Folks will probability recall the discussions about the two Chief Counsel opinions regarding the proposed FlyteNow and AirPooler operations to set up a bulletin board for private pilots to post planned flights and for other people to pick a flight to go an and share the expense. FlyteNow has sued the FAA over the interpretations with the support of the Goldwater Institute think tank. There are a few stories out there on it most pretty short. For anyone interested in reading FlyteNow's formal legal position, the Goldwater Institute posted it on their website: Petitioner's Brief It's long - over 70 pages double-spaced, including some of the references. It goes further and makes a number of legal arguments but, to summarize a bit, the primary argument is (1) shared cost flight is a "traditional" pilot privilege; (2) shared flight requires some forms of communication between pilot and passengers. which the FAA has always permitted; and (3) the FlyteNow model follows all of the existing rules and interpretations, with; (4) only thing the twin interpretations in fact doing being prohibiting Internet communication (which they argue implicates first Amendment privileges among other things). Being a legal brief, those statements are not just the opinion of the writer. They are supported by reference to FAA materials and interpretations, cases, and some historical documents. Just as a matter of history, some migh find the "traditional" sharing privilege argument and supporting material kind of interesting.