Flytenow Hearing

[acrophile]

Where the line blurs is a PPL who hops on Flytenow, and sees a req for a ride share from Chi-town to Boston area next week and thinks to himself; 'Hmmm, I could go for some fresh lobster next week, so that means I have a reason to go to Bean Town, therefore we have a common purpose, therefore this fits the definition of the FAA, therefore I will contact this person and offer to let them sit in my plane, and pay me gas money.'

Did Flytenow ever allow passengers to request specific flights? My recollection is that only pilots could propose forthcoming flights. If passengers could request flights, that would be a very different matter.

 

[petrolero]

That's a bit delusional. I can't fathom the commercial airlines are even remotely worried about services like Flytenow. Smaller charter operations, maybe. But I doubt this is much more than a blip on the radar at SWA, United, Delta, etc.

Delusional? How? Use your imagination. This is about *far* more than just FlyteNow. It's about the concept of allowing pilots and passengers to get together using a website or other means of communication.

Don't kid yourself. If this manages to get any traction beyond these early hearing stages you'll see commercial airlines jump into the fray. At this point there's not much need - the FAA is doing the work for them.

 

[acrophile]

ac120-12a

A carrier becomes a common carrier when it "holds itself out" or to a segment of the public, as willing to furnish transportation within the limits of its facilities to any person who wants it.

it doesn't have to be in part 91 to matter.

Yes, that's the point. The whole concept of "holding out" only applies to operations that are acting as carriers: "holding out" makes a carrier a common carrier.

But if you're not acting as a carrier to begin with--and if you're just doing pro-rata cost-sharing for a common-purpose flight, then you're not acting as a carrier--then there is no regulation that prohibits (or even addresses) your "holding out".

 

[bradg33]

Yes, that's the point. The whole concept of "holding out" only applies to operations that are acting as carriers: "holding out" makes a carrier a common carrier.

But if you're not acting as a carrier to begin with--and if you're just doing pro-rata cost-sharing for a common-purpose flight, then you're not acting as a carrier--then there is no regulation that prohibits (or even addresses) your "holding out".

You understand there is also no regulation that mentions "common purpose," right? Like in every other facet of law/regulation, caselaw and administrative guidance plays a role. Administrative guidance, like ACs and such, is given great weight by the courts, as agencies are generally given a lot of latitude in interpreting their own regulations.

 

[Everskyward]

Did Flytenow ever allow passengers to request specific flights? My recollection is that only pilots could propose forthcoming flights. If passengers could request flights, that would be a very different matter.

This. I don't have any problem with flight sharing sites as long as the passengers are aware there isn't the same level as oversight as with a commercial operation. I got into a single-engine airplane with someone I had never met the other day, but I didn't have the expectation that it was as statistically "safe" as the Southwest Airlines flight I had taken a few days before.

 

[eetrojan]

I guess I don't have a problem with 'holding out' as defined by the FAA and that's where I differ. People 'hold out' now. The only difference here is the medium.

That's not the only difference. The other differences are the audience reached by this medium, i.e. the public on the whole, and the ability, if it scales due to the medium, for individual members of the public to shop from among hundreds or thousands of intended flights for one that serves their specific needs for transportation. Seems a lot different to me.

 

[The-Flying-Lawyer]

I would be hot to go on Flytenow, just for the case of a ski buddy or two for my trips to CO. But, anyone getting in my plane would have to know that it is time permitting, and if I don't like the situation then we just don't fly, and that is the end of discussion.

I agree 100% with you there. Frankly, that's what GA is supposed to be, and if the FAA monitors Flytenow like a hawk to weed out risky pilots it'd be fine by me. I don't want Flytenow to make people think private GA is something it isn't; I want Flytenow to bring the full risk and responsibility and thrill and magic of GA to a bunch of people who know nothing about it. We're lying to ourselves if we pretend the risk/responsibility isn't integral to our pilotage addiction. Without that responsibility, the freedom of the ticket wouldn't mean so much. I think there are a lot of potential passengers who'd get the same rush out of it that I get every time I line up on final, and I think they should have a chance to weigh the risks for themselves.

 

[acrophile]

You understand there is also no regulation that mentions "common purpose," right? Like in every other facet of law/regulation, caselaw and administrative guidance plays a role. Administrative guidance, like ACs and such, is given great weight by the courts, as agencies are generally given a lot of latitude in interpreting their own regulations.

Good point. But as far as I know, there are also no ACs or precedents (before the Flytenow ruling) where the concept of "holding out" was applied to non-carrier, common-purpose, pro-rata cost-sharing flights. If there are any that I'm unaware of, I'd appreciate citations.

 

[bradg33]

if the FAA monitors Flytenow like a hawk to weed out risky pilots it'd be fine by me.

The FAA's budget almost certainly doesn't have room for that kind of monitoring. Really, the FAA already "weeds out risky pilots" offering flights to the general public via parts 119, 121 and 135.

 

[gkainz]

To be fair to the FAA, ...

said no pilot ever ... until now.

 

[petrolero]

That's not the only difference. The other differences are the audience reached by this medium, i.e. the public on the whole, and the ability, if it scales due to the medium, for individual members of the public to shop from among hundreds or thousands of intended flights for one that serves their specific needs for transportation. Seems a lot different to me.

They may be able to see lots of flights but 99% would be irrelevant to them. The only ones they would care about would be local flights with a destination that matches where they want to go.

Yes it certainly reaches a larger total audience within that local area and I think that is the point of it - with enough participants it becomes a bit more likely to find a confluence of interests that results in a ride-share.

To me, it's all in the disclosures of what you're getting vs what you're not getting. For example, you're not getting a return flight unless you and the pilot agree or unless you find another guy who happens to be returning approximately when you need to. There's no guarantee of going at all, etc.

Caveat emptor and carry on is my view.

 

[petrolero]

said no pilot ever ... until now.

 

[exncsurfer]

They may be able to see lots of flights but 99% would be irrelevant to them. The only ones they would care about would be local flights with a destination that matches where they want to go.

Yes it certainly reaches a larger total audience within that local area and I think that is the point of it - with enough participants it becomes a bit more likely to find a confluence of interests that results in a ride-share.

To me, it's all in the disclosures of what you're getting vs what you're not getting. For example, you're not getting a return flight unless you and the pilot agree or unless you find another guy who happens to be returning approximately when you need to. There's no guarantee of going at all, etc.

Caveat emptor and carry on is my view.

I can't wrap my head around what all the fuss is about. The pilot is paying his share out of pocket to fly, not making money, just spending less money. Why care with whom he decides to fly or how they met and coordinated the ride. I can't see how they are afraid this would snowball into something impactful to airlines or whatever else they're(FAA) afraid of. The more rides a pilot gives, the more time he must have to spare and more money(his share) he is spending. In most average sized towns, I guess you might see a couple of rides a week generated after this got 'popular'.

 

[MAKG1]

I can't wrap my head around what all the fuss is about. The pilot is paying his share out of pocket to fly, not making money, just spending less money. Why care with whom he decides to fly or how they met and coordinated the ride. I can't see how they are afraid this would snowball into something impactful to airlines or whatever else they're(FAA) afraid of. The more rides a pilot gives, the more time he must have to spare and more money(his share) he is spending. In most average sized towns, I guess you might see a couple of rides a week generated after this got 'popular'.

I think the fuss is from the opposite perspective.

The FAA is afraid of repeating Buddy Holly's death, which was due to an inexperienced and underqualified pilot clearly affected by get-there-itis.

 

[The-Flying-Lawyer]

The FAA's budget almost certainly doesn't have room for that kind of monitoring. Really, the FAA already "weeds out risky pilots" offering flights to the general public via parts 119, 121 and 135.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm suggesting Flytenow would give the FAA a chance to crack down on get-there-itis among part 91 pilots by giving the agency extra data about the pilots' intentions far before the day of the potential flight. It isn't about beefing up enforcement; it's about handing bad apples to the FAA on a silver platter.

If I was clear, maybe you're suggesting that all part 91 ops are flown by "risky pilots?" As the son and grandson of old (not bold) pilots, I know that is simply not the case. You don't have to be a professional to be a safe and responsible pilot.

 

[bradg33]

If I was clear, maybe you're suggesting that all part 91 ops are flown by "risky pilots?"

That's not at all what I was suggesting. But for those who want to offer flights to the general public in exchange for money, the FAA's "protection" scheme is set forth in 119, 121 and 135.

 

[The-Flying-Lawyer]

That shows the basic discrepancy between the two sides here: I just don't think what Flytenow or the pilots using it want to do is "offer flights to the general public in exchange for money." I know so because I'm one of them! People who actually want to fly and make money will continue to have to use parts 119, 121, and 135 (or teach flight lessons). Flytenow costs money. It's true that this service might allow a pilot to make a flight he wants to make but otherwise could not afford. Is that so evil? Why? The passenger is a consenting adult who may or may not be a pilot but wants to ride along and share the cost. In addition, the proposed operation here isn't new: cost sharing has probably been around since the beginning of flight itself. The exact same flight would be legal if advertised by word of mouth but illegal if by Flytenow; the FAA is just trying to make the pilots use a smaller megaphone.

If we're serious about GA's survival, we have to let people in on it. We try to do that in a lot of ways, but we're losing that fight. I think Flytenow is a reasonable way to try and bolster our efforts.

 

[petrolero]

Never mind the airline angle. I contend it is a latent motive, but it doesn't even matter.

The fuss is about this vague concept of 'holding out' and 'common purpose'.

The FAA purports to regulate our thoughts and our motives beyond just our actions. The example someone gave above is a good one. If I'm persuaded to fly with a guy to Boston because he has a need to go there and I happened to think "Yeah I could go to Boston - sounds cool." But the FAA would say that is a no no. I say the FAA is FOS. Because the same flight, if I suggested it, all else identical. Is legal.

The only difference is whose idea it was? No, that's an attempt to regulate people's thoughts, desires, motives, etc. It's wrong and deserves to be challenged. Either I followed the rules in describing my skills and making that flight or I didn't. But they shouldn't get to police my motives for making the flight.

FlyteNow will certainly lose the early rounds of this battle. The FAA does have a long history of interpreting the FARs in this manner. They have been quite deliberate about it over decades. I just hope the issue gains enough momentum and FlyteNow and others (looking at you, AOPA and EAA!) have enough stones to appeal it on up the line and also work the political branches.

I am not, however, holding my breath on any of this.

 

[dell30rb]

The 135 regs are restrictive, and the level of FAA involvement with a 135 operation makes it cost and time prohibitive.

On the other hand, allowing any private pilot to take $$ in an uber style setting seems ridiculous.

A middle ground would be nice.

 

[bradg33]

Never mind the airline angle. I contend it is a latent motive, but it doesn't even matter.

The fuss is about this vague concept of 'holding out' and 'common purpose'.

The FAA purports to regulate our thoughts and our motives beyond just our actions. The example someone gave above is a good one. If I'm persuaded to fly with a guy to Boston because he has a need to go there and I happened to think "Yeah I could go to Boston - sounds cool." But the FAA would say that is a no no. I say the FAA is FOS. Because the same flight, if I suggested it, all else identical. Is legal.

The only difference is whose idea it was? No, that's an attempt to regulate people's thoughts, desires, motives, etc. It's wrong and deserves to be challenged. Either I followed the rules in describing my skills and making that flight or I didn't. But they shouldn't get to police my motives for making the flight.

FlyteNow will certainly lose the early rounds of this battle. The FAA does have a long history of interpreting the FARs in this manner. They have been quite deliberate about it over decades. I just hope the issue gains enough momentum and FlyteNow and others (looking at you, AOPA and EAA!) have enough stones to appeal it on up the line and also work the political branches.

I am not, however, holding my breath on any of this.

My fear is if Flytenow wins, the FAA will just change the rules and that's unlikely to be good for anyone.

 

[midlifeflyer]

And I would ask where does the phrase "holding out" appear in Part 91?

It doesn't. Rather, "holding out" is a principle that is as old as the stagecoach for differentiating public from private carriage. It is not something the FAA made up.

 

[docmirror]

I can't wrap my head around what all the fuss is about. The pilot is paying his share out of pocket to fly, not making money, just spending less money. Why care with whom he decides to fly or how they met and coordinated the ride. I can't see how they are afraid this would snowball into something impactful to airlines or whatever else they're(FAA) afraid of. The more rides a pilot gives, the more time he must have to spare and more money(his share) he is spending. In most average sized towns, I guess you might see a couple of rides a week generated after this got 'popular'.

This makes sense empirically, but no one predicted Uber either. It started in a guy's shed, using a couple small servers and is now international. While I don't see nearly the same penetration as Uber of course, when the gen pop gets a whiff of the idea that they can decide to go last minute from Chi to Bos in a matter of 5 hours, and it'll only cost them $150, there may be a decent market for that. Who knows?

 

[docmirror]

You don't have to be a professional to be a safe and responsible pilot.

That's a very pretty statement, but irrefutable statistics are not on your side.

Further, autumn of 2015 is a really bad time to be having this hearing. You can bet that the FAA is well aware of Mr 310 out in CO slamming into the mtns with pax and no twin rating. Also Mr RV-10 slamming into the ground with 4 innocents in GA recently.

Stats matter, and perception matters as well. We do not fly in a vacuum.

 

[RotorDude]

That shows the basic discrepancy between the two sides here: I just don't think what Flytenow or the pilots using it want to do is "offer flights to the general public in exchange for money." I know so because I'm one of them! People who actually want to fly and make money will continue to have to use parts 119, 121, and 135 (or teach flight lessons). Flytenow costs money. It's true that this service might allow a pilot to make a flight he wants to make but otherwise could not afford. Is that so evil? Why? The passenger is a consenting adult who may or may not be a pilot but wants to ride along and share the cost. In addition, the proposed operation here isn't new: cost sharing has probably been around since the beginning of flight itself. The exact same flight would be legal if advertised by word of mouth but illegal if by Flytenow; the FAA is just trying to make the pilots use a smaller megaphone.

If we're serious about GA's survival, we have to let people in on it. We try to do that in a lot of ways, but we're losing that fight. I think Flytenow is a reasonable way to try and bolster our efforts.

Again, I completely disagree. I think there are plenty of pilots who would view this as an easy opportunity to build time cheaply, so to them there will be a strong motivation to "hold out" to the public to find willing passengers.
In such cases, when they catch a live one, the pilot will feel obligated to fly on the given schedule to the given destination, creating a strong get-there-itis effect. This pilot will be, almost by definition, inexperienced and underqualified for such flying, which will soon enough encounter adverse weather conditions. His equipment will also be, again by definition, inadequate in capability and maintenance level. IMO, anybody who questions these points has not flown thousands of hours in small privately-owned GA aircraft with a good percentage IMC in varying weather, trying to meet important schedules.
The FAA makes a very logical determination of a "bright line" which allows the general public to have a reasonable expectation of minimal safety when they board an aircraft advertised on public media for which they pay money.
I think I know this industry reasonably well, and I wouldn't want my friends or loved ones flying on a private GA aircraft of dubious maintenance status flown by a low time pilot with minimal total and recent IMC hours. The FAA is justified in demanding the same for the general population who aren't qualified to make this determination on their own.

 

[docmirror]

http://members.boardhost.com/patsyclinemusic/msg/1362527954.html

This what the FAA envisions when they think about PPLs and carrying pax. To me, although it gets less attention than the Buddy Holly crash this one is even worse.

 

[Hank S]

Lots of people using The Buddy Holly and Patsy Cline crashes as reasons why PPLs shouldn't be able to give rides to people we don't know, in return for a pro raga share of expenses. But correct me: were not these two pilots holders of Commercial Certificates, employed by legitimate 135 Charter operations?

And I take exception to the jerkoff above (obviously an airline pilot) who DEFINES all PPLs and all of privately owned GA to be incompetent, unprofessional, poorly maintained pieces of junk looking for a place to crash! $&@#%¥ you and the high horse you rode in on, you $&@ piece of runny dog excrement!

 

[The-Flying-Lawyer]

That's a very pretty statement, but irrefutable statistics are not on your side.

Further, autumn of 2015 is a really bad time to be having this hearing. You can bet that the FAA is well aware of Mr 310 out in CO slamming into the mtns with pax and no twin rating. Also Mr RV-10 slamming into the ground with 4 innocents in GA recently.

Stats matter, and perception matters as well. We do not fly in a vacuum.

They do, and to be clear I'm not suggesting all part 91 ops are performed by safe, proficient pilots. Some are, and those who take their responsibility seriously should be able to use the internet to implement the Pro rata exemption that is already ok'd.

 

[denverpilot]

My automotive insurance company notified me this year that participation in Uber or Lyft style ride sharing systems will require an additional insurance waiver or all claims will be denied.

FlyteNow and FAA aside, if there's a real risk that develops of significant fiscal harm to insurance companies due to message boards or other systems developed by people like FlyteNow, the insurance companies will make certain they don't lose any profits over it.

The whole problem is fiscally self-limiting.

As a side note: NTSB has started the process of re-opening the docket on the Holly crash, if folks weren't aware. Back in March they acknowledged officially a petition that stated their initial investigation may have been flawed.

http://m.globegazette.com/news/loca...cle_1df19109-eb72-55e3-b404-675a36d5b650.html

http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hitlist.cfm?docketID=57106&CFID=508165&CFTOKEN=77489723

 

[Kritchlow]

I am on the Fed's side here.
On a side note, where would it end? Could some rich dude with a PPL buy an A380, then advertise a trip to Europe and load up 500 folks as long as charges were pro rata?

I realize that isn't realistic, but wanted to emphasize my point.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I am on the Fed's side here.
On a side note, where would it end? Could some rich dude with a PPL buy an A380, then advertise a trip to Europe and load up 500 folks as long as charges were pro rata?

I realize that isn't realistic, but wanted to emphasize my point.

Agreed. All the Flytenow system will do is open up Part 134 1/2 operations as they exploit this.

 

[dtuuri]

Lots of people using The Buddy Holly and Patsy Cline crashes as reasons why PPLs shouldn't be able to give rides to people we don't know, in return for a pro raga share of expenses. But correct me: were not these two pilots holders of Commercial Certificates, employed by legitimate 135 Charter operations?

You are corrected: They were not. Buddy Holly's pilot was a 19 year old CFI.

dtuuri

 

[yetti]

I would probably never do it. But Private means for you. What if the argument was FlyteNow for those with Commercial rating.

 

[dtuuri]

But Private means for you. What if the argument was FlyteNow for those with Commercial rating.

No difference at all, IMO, unless the plane was owned by the passenger.

dtuuri

 

[yetti]

Most of the argument has been under trained in shoddy planes. One somewhat aggressive pilot I know was somewhat miffed when he got his commercial rating and found out there was not much that could be done with it.

 

[MAKG1]

You are corrected: They were not. Buddy Holly's pilot was a 19 year old CFI.

dtuuri

Buddy Holly's pilot was an instrument student. Maybe he could have been both at the time, but he wasn't qualified for the conditions he flew in.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

The 135 regs are restrictive, and the level of FAA involvement with a 135 operation makes it cost and time prohibitive.

On the other hand, allowing any private pilot to take $$ in an uber style setting seems ridiculous.

A middle ground would be nice.

I would argue that the mickey mouse regulations and way people operate 135 carriers make 135 not restrictive enough.

 

[petrolero]

That's a very pretty statement, but irrefutable statistics are not on your side.

Further, autumn of 2015 is a really bad time to be having this hearing. You can bet that the FAA is well aware of Mr 310 out in CO slamming into the mtns with pax and no twin rating. Also Mr RV-10 slamming into the ground with 4 innocents in GA recently.

Stats matter, and perception matters as well. We do not fly in a vacuum.

So you do have to be a professional to be a safe and responsible pilot? It's miraculous that I'm still alive in that case.

The trouble here is that you are confusing statistics with individual outcomes. They are not the same thing. The stats are the stats, but - also irrefutable - is the fact that there are thousands of private pilots who go their entire flying lives without injury or bent metal. You're talking about the former, he's talking about the latter and you are both correct as far as you go.

 

[petrolero]

My automotive insurance company notified me this year that participation in Uber or Lyft style ride sharing systems will require an additional insurance waiver or all claims will be denied.

FlyteNow and FAA aside, if there's a real risk that develops of significant fiscal harm to insurance companies due to message boards or other systems developed by people like FlyteNow, the insurance companies will make certain they don't lose any profits over it.

The whole problem is fiscally self-limiting.

As a side note: NTSB has started the process of re-opening the docket on the Holly crash, if folks weren't aware. Back in March they acknowledged officially a petition that stated their initial investigation may have been flawed.

http://m.globegazette.com/news/loca...cle_1df19109-eb72-55e3-b404-675a36d5b650.html

http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hitlist.cfm?docketID=57106&CFID=508165&CFTOKEN=77489723

I don't think find the comparison to Uber and Lyft as fitting since there is no profit in this for GA. Uber and Lyft are for-profit services, FlyteNow is a glorified message board.

But it could provide some cost sharing, which might increase the total number of hours flown by GA - which could actually decrease the accident-per-hour rate, and quite possibly increase the number of private pilots out there as it may expose more people to GA.

It's not clear to me that the FlyteNow service would necessarily increase the cost to insurers and it could be a boon in the sense that more pilots would be making more flights.

But I will say that if this had a negative effect on GA safety (and it could result in, say, more injuries per accident, who knows) it would be reflected in premiums. No doubt there.

 

[petrolero]

I am on the Fed's side here.
On a side note, where would it end? Could some rich dude with a PPL buy an A380, then advertise a trip to Europe and load up 500 folks as long as charges were pro rata?

I realize that isn't realistic, but wanted to emphasize my point.

Why couldn't he do that now? The only difference is how he finds the people.

 

[Kritchlow]

So you do have to be a professional to be a safe and responsible pilot? It's miraculous that I'm still alive in that case.

The trouble here is that you are confusing statistics with individual outcomes. They are not the same thing. The stats are the stats, but - also irrefutable - is the fact that there are thousands of private pilots who go their entire flying lives without injury or bent metal. You're talking about the former, he's talking about the latter and you are both correct as far as you go.

I think any pilot is capable of being plenty safe. Obviously some PPL guys are safe. That said, if you play the percentages it clearly is a one sided arguement. Not just because someone may have a CPL vs PPL, but 135/121 outfits generally have well defined training, SOP's, mtc programs, and policies/procedures that dictate their every move. A high level of standardization does indeed make a difference.