the respondent at the time of the flight. For the reasons outlined below, we conclude that the Administrator’s proffered interpretation of his regulatory standard is arbitrary and capricious.
​

 

[poadeleted20]

It does not take long to find such cases if one takes even a miniscule effort to look; found this one within minutes of starting my search:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/5472.PDF

Stated at its simplest, the Administrator here asks us to affirm the interpretation that the presence of drug metabolites in an airman’s urine prior to a flight amounts to prima facie evidence that the airman was “using” a prohibited substance at the time of his or her operation of an aircraft contrary to § 91.17(a)(3). However, the Administrator has presented no evidence of any actual prohibited substance in the system of the respondent at the time of the flight. For the reasons outlined below, we conclude that the Administrator’s proffered interpretation of his regulatory standard is arbitrary and capricious.
​

First, that's not the US Court of Appeals, it's the NTSB. Second, let's read the entire statement about that:

We have previously held that, where the Administrator attempts to impose a requirement not contained in the plain language of a regulation, the Administrator’s interpretation of that regulation is not entitled to deference. Administrator v. Glennon and Shewbart, NTSB Order No. EA-5411 at 20 (2008); see also Garvey, supra, at 580 (stating that, "[d]eference, of course, does not mean blind obedience," and that the Board need not follow an interpretation if it "is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not according to law").

There is nothing in the AirPooler interpretation which "attempts to impose a requirement not contained in the plain language of a regulation". And third, can you find another example among the hundreds or even thousands of interpretations of the regulations the Chief Counsel has made? IOW, there are so few cases where the NTSB has stated that an FAA interpretation is "arbitrary, capricious, or not according to law" that is really foolish to think you can win such a point before them. And while some argue that the PBOR has changed that, I've yet to see that change anything since the PBOR was enacted.

 

[RotorAndWing]

. And while some argue that the PBOR has changed that, I've yet to see that change anything since the PBOR was enacted.

How would you? The PBOR has more to do with enforcements and such, and since you obviously don't have access to such information how can you make such a statement?

 

[David7700]

Flying Magazine Editorial by Robert Goyer



The money quote, which is IMHO 100% on target:





(emphasis added)



The FAA has created a backdoor rule making process that skips all the normal legal requirements that apply when they want to legally issue or change a real regulation.



The writer wants the alphabet groups to pressure the FAA, and that's a good thing.



The Pilot's Bill of Rights was a good step in right direction because it clarified that Chief Counsel letters are just opinions, not law. But I don't think FAA itself groks that yet.



But what really needs to happen is that these dictates need to challenged in Federal Court. I hope Airpooler does just that.



In the meantime, what can the ordianry pilot do?



DON'T WRITE THE FAA AND ASK FOR OPINIONS!!!!!!!!



IF ANYONE EVEN SUGGESTS THAT THEN GIVE THEM A GOOD JOHN WAYNE STYLE SLAP!



The FAA lawyers will always, 100% of the time, provide the most restrictive possible interpretation of whatever question anyone asks them.



If you just must ask a question because your job depends on it then you need to hire a lawyer with a lot of political clout to ask for you. Clearly a former FAA law clerk isn't enough, just ask Airpooler.





The default position of the FAA law office is that GA suffers from insufficient micromanagement, and that's what you'll get when you give the FAA law clerks an opening to invent new rules!!

As I asked online where his opinion was posted, what is the expired statute he was talking about?

Everything in the MacPherson letter is consistent with all other FAA letters of onterpretation prior to now. It could have practically been written before the response.

 

[jbarrass]

I'm not sure Airpooler really lost. If you look at the investors [Steve Lewis, Andy Finke] it's a very smart team with a good history of success with disruptive technology. I'm thinking maybe they just got standing for the next step.

Airpooler is very similar to Uber, Lyft, AirBnB and many innovative similar peer-to-peer platform management apps. If you watch how the hack commissions have reacted to Uber you'd think the FAA is our friend. It's a disruptive technology for sure and the establishment, and their apologists, will not like it one bit.

Not sure where it ends, but it doesn't end with a chief counsel letter.....

 

[David7700]

Opinion letters have never been considered by courts to be regulatory. You can find references to this effect in this post: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1411235&post1411235

There is no statutory or regulatory requirement that the Chief Counsel follow any formal vetting of whatever they put in those letters. This becomes evident when you find that a later letter may correct or repudiate the contents of an earlier letter.

What such letters do accomplish is to provide notice of the line of argument the FAA might employ should they decide to take legal action. Also, the courts wont (or should not) treat the letters as evidence that a person "should have known the FAA would treat X as illegal" because the letters are, as can be seen by the letterheads, not directed at the public. Putting scanned copies up on a web page doesn't remotely meet the requirements for public dissemination.

I wouldn't want to be facing an enforcement action based on actions that are contrary to the letters of interpretation from the Chief Counsel.

 

[David7700]

I'm not sure Airpooler really lost. If you look at the investors [Steve Lewis, Andy Finke] it's a very smart team with a good history of success with disruptive technology. I'm thinking maybe they just got standing for the next step.

Airpooler is very similar to Uber, Lyft, AirBnB and many innovative similar peer-to-peer platform management apps. If you watch how the hack commissions have reacted to Uber you'd think the FAA is our friend. It's a disruptive technology for sure and the establishment, and their apologists, will not like it one bit.

Not sure where it ends, but it doesn't end with a chief counsel letter.....

They don't have Uber money. Uber has literally more than a billion dollars. You need a lot of money and/or a lot of influence to push that kind of change with the FAA.

Look at the drone regs. That has taken a lot of time and a lot of money. And they still have a lot of time and a lot of money to go before they are close to getting started with that.

Now maybe they will do it with flight-sharing, but I am not hopeful.

 

[Jim Logajan]

First, that's not the US Court of Appeals, it's the NTSB.

You are correct, in a way that really doesn't matter to me. The case wasn't appealed up the ladder as far as you specified. If the FAA thought it could have won at that level it would have appealed.

There is nothing in the AirPooler interpretation which "attempts to impose a requirement not contained in the plain language of a regulation".

I'm not actually interested in the contents of the letter under discussion. I'm just trying to put the letter itself into proper legal perspective as I understand such things.

And third, can you find another example among the hundreds or even thousands of interpretations of the regulations the Chief Counsel has made?

I'd appreciate it if you actually did the legwork to make sure your claims are reasonably valid before you make them so adamantly. First you wanted one counterexample, now you want a second, but wait, it doesn't matter because I'll need a large number anyway.

(By the way, has the Chief Counsel actually issued thousands of interpretations? Or just thousands of letters? If either is true, what do you think that means about the clarity of FAA regulations?)

IOW, there are so few cases where the NTSB has stated that an FAA interpretation is "arbitrary, capricious, or not according to law" that is really foolish to think you can win such a point before them. And while some argue that the PBOR has changed that, I've yet to see that change anything since the PBOR was enacted.

I will only agree that it makes sense to follow the regulations as best one understands them and try to take account any information that comes available, however the means.

If I believe that a Chief Counsel interpretation letter is not according to the law, then I will act on that belief rather than their interpretation. Others can do what they will, but since you insist others follow your advice, I'll advise them to follow mine.

With respect to the PBR, it appears that the first court to deal with it has limited the scope and meaning of its "full independent review":

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2329339228184269922&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38&as_ylo=2013

 

[Lindberg]

As I asked online where his opinion was posted, what is the expired statute he was talking about?

Compare the age of the NPRM cited in the letter with the history of 61.113.

 

[David7700]

Compare the age of the NPRM cited in the letter with the history of 61.113.

It's not a statute and not expired. And the test for common carriage has been expressed in NTSB opinions since then, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Lindberg]

It's not a statute and not expired. And the test for common carriage has been expressed in NTSB opinions since then, if I'm not mistaken.

You're correct, it is not a statute, but most lay people don't make a distinction. Nevertheless, the cited NPRM is not discussing 61.113, but a prior regulation. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that's what the author takes issue with.

 

[aggie06]

I think the point being missed about the opinion letter is that it does not set precedent. These letters tell you how the government is likely to proceed in a formal action, but no one else can cite this letter as evidence they are or are not breaking the law.

Even the FAA wouldn't be able to take the letter to court and point to it as law. They would have to make the same case made in the opinion letter to the judge and hope he agreed. I do agree that a judge is likely to side with the executive agency on interpretation if statutes are not clear, but they would still consider both sides of the argument. If statutes are clear or regulations were clearly within the scope of what the statute allows, it's a tough row to hoe to disagree with the executive agency.

I'm not saying anything about the merits of this case. It sounds like there may be some genuine disagreement on the statute and the regulations. If so, then I could see someone like Airpooler challenging it. However, if the regulations were written under a vague "commissioner shall promulgate the necessary aviation regulations" type statute, I don't see why there wouldn't be a new regulation soon. That would be the easiest way for the FAA to make this go away.

 

[Jaybird180]

 

[dtuuri]

long before this letter anyone who actually has experience as a commercial operator knew this was coming.

Yes. Even time sharing agreements, specifically sanctioned for large aircraft in Part 91, can be considered "holding out" when too many of them in the FAA's eyes are arranged by the same operator. Anyone who's researched those wouldn't be surprised at this either. It seems only the newbies have their panties in wad over this. That figures because it's always the newbies who are going to "straighten it out" and "show us how it should be done". Never heard of Goyer, must be a Newbie.

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

How would you? The PBOR has more to do with enforcements and such, and since you obviously don't have access to such information how can you make such a statement?

Lots of enforcement actions listed on the NTSB site, including the ones which were appealed to the US Court of Appeals and remanded, and I don't see how a case could get to that court without going through the NTSB and thus being on their public web site. From what I've seen, the only effect the PBOR has had is to add another piece of paper you have to sign for practical tests and interactions with the FAA.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Lots of enforcement actions listed on the NTSB site, including the ones which were appealed to the US Court of Appeals and remanded, and I don't see how a case could get to that court without going through the NTSB and thus being on their public web site. From what I've seen, the only effect the PBOR has had is to add another piece of paper you have to sign for practical tests and interactions with the FAA.

The enforcements you see on the NTSB site are but a small percentage of total enforcements written. Many enforcements go unchallenged and don't make it to the NTSB. Making a sweeping remark such as yours alludes to knowledge that you certainly don't have access to.

 

[Palmpilot]

What will it take for the FAA to convince pilots these regs really mean what they say?

I think the "holding out" restriction needs to be added to 61.113(c). Expecting private pilots to be familiar with air taxi regulations, Chief Counsel opinions, and case law is seriously unrealistic, IMO.

 

[poadeleted20]

If I believe that a Chief Counsel interpretation letter is not according to the law, then I will act on that belief rather than their interpretation. Others can do what they will, but since you insist others follow your advice, I'll advise them to follow mine.

The difference between us is that I can guarantee you'll never get in trouble for following the advice I give on this point. You can't say the same, and doing what you suggest could be very, very expensive if your attorneys can't convince the NTSB or US Court of Appeals that the FAA interpretation was wrong.

BTW, I would point out that the case you cited involved a pilot beating the regulations on a legal technicality related to drug use because the regulation only said flying with the drug itself was prohibited, not that use of the drug as indicated by the presence of metabolites in your blood was a violation. And that pilot did not know of the FAA's interpretation on point and deliberately act contrary to it, either, so that's not the situation about which we are speaking, anyway. Find me a case where the court (or even the NTSB) rejected an FAA interpretation written before the event and the pilot knowingly acted contrary to it, and I'll be more willing to reconsider my position.

With respect to the PBR, it appears that the first court to deal with it has limited the scope and meaning of its "full independent review":

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2329339228184269922&hl=en&as_sdt=6,38&as_ylo=2013

In particular, I note the following from that decision:

In sum, neither the text of the statute, nor its legislative history, suggests that Congress intended to depart from firmly the firmly rooted principles that govern judicial review of administrative proceedings.
... Accordingly, I conclude that petitioner is not entitled to a new hearing on the merits in this court, and that I may overturn the decision to revoke his medical certificate only if I determine, based on the administrative record, that that decision is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(a)(2).[6]

[6] Of course, if I determine that the administrative record is insufficient to establish the legality of the NTSB's decision, I may ultimately vacate the decision and remand for further administrative proceedings, but in no event will petitioner be entitled to a "de novo" hearing here.

Rather disappointing, I should think, to those who expected to be able to easily negate the FAA's and NTSB's positions on what is allowed by appealing to the courts.

 

[poadeleted20]

The enforcements you see on the NTSB site are but a small percentage of total enforcements written. Many enforcements go unchallenged and don't make it to the NTSB. Making a sweeping remark such as yours alludes to knowledge that you certainly don't have access to.

If the case doesn't make it to the NTSB, then there is no way the NTSB or US Court of Appeals could have overturned an FAA interpretation of its own regulations, which is the issue under discussion.

 

[cowman]

I think the "holding out" restriction needs to be added to 61.113(c). Expecting private pilots to be familiar with air taxi regulations, Chief Counsel opinions, and case law is seriously unrealistic, IMO.

Yeah. I think all cost sharing ought to be allowed as long as there's no profit made, but at the very least the regulations should say what they mean.

Nobody covered this interpretation or case law stuff in my primary training. If I'd not been on POA reading about it, I'd have believed that pro rata share means pro rata share end of story.

It is absolutely unreasonable to expect pilots to just know about stuff they are making up on the spot.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think the "holding out" restriction needs to be added to 61.113(c). Expecting private pilots to be familiar with air taxi regulations, Chief Counsel opinions, and case law is seriously unrealistic, IMO.

I don't think you need to be familiar with them all, but to a limited extent, I think you raise a valid point. This comes from Part 119, but the requirements for PP's say:

Task A: Certificates and Documents (ASEL and ASES)​

References: 14 CFR parts 39, 43, 61, 91; FAA-H-8083-3, FAA-H-​

8083-23, FAA-H-8083-25; POH/AFM.​

Objective:​

​

​

​

​

To determine that the applicant exhibits satisfactory​

knowledge of the elements related to certificates and​

documents by:​

1. Explaining—​

a. private pilot certificate privileges, limitations, and recent​

flight experience requirements.​

b. medical certificate class and duration.​

c. pilot logbook or flight records.

...and Part 119 isn't among the Parts listed. Of course, the instructor signing the applicant's endorsement does hold a CP ticket, and thus should be familiar with these, and ensure the applicant knows these rules, but perhaps adding Part 119 to the list of regs in the PTS for this Task would be an appropriate way to remind instructors of this, and would not require going through the rulemaking process to accomplish.

 

[Lindberg]

Apropos of nothing, the unauthorized practice of law is a felony in some places.

 

[JeffDG]

I think all cost sharing ought to be allowed as long as there's no profit made

Well, that would make Part 121 basically obsolete. Very few of those carriers ever make a profit, as evidenced by their periodic trips through bankruptcy.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yeah. I think all cost sharing ought to be allowed as long as there's no profit made,

I don't think that will ever fly.

but at the very least the regulations should say what they mean.

They do. The problem is, folks try to pretend it's OK to do what the regs prohibit as long as they can twist the words in a self-serving manner, or just ignore the parts they don't like.

Nobody covered this interpretation or case law stuff in my primary training.

No need for all that. Your instructor needed only to cover the regulations and what they mean in regard to Private Pilot privileges and limitations. If s/he failed to do that, then that's where your annoyance should be directed. The interpretations and case law are just reference material.

It is absolutely unreasonable to expect pilots to just know about stuff they are making up on the spot.

The FAA didn't make up any of this "on the spot". As noted, these rules have been around for a very long time, in some cases longer than the FAA has existed. What's changed is the ability of pilots to reach out to a wider audience to find people to ride with them, but since the FAA said decades ago that college ride boards with handwritten 3x5 cards that reach a few hundred or maybe a thousand people weren't kosher for this, I don't see how anyone could expect that the internet which reaches millions of people would be OK.

 

[Palmpilot]

I don't think you need to be familiar with them all, but to a limited extent, I think you raise a valid point. This comes from Part 119, but the requirements for PP's say:
...and Part 119 isn't among the Parts listed. Of course, the instructor signing the applicant's endorsement does hold a CP ticket, and thus should be familiar with these, and ensure the applicant knows these rules, but perhaps adding Part 119 to the list of regs in the PTS for this Task would be an appropriate way to remind instructors of this, and would not require going through the rulemaking process to accomplish.

There's enough confusion and controversy over these regulations and interpretations that I think the holding out restriction needs to be added to 61.113 itself, or at least a cross reference to the specific section of Part 119 that prohibits holding out. I don't think adding the whole of Part 119 to the list of references in the private pilot PTS is going to deal with the level of confusion that's out there; it's too much like saying, "There's a needle in this haystack that you need to know about, but it's up to you to find it."

 

[dtuuri]

There's enough confusion and controversy over these regulations and interpretations that I think the holding out restriction needs to be added to 61.113 itself, or at least a cross reference to the specific section of Part 119 that prohibits holding out.

What "specific section of Part 119" do you have in mind?

dtuuri

 

[cowman]

I don't think that will ever fly.

I don't think so either. I'm just saying if a buddy wants to pay for the gas to fly him from point A to point B but just fuel.. no extra money for my time/services then that should be allowed.

They do. The problem is, folks try to pretend it's OK to do what the regs prohibit as long as they can twist the words in a self-serving manner, or just ignore the parts they don't like.

I just re-read 61.113 and I don't see anything in it that says ride sharing isn't allowed. I don't see any twisting or ignoring, it says what it says.

No need for all that. Your instructor needed only to cover the regulations and what they mean in regard to Private Pilot privileges and limitations. If s/he failed to do that, then that's where your annoyance should be directed. The interpretations and case law are just reference material.

I was given scenarios like "if someone approaches you and offers $1000 to fly
him to St Louis can you do it?" Nobody ever said anything about ride sharing... I was just taught about pro-rata share.

The FAA didn't make up any of this "on the spot". As noted, these rules have been around for a very long time, in some cases longer than the FAA has existed. What's changed is the ability of pilots to reach out to a wider audience to find people to ride with them, but since the FAA said decades ago that college ride boards with handwritten 3x5 cards that reach a few hundred or maybe a thousand people weren't kosher for this, I don't see how anyone could expect that the internet which reaches millions of people would be OK.

Maybe so but I'd never heard of this before. I don't see how a reasonable person would read 61.113 and see a problem. If they want this to be the case, then why isn't it just written right into the regulations? It's not clear at all. I saw something about there being stuff in part 121 that applies but as a private pilot I never though I was expected to know anything in part 121.

And perhaps a more pertinent point.... Why the heck isn't it ok?

 

[poadeleted20]

There's enough confusion and controversy over these regulations and interpretations that I think the holding out restriction needs to be added to 61.113 itself, or at least a cross reference to the specific section of Part 119 that prohibits holding out. I don't think adding the whole of Part 119 to the list of references in the private pilot PTS is going to deal with the level of confusion that's out there; it's too much like saying, "There's a needle in this haystack that you need to know about, but it's up to you to find it."

I don't think there's any confusion on this issue other than that contributed by those Private Pilots who feel they should be allowed to charge passengers for rides and are trying very hard to find a loophole which allows them to do so. Beyond that, the rules are summarized pretty simply:

1. You can't advertise.
2. You can't collect more than the pro rata per seat share of the direct cost of the flight.
3. You must have a reason for your trip to that place on that date other to fly the plane.

That's it. Just how hard is that to understand? Because I'm sure it's pretty easy to explain to Student Pilots.

 

[cowman]

I don't think there's any confusion on this issue other than that contributed by those Private Pilots who feel they should be allowed to charge passengers for rides and are trying very hard to find a loophole which allows them to do so. Beyond that, the rules are summarized pretty simply:

1. You can't advertise.
2. You can't collect more than the pro rata per seat share of the direct cost of the flight.
3. You must have a reason for your trip to that place on that date other to fly the plane.

That's it. Just how hard is that to understand?

Show me the regulation that says you can't advertise. Show me the regulation that makes "a reason for your trip to that place on that date other than to fly the plane" is required.

Pro rata share... clearly stated in the regs. If the flight costs me $400 and there are 4 people, I can take up to $300 for costs.

I don't see what's so clear about it.... yes yes we know from the endless discussion on this topic it isn't but that's all from interpretation letters and random publications not anything in any regulation that I've seen.

 

[poadeleted20]

Show me the regulation that says you can't advertise. Show me the regulation that makes "a reason for your trip to that place on that date other than to fly the plane" is required.

Pro rata share... clearly stated in the regs. If the flight costs me $400 and there are 4 people, I can take up to $300 for costs.

I don't see what's so clear about it.... yes yes we know from the endless discussion on this topic it isn't but that's all from interpretation letters and random publications not anything in any regulation that I've seen.

I give up. Do what you want. But sign up for the AOPA Legal Services Plan before you do.