FlyteNow Sues FAA (Uber for pilots)

[docmirror]

If I can boil this down to a phrase, limited to the present scenario, we should be more careful that the FAA is abusing its mission to improve the safety of aviation by trying to make people safe FROM aviation.

I like succinct. I'm rarely capable of it.

 

[qbynewbie]

I think the primary issue is what gets defined as business. What is missing is the ability to (legally) provide a friend a ride for the price of fuel, or for pilots to assume the risk for their own safety in these decisions.

We can legally provide a friend a ride and accept a prorata share of the cost from our friend. Does it often happen that the friend provides more than that? I'd argue yes but it's between friends and that's where it stops.

I'd be in support of a change that allows pilots to share flights without any common purpose other than sharing the flight. If I'm flying to NY and you're free and want to go along and split the cost, that should be fine, if for no other reason than it likely has a valid training motive -- and it's fun. But when it comes to non-pilot members of the public, that's what the airlines for and I don't want to run an airline and I don't my friends flying on a mini-Airline run by Joe Private Pilot.

 

[poadeleted20]

I hate to see freedoms eroded, too. But you and others like you would do away with the FAA. DO they not have an important role to play?

The CAA (the forerunner to the FAA) did not come into existence for a couple of decades after the Wright brothers started the show. Why did that happen? Injury, death, and destruction, on a scale sufficient to scare the jeebers out of the public. As the fictional former WWI squadron commander said to Waldo Pepper in the movie of that name, "You done it to yourselves, buddy boy." Qby's post above about the potential issues arising from this is directly parallel to why the CAA was established in the 1920's, and why the rules on air taxi operations were developed in the 1950's.

It's clear from the accident stats and reports that too many private pilots in their own planes are just not worthy of the necessary level of trust to be permitted to offer air transportation for hire or compensation to the uneducated general public. Opening the floodgates to private pilots to accept payment from the general public for air transportation in privately owned planes flown by private pilots (and businesses like FlyteNow) to accept compensation for arranging those flights) would only make things worse, not better, for GA, as the accidents and lawsuits involving paid flights hit the press. And that's why the FAA is actually looking out for light GA's best interests by its position in this matter.

To a certain extent, I'd just as soon let this happen and see how long it is before FlyteNow is sued out of existence over an accident involving a flight booked through its system. However, I think the long term harm to light GA from such an outcome would outweigh the value of the lesson learned.

 

[poadeleted20]

At which point in the history of US aviation have private pilots been allowed to advertise flights and essentially sell tickets to the paying public?

Oh, say, about a hundred years ago. Then the public outcry over the bloody results drove the Federal government to create the CAA and make rules to reduce the carnage.

 

[DJTorrente]

I think the long term harm to light GA from such an outcome would outweigh the value of the lesson learned.

If we don't find ways to reverse the decline of GenAv, there will be nothing left to regulate.

 

[David7700]

My rebuttal is that due to your profession, you are stuck in the minutia of the situation. To use a metaphor, you have a tress vs forest deal brewing. Thanks again for the debate points.

If the forest is that we should not have drivers licenses, traffic laws, drug laws, criminal laws, FAA regulations, or any other government intrusion on our lives, then you are correct. But why wish for that world or even discuss it? That just isn't going to happen.

 

[David7700]

If the FAA does not regulate and enforce this issue under their own decision, then the FAA holds liability for the failures produced through that negligence, and you CAN sue the FAA.



OTOH, if the Courts rule on the matter and tell the FAA, "You may not enforce...", then the Court assumes the liability of that decision, a court that you Cannot sue. This removes all practical liability from the government and places it with the insurance industry by default.



Remember, everything in America is about money and liability for loss of money. Somebody has to be liable.

The government is not liable due to sovereign immunity. There are only limited instances when the government would be liable.

 

[docmirror]

If the forest is that we should not have drivers licenses, traffic laws, drug laws, criminal laws, FAA regulations, or any other government intrusion on our lives, then you are correct. But why wish for that world or even discuss it? That just isn't going to happen.

Darn, you still barely missed it. But - that's ok.

 

[DJTorrente]

If the forest is that we should not have drivers licenses, traffic laws, drug laws, criminal laws, FAA regulations, or any other government intrusion on our lives, then you are correct. But why wish for that world or even discuss it? That just isn't going to happen.

You're caricaturing your opposition in extremis, and its not a fair argument.

I see nothing in your argument to convince anyone that a PPL is less safe when they split costs with their passengers. If you want to argue that a PPL holder is simply unsafe, then you're arguing to ban all GenAv.

Besides, the parade of horribles that you've run out has nothing to do with how the pilot and passenger met (airport bulletin board v. internet forum). The specter of "holding out" and Part 134.5 operations centers around a bona fide common purpose. Its already been decided that a pilot looking for hours and a passenger looking to go somewhere do not have a bona fide common purpose at the particular destination of the flight. No one is arguing that limitation go away.

 

[ClimbnSink]

If we don't find ways to reverse the decline of GenAv, there will be nothing left to regulate.

FlyteNow winning would be good for GA. More flights, more exposure, every FlyteNow ride is an intro flight. Exposing Joe public to the utility and fun of GA.

 

[David7700]

If we don't find ways to reverse the decline of GenAv, there will be nothing left to regulate.

That is a real concern of mine, but 1. I don't think FlyteNow and Airpooler will stop that decline and 2. That should not be a factor in determining whether such operations or arrangements comply with federal law.

 

[David7700]

Darn, you still barely missed it. But - that's ok.

Missed what? You're going to have to explain yourself a little here. I'm not the brightest person here.

 

[qbynewbie]

You're caricaturing your opposition in extremis, and its not a fair argument.

I see nothing in your argument to convince anyone that a PPL is less safe when they split costs with their passengers. If you want to argue that a PPL holder is simply unsafe, then you're arguing to ban all GenAv.

Besides, the parade of horribles that you've run out has nothing to do with how the pilot and passenger met (airport bulletin board v. internet forum). The specter of "holding out" and Part 134.5 operations centers around a bona fide common purpose. Its already been decided that a pilot looking for hours and a passenger looking to go somewhere do not have a bona fide common purpose at the particular destination of the flight. No one is arguing that limitation go away.

You are missing the point.

The PPL may or may not be safe but, if unsafe, his risk is limited to himself and to those passengers who he has invited and who are flying with him. In most cases, those passengers will be people who know the pilot personally and can judge whether they want to fly with him or not. It's not a perfect situation but at least they have some basis on which to judge.

When you open it up to the paying public, the risk is now spread to the public, who in most cases will have no way at all in which to judge if Joe and his airplane are safe or not. FlyteNow won't help them -- the won't want to be involved in operations in any way because their liability would skyrocket. So it's simply Mrs. Brown and her seven-year-old son showing up to the airport, shaking hands with Joe, and flying off into the wild blue yonder.

Evidently, some people think that's just fine. As a society, we have decided over and over and over that common carriage needs safety standards.

 

[qbynewbie]

I'm not the brightest person here.

Not sure about that, David.

 

[poadeleted20]

I see nothing in your argument to convince anyone that a PPL is less safe when they split costs with their passengers. If you want to argue that a PPL holder is simply unsafe, then you're arguing to ban all GenAv.

Nobody is saying otherwise. However, the FAA is saying that in general, PPL's in their own planes aren't safe enough to be allowed to charge the general public for air transportation -- and the safety/accident records support this. This goes to the heart of the FAA's charter from Congress regarding the graduated level of safety approach, where the regulations become tighter as it moves from Joe Pilot flying around by himself to an operator providing air transportation to the general public on an "all comers accepted as long as there are seats available" basis (i.e., "common carriage").

What FlyteNow is trying to do is lower the safety bar for the provision to the general public of air transportation for compensation/hire. Absent a showing that an adequate level of safety is provided in such operations (which in my opinion cannot be shown), that is contrary to the FAA's Congressional charter, and as such, the FAA is bound to prevent it. As I said above, if the courts hold for FlyteNow, I expect the FAA will rewrite the regulations to eliminate expense-sharing entirely and thus make the knotty questions of who can do it, under what circumstances, how they can locate and communicate with expense-sharing passengers, etc., irrelevant. Do you really want that?

 

[David7700]

You're caricaturing your opposition in extremis, and its not a fair argument.

I see nothing in your argument to convince anyone that a PPL is less safe when they split costs with their passengers. If you want to argue that a PPL holder is simply unsafe, then you're arguing to ban all GenAv.

Besides, the parade of horribles that you've run out has nothing to do with how the pilot and passenger met (airport bulletin board v. internet forum). The specter of "holding out" and Part 134.5 operations centers around a bona fide common purpose. Its already been decided that a pilot looking for hours and a passenger looking to go somewhere do not have a bona fide common purpose at the particular destination of the flight. No one is arguing that limitation go away.

Holding out is advertising your services to broad spectrum of people. And a much larger number. Let's say I want to cost share and fly once a month. Without FlyteNow, I'm not going to get many people. With FlyteNow, I will.

The point of not holding out is to limit (as much as possible) the people I cost-share with to just those that probably know me fairly well or who are in the best position to judge my ability as a pilot and how I maintain my airplane.

 

[poadeleted20]

FlyteNow winning would be good for GA. More flights, more exposure, every FlyteNow ride is an intro flight. Exposing Joe public to the utility and fun of GA.

Until the first accident. Then all that goes down the drain and we're worse off than we were before.

 

[TMetzinger]

So, if I'm reading this right... FlyteNow needs to say "Thanks for the opinion, I note from case law that this isn't a final action, so I'm not bound by it (yet)" Then they go do what they want to do, they get violated as a result, and THEN they have legal standing to sue?

 

[DJTorrente]

You flip the argument when you use the phrase "paying public". The passenger isn't paying for air transportation, they are contributing to costs. This is addressed by the common purpose rule.

Next, does anyone really believe that Mrs. Brown and little Johnny are cruising Flytenow.com as a viable alternative to American airlines? People who are looking for flying opportunities on such a site are already interested in GenAv. Otherwise they wouldn't be there. Whether or not they know the pilot per se, they will know GenAv well enough to make a determination of their own comfort level with the pilot and his plane.

What if Flytenow agreed to a mandatory 'click and accept' disclaimer -- FAA approved, of course -- that explained the differences between Part 91 and Part 135/121 flight ops?

You are missing the point.

The PPL may or may not be safe but, if unsafe, his risk is limited to himself and to those passengers who he has invited and who are flying with him. In most cases, those passengers will be people who know the pilot personally and can judge whether they want to fly with him or not. It's not a perfect situation but at least they have some basis on which to judge.

When you open it up to the paying public, the risk is now spread to the public, who in most cases will have no way at all in which to judge if Joe and his airplane are safe or not. FlyteNow won't help them -- the won't want to be involved in operations in any way because their liability would skyrocket. So it's simply Mrs. Brown and her seven-year-old son showing up to the airport, shaking hands with Joe, and flying off into the wild blue yonder.

Evidently, some people think that's just fine. As a society, we have decided over and over and over that common carriage needs safety standards.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Until the first accident. Then all that goes down the drain and we're worse off than we were before.

If GA can't handle a public accident GA is already beyond saving. How could it be worse then the 7 year old being orphaned or the Mom and her two kids burned to death in their home after the Phenom crash?

 

[qbynewbie]

You flip the argument when you use the phrase "paying public". The passenger isn't paying for air transportation, they are contributing to costs. This is addressed by the common purpose rule.

Sorry, that's a distinction without merit. Mrs. Brown and little Johnny will see "$125 prorata costs per person to NYC" and read "$125 per ticket". It doesn't matter a whit if anyone is making a profit. And who's to know that Joe Pilot isn't padding the costs a little bit to give himself drinking money at lunch?

Next, does anyone really believe that Mrs. Brown and little Johnny are cruising Flytenow.com as a viable alternative to American airlines? People who are looking for flying opportunities on such a site are already interested in GenAv. Otherwise they wouldn't be there. Whether or not they know the pilot per se, they will know GenAv well enough to make a determination of their own comfort level with the pilot and his plane.

There is no basis for this line of reasoning. FlyteNow would open this up to the public. On what basis can you claim that only those who are already interested in GA would be interested in this? And on what basis do you believe that non-pilots are able to make an accurate determination about the safety of Joe and his airplane and how he has planned and will operate his flight?

What if Flytenow agreed to a mandatory 'click and accept' disclaimer -- FAA approved, of course -- that explained the differences between Part 91 and Part 135/121 flight ops?

Nobody pays attention to those. And, anyway, it's irrelevant. We're not talking about liability, we're talking about safety.

 

[docmirror]

Missed what? You're going to have to explain yourself a little here. I'm not the brightest person here.

We should have drivers license, pilot licenses, and regs for the protection of those who engage in these activities. I already agreed to this way back. But - the public needs to remain unfettered, or at least less-fettered(doubt that is a word) with respect to how they run their lives.

Maybe it's my upbringing. I started work in a tire factory at 14. I spent ~5 years in the armed forces while mostly a teen. We have laws to protect the minors, and lets see where that's headed; http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/...-upholds-ruling-that-teen-must-undergo-chemo/

You aren't the master or even the arbiter of your own destiny anymore as a citizen, and that's a dirty dog shame. Will my 'more liberty' plan lead to more deaths? Sure will. Will it lead to more responsible behavior? You bet. Will the 'crats that run the FAA/FCC/SEC/DHS/.... allow that? Nope, they are all here for one purpose -- To Serve Man.

 

[qbynewbie]

If GA can't handle a public accident GA is already beyond saving. How could it be worse then the 7 year old being orphaned or the Mom and her two kids burned to death in their home after the Phenom crash?

Think of the hue and cry after the Buffalo crash -- and that was with the airlines. Just imagine a terrible crash with Mrs. Brown and little Johnny in the back seat, having bought their tickets through FlyteNow.

The flying public, who have started getting used to the idea of FlyteNow as the Uber of the Air, are outraged at the thought of their family members flying on unsafe little planes and, once again, angry family members are petitioning Congress to make rules to crack down on the unsafe flights. Only this tme, instead of being pointed at the airlines, it'll be pointed right at us.

Be careful what you ask for, for you might just get it.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Nobody pays attention to those. And, anyway, it's irrelevant. We're not talking about liability, we're about safety.

GA has a certain level of carnage per hour, that is either acceptable or it isn't. Is Johnny Public's life more valuable then a private pilots mother's life?

 

[qbynewbie]

GA has a certain level of carnage per hour, that is either acceptable or it isn't. Is Johnny Public's life more valuable then a private pilots mother's life?

Straw man.

 

[DJTorrente]

Sorry, that's a distinction without merit. Mrs. Brown and little Johnny will see "$125 prorata costs per person to NYC" and read "$125 per ticket". It doesn't matter a whit if anyone is making a profit. And who's to know that Joe Pilot isn't padding the costs a little bit to give himself drinking money at lunch?

Wouldn't possibly work that way within the scope of the rules. Costs couldn't be determined until landing (headwinds, deviations, etc.). Can't advertise costs per seat because pro-rata share changes with the number of seats filled.

There is no basis for this line of reasoning. FlyteNow would open this up to the public. On what basis can you claim that only those who are already interested in GA would be interested in this? And on what basis do you believe that non-pilots are able to make an accurate determination about the safety of Joe and his airplane and how he has planned and will operate his flight?

My basis is real life experience. People don't walk into a car dealership to use the rest room, they walk in to look at cars for sale. At the airport, can you say you regularly encounter members of the random public knocking on hangars at the local municipal airport looking to book passage to Saskatoon? C'mon...

Nobody pays attention to those. And, anyway, it's irrelevant. We're not talking about liability, we're about safety.

So your objection that the passenger is to not able to make an informed decision is not surmountable by INFORMATION? And if it comes back to safety, there is nothing to say that a PPL is any more or less safe when sharing costs. All I hear is some vague fear that PPL are all 'unsafe'.

 

[David7700]

So, if I'm reading this right... FlyteNow needs to say "Thanks for the opinion, I note from case law that this isn't a final action, so I'm not bound by it (yet)" Then they go do what they want to do, they get violated as a result, and THEN they have legal standing to sue?

They don't get violated. The pilot does. Though I suppose there could be an argument that they were an unauthorized ticketing agent or commercial operation or something.

 

[bluerooster]

Has anyone in the history of aviation ever argued otherwise? At which point in the history of US aviation have private pilots been allowed to advertise flights and essentially sell tickets to the paying public?

Do you know any pilots you wouldn't go flying with? Anyone whose plane you don't trust? I do -- not many but a couple come to mind. I wouldn't recommend that anyone fly with those folks. Many, if not most, private pilots are good, careful, thoughtful and try hard to bring good judgment to their flights. But not all private pilots fit that description and not all planes are well maintained.

I remember the time I saw a pilot park his car in the lot, go out to his plane, unlock it, get in, taxi and takeoff. No preflight, no runup, no nothing. Evidently, he felt that was an appropriate procedure. The current rules make it difficult for him to take members of the public on flights and one presumes that his family and circle of friends and associates are able to make judgments about his judgment based on their knowledge of him. But an unsuspecting mom who showed up for a two-hour flight to NJ wouldn't have any way of knowing that this guy might be skipping a few steps that many of us would consider important.

Is it only the safety standards that limit your behavior that you dislike? Or should we eliminate speed limits, building codes, food safety standards, fire codes and all other similar sets of regulations that have been implemented in order to protect the safety of the public?

My Granddad did. 1932 in his eaglerock. penny a pound. Also flew the mail, and gave flight instruction. all this with a whopping 25 hours total time.
that's him in my avatar, along with his eaglerock.

 

[docmirror]

I think both sides are headed toward the vertical asymptote, as represented by me in the anarchy side, and a few others in the totalitarian side.

If it makes it more palatable, I'm not advocating some kind of free-for-all, with Joe sixpack taking off on a 20 seat commuter, while shaking down a bunch of kids for money to get them to Orange County airport and Disney. This is a cost sharing, or more accurately a cost defrayment process, for an operator who was already going to spend money on aviation activity.

Really, how fine do we want to slices this potato? How much oversight is enough? Suppose we continue down this road, at what point are we allowed(permitted) to get in our own plane, and fly it where we want when we want without some kind of fedguv rubber stamp? Permits, signatures, forms, thumbprints, phone calls, tracking, verification, validation and not one iota of oversight from elected officials. This is the wrong way for our country to go. Anyone who hasn't read Gibbon, shame on you now. The history is in place, but we are doomed to repeat it.

 

[qbynewbie]

So your objection that the passenger is to not able to make an informed decision is not surmountable by INFORMATION? And if it comes back to safety, there is nothing to say that a PPL is any more or less safe when sharing costs. All I hear is some vague fear that PPL are all 'unsafe'.

Right. I guess that's all I said.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Straw man.

In your post #95 you listed a slew of potentially unsafe pilots if we know they are potentially unsafe don't we(err the gov) owe their mothers protection from them?

 

[TMetzinger]

They don't get violated. The pilot does. Though I suppose there could be an argument that they were an unauthorized ticketing agent or commercial operation or something.

OK the pilot does.

Hmm. Then essentially, the Gov't says "you claim not to be affected by our regs, because you're not flying the airplanes. We agree. That also means you have not basis to file a suit."

 

[Jim Logajan]

FlyteNow winning would be good for GA. More flights, more exposure, every FlyteNow ride is an intro flight. Exposing Joe public to the utility and fun of GA.

The FlyteNow lawsuit is likely going to get tossed. If or when they actually open for business and the FAA takes action, then they can make their case.

I think the business case is pretty dang weak. There aren't that many private pilots or available plane seats in the GA fleet to make it more than a curiosity. The GA planes fly too slowly and dispatch reliability will be too low to make it worthwhile to potential customers. And there isn't that much in it for the average private pilot.

Compared to Uber, whose population of potential drivers, vehicles, and riders number in the tens of millions, the population of potential pilots, planes, and riders number in the few thousands. There is no scale there.

You know what I think is the closest existing parallel to FlyteNow type services that gives some idea of its challenges? Angel Flights. Whenever I take a look at the Angel Flight West web site to see if I would want to fly any open missions (in theory only; I don't have enough hours) there are dang few, and often no, missions between airports that wouldn't cost me a fortune to offer. It'd be the reverse situation of course on a shared flying system, but I can't imagine it ever taking off (ahem.)

Ironically where I think the service might be of more interest is to CFIs and others already with commercial certs who would have another way to build hours on a budget - the kind of pilots who you'd expect to be "safer" than Joe Private anyway, thus muting some of the "ohmygod greenhorns" concerns.

Lastly, as a personal example, the last flight I took where anyone else might have had an interest in flying along with me was a flight from the Eugene, OR area to San Jose, CA. That was a 4 hour flight that I was prepared to turn back on because I wasn't sure I'd have enough ceiling to get over some of the Oregon ranges. It worked out. Would a passenger have been willing to spend $240 pro rata to fly with me - about the same price they would have paid for a commercial flight for one way? Would they have insisted on a stop for a potty break, turning it into a 5 hour flight? (Driving the same distance is about a 10 hour drive.) Add in pre- and post- flight and the door-to-door and it took 5 hours and could have taken 6 with a stop.

 

[Henning]

We can legally provide a friend a ride and accept a prorata share of the cost from our friend. Does it often happen that the friend provides more than that? I'd argue yes but it's between friends and that's where it stops.

I'd be in support of a change that allows pilots to share flights without any common purpose other than sharing the flight. If I'm flying to NY and you're free and want to go along and split the cost, that should be fine, if for no other reason than it likely has a valid training motive -- and it's fun. But when it comes to non-pilot members of the public, that's what the airlines for and I don't want to run an airline and I don't my friends flying on a mini-Airline run by Joe Private Pilot.

We can legally do so under stupidly over defined circumstances. I agree, this has no affect on the reality of '134.5' among friends and relatives; except that it weakens all other rules and general respect for authority. When you criminalize people, you create criminals. You create an "Us against Them" between people and government.

 

[qbynewbie]

I think both sides are headed toward the vertical asymptote, as represented by me in the anarchy side, and a few others in the totalitarian side.

I have no interest in totalitarianism but I do favor democracy and am happy to live in a democratic republic. How about you?

It's been my observation that the folks who complain about the government but claim to be ardent believers in democracy often have trouble reconciling those two things when their fellow citizens decided democratically to take actions that they don't like.

If it makes it more palatable, I'm not advocating some kind of free-for-all, with Joe sixpack taking off on a 20 seat commuter, while shaking down a bunch of kids for money to get them to Orange County airport and Disney. This is a cost sharing, or more accurately a cost defrayment process, for an operator who was already going to spend money on aviation activity.

Yeah, sure, and who's going to police it? Who's going to make sure that Joe is operating safely? That his plane is in good shape? FlyteNow wants to build a business on this -- preferably a big, profitable business. That means opening it up to the public, which throws your points right out the window.

And then think about poor Roger, who's trying to build time. All of a sudden, he can build time for one-fourth the normal cost by filling the seats in his claptrap 172 and flying back and forth from Buffalo to NYC. What's not to like about that???

Really, how fine do we want to slices this potato? How much oversight is enough? Suppose we continue down this road, at what point are we allowed(permitted) to get in our own plane, and fly it where we want when we want without some kind of fedguv rubber stamp? Permits, signatures, forms, thumbprints, phone calls, tracking, verification, validation and not one iota of oversight from elected officials. This is the wrong way for our country to go. Anyone who hasn't read Gibbon, shame on you now. The history is in place, but we are doomed to repeat it.

This is a straw man/reductio ad absurdum. No one is asking for any of those things.

 

[bluerooster]

We should have drivers license, pilot licenses, and regs for the protection of those who engage in these activities. I already agreed to this way back. But - the public needs to remain unfettered, or at least less-fettered(doubt that is a word) with respect to how they run their lives.

Maybe it's my upbringing. I started work in a tire factory at 14. I spent ~5 years in the armed forces while mostly a teen. We have laws to protect the minors, and lets see where that's headed; http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/...-upholds-ruling-that-teen-must-undergo-chemo/

You aren't the master or even the arbiter of your own destiny anymore as a citizen, and that's a dirty dog shame. Will my 'more liberty' plan lead to more deaths? Sure will. Will it lead to more responsible behavior? You bet. Will the 'crats that run the FAA/FCC/SEC/DHS/.... allow that? Nope, they are all here for one purpose -- To Serve Man.

yep, neatly trussed, with an apple in his mouth.

 

[qbynewbie]

In your post #95 you listed a slew of potentially unsafe pilots if we know they are potentially unsafe don't we(err the gov) owe their mothers protection from them?

 

[docmirror]

So the FlyteNow business case may not make sense. So the pro-rata public may not show interest, or may be suspicious. Is that a reason for prior federal restraint? This goes to the heart of what it means to be an American. The willingness to try, to risk, to put it all out there win or lose, succeed or fail.

At what point do the people who developed all the amazing things in this country just say 'eff it. I won't bother because the BS is just too much'. Yeah, I know I got some Dagny Taggart thing going but I still recall when I heard about the first successful cloning, and it wasn't done in the US. I had to stop and cogitate on that. First in flight, first to the moon, first with the internet, first with the A bomb, and a lot of other advancements in the past. One damn goat - Dolly and I knew where things were headed.

 

[Henning]

When my buddy and deckhand Rocky asked me, "Hey, can we fly up to San Francisco?" and I responded, "We can go anywhere you have the gas money to go." we entered into an illegal contract by the interpretations that have been handed down. We all know the reality is that I still paid more than my prorate share through ownership and maintenance costs apportionable to that flight, same as one does establishing a rental price, but since I am an owner, those costs are not available to be apportioned to my flight. Then there is the "common purpose test", this flight would not pass that test either as I had no interest in making that flight prior, nor did I have an interest in the meeting he was attending. My only interest was in doing him a favor. This was an illegal flight. I made it 20 some years ago, so the statute of limitations is up now.

 

[docmirror]

I have no interest in totalitarianism but I do favor democracy and am happy to live in a democratic republic. How about you?

It's been my observation that the folks who complain about the government but claim to be ardent believers in democracy often have trouble reconciling those two things when their fellow citizens decided democratically to take actions that they don't like.



Yeah, sure, and who's going to police it? Who's going to make sure that Joe is operating safely? That his plane is in good shape? FlyteNow wants to build a business on this -- preferably a big, profitable business. That means opening it up to the public, which throws your points right out the window.

And then think about poor Roger, who's trying to build time. All of a sudden, he can build time for one-fourth the normal cost by filling the seats in his claptrap 172 and flying back and forth from Buffalo to NYC. What's not to like about that???



This is a straw man/reductio ad absurdum. No one is asking for any of those things.

Why not let the market decide? Publish some requirements, like another poster said that requires the pax to acknowledge the limitations. "Your pilot has met NONE of the requirements for commercial safety. The plane has met NONE of the requirements for commercial safety. You are riding in a plane, with a pilot that has shown a much greater risk of injury or death. Your pilot has XXX total flight hours and XX hours in the past 12 months. The plane may, or may not meet the safety standards of other commercial aircraft. You have been warned."

Still bothers me when I hear that _______ activity needs more 'policing'. The most important facet of totalitarianism is the ability to police it's people.