FlyteNow v. FAA

[Kritchlow]

I find it interesting how I'm legal and insured to rent aircraft to the general public, I can also teach the general public how to fly the things, I can also with my sole authority teach someone to fly and send them on a solo across the entire country.

I can charge for all of the above. I have to pay a premium for insurance, have to do essentially an annual every one hundred hours, etc.

I can't however take a person to another airport 25 miles away in perfect day VFR weather, drop them off, and accept payment for the aircraft and my time. I would argue that's less risk than much of what I can do with the general public.

That just doesn't make much sense.

It's a fair argument. That said, I rely on my statement that I've been making throughout. If the public hired a commercial operation to fly them A to B, they expect a certain level of compliance. Regardless of your personal expertise, you need to adhere,and be held responsible for, things such as flight and rest times, certain currency, weather minimum differences, and so on....

 

[DJTorrente]

No, my scenario says drop the compensation prohibition from the PP but have him demonstrate the same level of competence and safety as a 14 CFR Part 135 counterpart.

Wouldn't that be fair?

Yea, I suggested that with a conformity inspection.

In other words, if a pilot wants to split gas without the pro-rata restriction, go whole hog and be a 135 outfit. Its just that easy.

You talk as if the FAA is just being "reasonable", without any history of torturing the boundaries of what is "compensation" defined -- that is why we are even having this conversation.

And you still haven't given up on the ominous veiled threat that even if a pilot were to try to jump through all the 135 hoops, that they would surrender their certificate and can not simply go back to being a PP if they didn't jump quite high enough for the circus act.

Query - what do you think will become of the FAA when private pilots number in the hundreds not the thousands; When the only planes lying are part 121/135, and the airlines are clamoring for outsourcing and privatization? We won't need a Federal Administration if there isn't any Aviation.

 

[Lindberg]

That just doesn't make much sense.

Its economic protectionism, it doesn't have to make sense.

The "protecting public expectations" explanation doesn't hold water, since that could easily be satisfied by a notification requirement. That'd probably be even more effective for informing the public, since most people have no idea what sorts of different regulatory standards there are. To most people, there are "airline pilots" and "other pilots."

You'd also have to accept that the FAA doesn't GAS about the safety or expectations of non-paying passengers.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I find it interesting how I'm legal and insured to rent aircraft to the general public, I can also teach the general public how to fly the things, I can also with my sole authority teach someone to fly and send them on a solo across the entire country.

I can charge for all of the above. I have to pay a premium for insurance, have to do essentially an annual every one hundred hours, etc.

I can't however take a person to another airport 25 miles away in perfect day VFR weather, drop them off, and accept payment for the aircraft and my time. I would argue that's less risk than much of what I can do with the general public.

That just doesn't make much sense.

Everything falls under "an equivalent level of safety". And you are correct, many things you already do meets that, except you do not have to do any additional training, you do not have to validate that training with a check ride, and your maintenance program for your aircraft is not monitored nor have you done a conformity inspection.

Would you not agree to a level playing field with on demand certificated air carriers (Part 135) and have it's Part 91 equivalent have the same level of safety?

 

[jesse]

Everything falls under "an equivalent level of safety". And you are correct, many things you already do meets that, except you do not have to do any additional training, you do not have to validate that training with a check ride, and your maintenance program for your aircraft is not monitored nor have you done a conformity inspection.

Would you not agree to a level playing field with on demand certificated air carriers (Part 135) and have it's Part 91 equivalent have the same level of safety?

I certainly understand what you're saying. I also agree with the level playing field.

I don't think it makes sense that I have the authority to send someone from the general public across the country in an airplane but cannot fly someone in perfect weather to an airport 25 miles away and drop them off. Hence Why:

If I were king of the FAA, I would decrease many of the requirements around on-demand charter. I would also make it a hell of a lot more efficient to get a 135 certificate. I would accomplish that by allowing the private industry to ensure compliance versus over-burdened and grumpy FSDO offices.

It's simply too much work to get a 135 certificate and takes way too long even if you do everything precisely right as promptly as you can. That hurts the free market greatly and is bad for everyone. I would try to solve that problem.

I was once standing in the FSDO office and was listening to the inspectors laugh up a storm about how someone local wanted a 135 certificate. It was funny to them to even think that someone would dare request such a thing. It shouldn't be that way. About as messed up as the taxi cab business.

Of course I'm not king of the FAA, nor will I ever be king of the FAA. Probably best that way

 

[RyanShort1]

Jesse makes too much sense! I feel the same way. I'm already paying for insurance, already fly cross-country missions with students, plane already does 100 hr inspections, why not?

 

[RotorAndWing]

In other words, if a pilot wants to split gas without the pro-rata restriction, go whole hog and be a 135 outfit. Its just that easy.

My point is, which you can't seem to grasp, is there are people who follow the rules, and go through all the motions with aircraft conformity, maintenance requirements, training and check rides to actually be able to offer air charter legally. And you want to give a PP the same rights but have them not do any of that.

How does that equate to an "equivalent level of safety"?

You talk as if the FAA is just being "reasonable", without any history of torturing the boundaries of what is "compensation" defined -- that is why we are even having this conversation.

Again, you simply can't grasp this. My scenario suggest having the FAA free up the compensation prohibition on Private Pilots, but have them demonstrate an equivalent level of safety for the privilege, and would they be willing to do so.

And you still haven't given up on the ominous veiled threat that even if a pilot were to try to jump through all the 135 hoops, that they would surrender their certificate and can not simply go back to being a PP if they didn't jump quite high enough for the circus act.

It's not a "veiled threat", it's reality and how it works in the real world.

I understand you are a very low time Private Pilot and have no experience outside of that realm. Let me explain what happens when an applicant applies to become an Air Carrier under 14 CFR Part 135.

The applicant notifies the FAA of his intent with a PASI (Pre Application Statement of Intent) and states the type of operation he wishes to conduct and where. He now must secure the proper insurance required, submit his aircraft to a conformity inspection, designate who will do the maintenance and inspections. Now he must subject himself to an evaluation, an oral and a check ride to insure he meets the standards set out in 14 CFR Parts 61, 91 and 135. The oral and checkride are set to the Practical Test Standards guide for his certificate level. He is now given a check for 135.293, 135. 299 and 135.297 (for instrument flight if an IFR operation)

Now think about this: He is being examined, by the FAA, for competency for the level of his rating held. If he cannot perform to the PTS as he did to acquire his rating, what should the FAA do at this point? In most cases he's allowed to do additional training to gain proficiency in weak areas. But let's say he rechecks and again comes up short of the PTS.

Should the FAA just walk away and allow him to continue with his commercial certificate?

Now, apply a similar situation to the Private Pilot wanting to carry passengers for hire (if the FAA permitted). If he can't perform to the PP PTS, fails and rechecks, and fails again, should the FAA allow him to keep his rating?

Since you are an attorney, let me ask you something: Shouldn't the Bar allow an applicant who has not graduated from law school, but has studied on his own and shows great aptitude for the law, a right to sit for the Bar Exam and become licensed to practice law?

Query - what do you think will become of the FAA when private pilots number in the hundreds not the thousands; When the only planes lying are part 121/135, and the airlines are clamoring for outsourcing and privatization? We won't need a Federal Administration if there isn't any Aviation.

Not sure what that has to do with our discussion.

Are you saying without allowing Private Pilots the right to gain compensation that GA will ultimately fail?

 

[RotorAndWing]

I certainly understand what you're saying. I also agree with the level playing field.

I don't think it makes sense that I have the authority to send someone from the general public across the country in an airplane but cannot fly someone in perfect weather to an airport 25 miles away and drop them off. Hence Why:

If I were king of the FAA, I would decrease many of the requirements around on-demand charter. I would also make it a hell of a lot more efficient to get a 135 certificate. I would accomplish that by allowing the private industry to ensure compliance versus over-burdened and grumpy FSDO offices.

It's simply too much work to get a 135 certificate and takes way too long even if you do everything precisely right as promptly as you can. That hurts the free market greatly and is bad for everyone. I would try to solve that problem.

I was once standing in the FSDO office and was listening to the inspectors laugh up a storm about how someone local wanted a 135 certificate. It was funny to them to even think that someone would dare request such a thing. It shouldn't be that way. About as messed up as the taxi cab business.

Of course I'm not king of the FAA, nor will I ever be king of the FAA. Probably best that way

Here's what happens with 135 certificates. The office that certifies the applicant and oversees the certificate is responsible for that operation. Let them certify someone, and have that person crash and all hell breaks loose starting from the NTSB and FAA HQ and works down. If during certification it was discovered something was looked over or missed, now those people are going to be held responsible.

Back in my time, it was amazing some of the applicants for 135. They tried every way they could to skirt around requirements, brought in barely airworthy aircraft or could barely pass a PP PTS.

Could the system be better for certification? You and I agree it could be. But the reality is it's the only one out there at the moment.

 

[dtuuri]

Let me explain what happens when an applicant applies to become an Air Carrier under 14 CFR Part 135.

The applicant notifies the FAA of his intent with a PASI (Pre Application Statement of Intent) and states the type of operation he wishes to conduct and where. He now must secure the proper insurance required, submit his aircraft to a conformity inspection, designate who will do the maintenance and inspections. Now he must subject himself to an evaluation, an oral and a check ride to insure he meets the standards set out in 14 CFR Parts 61, 91 and 135. The oral and checkride are set to the Practical Test Standards guide for his certificate level. He is now given a check for 135.293, 135. 299 and 135.297 (for instrument flight if an IFR operation)

Waaa?? There's no more requirement to write an LOC (letter of compliance)? I remember spending about two weeks of very long hours, even with the help of an FAA-provided template, addressing every regulation in Parts 91, 119, 135 and 43 explaining how my new operation was going to comply with each and every sentence.

dtuuri

 

[RotorAndWing]

Waaa?? There's no more requirement to write an LOC (letter of compliance)? I remember spending about two weeks of very long hours, even with the help of an FAA-provided template, addressing every regulation in Parts 91, 119, 135 and 43 explaining how my new operation was going to comply with each and every sentence.

dtuuri

Yea, it's still there. I was trying to do a condensed version.

 

[DJTorrente]

My point is, which you can't seem to grasp, is there are people who follow the rules, and go through all the motions with aircraft conformity, maintenance requirements, training and check rides to actually be able to offer air charter legally. And you want to give a PP the same rights but have them not do any of that.

My point is that the rules are not sacred. They are downright draconian, particularly as they apply to PP sharing expenses. Maybe the public should have the option of choosing both the regulated airline/charter, or their friend's Piper as the need and desire strikes them. But I know, "Its for the children," or something like that.

It's not a "veiled threat", it's reality and how it works in the real world.

If a PP tries to meet your "equivalent level of safety", i.e., something more stringent than private pilot PTS, they are not de facto incompetent private pilots if they fail, they just failed to meet the higher standard. That you're ready to strip them of their PP privileges for failing to meet some higher standard (which I tend to believe would be only illusorily granted in any case) gives away the game.

When I sat for the NJ bar exam some 7 years after I passed NY, I did not risk losing my NY license to practice if I had failed. I also tested into the USPTO patent bar; failing that specialized exam says nothing of one's ability in the more general realm tested by most state bar exams.

Since you are an attorney, let me ask you something: Shouldn't the Bar allow an applicant who has not graduated from law school, but has studied on his own and shows great aptitude for the law, a right to sit for the Bar Exam and become licensed to practice law?

Uhhh, many states have that already. The test of knowledge IS the exam, not the hazing that precedes it. Just so. I understand that you are an attorney as well. I'll refrain from judging your grasp of that field.

Not sure what that has to do with our discussion.

Are you saying without allowing Private Pilots the right to gain compensation that GA will ultimately fail?

Well, as I see it, the FAA is doing a great job of Lubitz-ing GenAv as it is. Who are they going to regulate when GenAv pilots are hundreds, not thousands?

 

[RotorAndWing]

My point is that the rules are not sacred. They are downright draconian, particularly as they apply to PP sharing expenses. Maybe the public should have the option of choosing both the regulated airline/charter, or their friend's Piper as the need and desire strikes them. But I know, "Its for the children," or something like that.

Again, please go look at the GA accident rate as stacked up against GA Air Carrier. There simply is no comparison.

Once a PP receives his license, he never ever has to demonstrate competence again, well except for the FR, which often takes place during the "$100 hamburger run".

If a PP tries to meet your "equivalent level of safety", i.e., something more stringent than private pilot PTS, they are not de facto incompetent private pilots if they fail, they just failed to meet the higher standard. That you're ready to strip them of their PP privileges for failing to meet some higher standard (which I tend to believe would be only illusorily granted in any case) gives away the game.

Again, you fail to understand. I didn't say give him a check ride above his license level, simply take it from the PP PTS, same as done with someone on a Part 135 certificate.

How many PP (or commercial pilots, ATP) that are GA only (private individuals who only fly for pleasure) would be able to take a check ride for their level of certification and pass? I dare say that number is low.

When I sat for the NJ bar exam some 7 years after I passed NY, I did not risk losing my NY license to practice if I had failed. I also tested into the USPTO patent bar; failing that specialized exam says nothing of one's ability in the more general realm tested by most state bar exams.

Is there one national level Bar exam? Aviation is held at the federal level, you are now comparing apples to bulldozers.

Uhhh, many states have that already. The test of knowledge IS the exam, not the hazing that precedes it. Just so. I understand that you are an attorney as well. I'll refrain from judging your grasp of that field.

I have a few friends that are lawyers, and they'll gladly counter you on the hazing part. But that is for another thread.

And Oh, BTW, I am not an Attorney, never claimed to be one. I have too much self respect to be associated with them.

Well, as I see it, the FAA is doing a great job of Lubitz-ing GenAv as it is. Who are they going to regulate when GenAv pilots are hundreds, not thousands?

Again, are you trying to claim that the restriction on PP compensation will drive down GA?

Actually, there are many more reasons that GA is dying, this is not one of them.

 

[David7700]

You can "read on" to take the Bar Exam. You do not have to go to law school.

 

[JimNtexas]

It appears this thread is emittinating from some alternate reality where private pilots can do charter work.

Meanwhile, back here in 2015 in the quantum reality from which I'm typing you have to a carrier certificate of some sort to carry passengers for money, but any individual plane owner can share expenses with another person.

 

[MAKG1]

It amazes me how much the same concept changes when you substitute "taxi driver" and "road trip" for "charter" and "expense sharing." Is there REALLY a difference aside from legacy?

Believe me, I will not confuse paying gas money 'cause my buddy gives me a lift to San Francisco, with hiring a taxi -- or a bus -- to do the same thing. Even if there is no "shared purpose" aside from maybe needing reciprocation in the distant future. Curiously, as soon as an airplane gets involved, the boundary line shifts dramatically.

I understand that 135 operators have undergone a lot of effort to comply with the rules. I really hate to say it -- that doesn't mean the rules are reasonable, only that they have been there. And no one disputes it.

Besides, didn't SCOTUS recently decide that money was speech?

 

[Anymouse]

That just doesn't make much sense.

We ARE talking about the FAA here, right?

 

[RotorAndWing]

It appears this thread is emittinating from some alternate reality where private pilots can do charter work.

My scenario was to attempt to show the difference between an air carrier (part 135) pilot and a Private Pilot wanting compensation.

Meanwhile, back here in 2015 in the quantum reality from which I'm typing you have to a carrier certificate of some sort to carry passengers for money, but any individual plane owner can share expenses with another person.

My take on it is this: The regulations in place have been there since I started flying, and that is true for everyone on this board. The choice is there, if you want compensation, get a commercial license. If you want to sell seats, get an Operating Certificate.

 

[Kritchlow]

It amazes me how much the same concept changes when you substitute "taxi driver" and "road trip" for "charter" and "expense sharing." Is there REALLY a difference aside from legacy?

Believe me, I will not confuse paying gas money 'cause my buddy gives me a lift to San Francisco, with hiring a taxi -- or a bus -- to do the same thing. Even if there is no "shared purpose" aside from maybe needing reciprocation in the distant future. Curiously, as soon as an airplane gets involved, the boundary line shifts dramatically.

That's because most everyone is familiar with taxis, public transit, etc, while most people are not familiar with commercial aviation. They see they are paying for a flight and that's really all the know (obviously not in every case).

In addition, you probably don't go on line, find a complete stranger and offer some gas money for a ride, do you?

 

[MAKG1]

That's because most everyone is familiar with taxis, public transit, etc, while most people are not familiar with commercial aviation. They see they are paying for a flight and that's really all the know (obviously not in every case).

In addition, you probably don't go on line, find a complete stranger and offer some gas money for a ride, do you?

Ride sharing phone boards have been around since the 70s.

 

[Kritchlow]

Ride sharing phone boards have been around since the 70s.

I haven't paid attention to be honest, but I did read through the FlyteNow site and I thought it lacked clearity that the flight was conducted (possibly) with inexperienced private pilots.
Again, I like the idea in general but that point needs to be made crystal clear IMO.

 

[SkyHog]

Then I guess most airlines aren't "commercial operations."

If it helps Ron, I got your joke...

 

[red4golf]

That's because most everyone is familiar with taxis, public transit, etc, while most people are not familiar with commercial aviation. They see they are paying for a flight and that's really all the know (obviously not in every case).

In addition, you probably don't go on line, find a complete stranger and offer some gas money for a ride, do you?

Uber

Not saying I would want to do this as a GA passenger but ride sharing is a thing these days and it is bigger than the local vanpool.

 

[Kritchlow]

Uber

Not saying I would want to do this as a GA passenger but ride sharing is a thing these days and it is bigger than the local vanpool.

I knew someone would come up with Uber. Perfect example. They have have their share of trouble as of late... (If you believe what you read on the net).

 

[red4golf]

They have but they haven't been shut down yet, at least not here in Seattle.

 

[Palmpilot]

Even if they win in court, I have my doubts about whether enough people are going to want to take expense-sharing flights with private pilots for FlyteNow's cut of the revenue to justify what they're investing in it.

 

[Everskyward]

Believe me, I will not confuse paying gas money 'cause my buddy gives me a lift to San Francisco, with hiring a taxi -- or a bus -- to do the same thing. Even if there is no "shared purpose" aside from maybe needing reciprocation in the distant future. Curiously, as soon as an airplane gets involved, the boundary line shifts dramatically.

Yup. The dumbest one is considering flying hours "compensation". Imagine that in a car situation. You're driving my car for free, but I'm actually compensating you by letting you build hours in it.

 

[DJTorrente]

My take on it is this: The regulations in place have been there since I started flying, and that is true for everyone on this board. The choice is there, if you want compensation, get a commercial license. If you want to sell seats, get an Operating Certificate.

It's just that simple, eh? Any competent pilot could bang out those requirements in a day?

Besides, <Dr. Phil Voice>How's that working for ya?</Dr. Phil Voice>

Source: Air Facts, "Mayday! The Declining Pilot Population"

Splitting expenses is only "compensation" and/or "selling seats" because the FAA said so, not because it is so. Malum prohibitim, not Malum in se.

 

[RotorAndWing]

It's just that simple, eh? Any competent pilot could bang out those requirements in a day?

Besides, <Dr. Phil Voice>How's that working for ya?</Dr. Phil Voice>



Source: Air Facts, "Mayday! The Declining Pilot Population"

Splitting expenses is only "compensation" and/or "selling seats" because the FAA said so, not because it is so.

You keep implying that because Private Pilots can't sell seats on their airplanes is the reason for the decline of GA, and that somehow if it was lifted GA would flourish.

You have yet to offer a solution, such as how a Private Pilot would meet an equivalent level of safety as an air carrier, and you refuse to acknowledge the dismal safety record of GA vs air carrier.

Malum prohibitim, not Malum in se.

Lawyer games. Use a dead language rather than attempting to speak in plain language.

 

[MAKG1]

Uber

Not saying I would want to do this as a GA passenger but ride sharing is a thing these days and it is bigger than the local vanpool.

You don't have to go to Uber for that.

We had ride sharing bulletin boards for long distance travel in college in the 80s. And yes, some of them were "you pay gas, I drive all night to Salt Lake City while you sleep." Not that I ever took anyone up on that -- it's a sign that someone is getting into the pharmaceuticals or is perhaps bipolar, neither of which is very relaxing. I preferred to share driving.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Use a dead language rather than attempting to speak in plain language.

You know WHY Latin is a dead language?


Because "I" is the plural of "us"!

 

[JimNtexas]

My take on it is this: The regulations in place have been there since I started flying, and that is true for everyone on this board. The choice is there, if you want compensation, get a commercial license. If you want to sell seats, get an Operating Certificate.

Yes, and in your alternate reality some private pilot wants to sell seats.

You should find that person and set him or her straight. Your problem is that person doesn't not exist in the real world!!!!!

It has been both public law and FAA policy that it is NOT 'selling seats' to share expenses on a private GA trip!!! You don't have be 'friends' with the person, you can even, according to both public law and the FAA, put a note on your college or workplace bulletin board informing people that you're going from A to B, and if anyone wants to ride along please share the direct costs.

In the case that is the subject of this thread the FAA is saying that while a note on a physical bulletin board is fine, the same note in this web forum magically makes the same flight a 'charter'.

That's just clearly insane in the present quantum reality.

 

[Kritchlow]

Yes, and in your alternate reality some private pilot wants to sell seats.

You should find that person and set him or her straight. Your problem is that person doesn't not exist in the real world!!!!!

It has been both public law and FAA policy that it is NOT 'selling seats' to share expenses on a private GA trip!!! You don't have be 'friends' with the person, you can even, according to both public law and the FAA, put a note on your college or workplace bulletin board informing people that you're going from A to B, and if anyone wants to ride along please share the direct costs.

In the case that is the subject of this thread the FAA is saying that while a note on a physical bulletin board is fine, the same note in this web forum magically makes the same flight a 'charter'.

That's just clearly insane in the present quantum reality.

Do you think it would be different if FlyteNow didn't charge a commission? I sort of do. It would just seem more like that workplace bulletin board you speak of, and less like a commercial venture.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Yes, and in your alternate reality some private pilot wants to sell seats.

You should find that person and set him or her straight. Your problem is that person doesn't not exist in the real world!!!!!

It has been both public law and FAA policy that it is NOT 'selling seats' to share expenses on a private GA trip!!! You don't have be 'friends' with the person, you can even, according to both public law and the FAA, put a note on your college or workplace bulletin board informing people that you're going from A to B, and if anyone wants to ride along please share the direct costs.

In the case that is the subject of this thread the FAA is saying that while a note on a physical bulletin board is fine, the same note in this web forum magically makes the same flight a 'charter'.

That's just clearly insane in the present quantum reality.

Funny, the FAA continually encounters people who come up with creative ways to circumvent Part 135,and "ride sharing" is one way it's done with a creative way someone wants to interpret it.

If people would just follow the regs as written, it's not that difficult.

Honestly, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I merely pointed out the differences between Joe PP selling seats on his plane through "ride share" and the Bob Professional Pilot who has a Part 135. I know it irritates some Private pilot license holders when you point out the differences in training and safety, but facts are facts.

 

[MAKG1]

I'd agree with you for the case where someone is trying to make money by flying people -- that is, where their business is providing air transportation.

But, according to current rules, I can get fully reimbursed by my employer to fly to a meeting solo (as long as I don't leave anything there), but if I put my own kid in the right seat, it's not legal. I have a hard time finding any reasonable reality where that is even slightly defensible.

Though this is a terrible forum for trying to make changes to the rules, a far better boundary is whether the purpose of a flight is to support an air transportation business, much like commercial driving. I think that would cover most of your 134.5 concerns. It would also make most of the private pilot issues disappear, except of course for the people who really are trying to run a 135 business without the 135 (and I see no evidence that any of that is in play in this thread).

You hear so many private pilots complaining about the rules, because they don't make sense. Why on earth should I need to pay half expenses if I put my kid in the right seat? Isn't that between me and my employer?

No one will mistake FlyteNow for an airline. GA in spam cans, especially VFR, is much too unreliable for that. It will quickly get a reputation of "time to spare, go by air" if the general public ever gets even slightly interested. Which isn't going to happen. Joe Sixpack is scared to death of spam cans.

 

[dtuuri]

In the case that is the subject of this thread the FAA is saying that while a note on a physical bulletin board is fine, the same note in this web forum magically makes the same flight a 'charter'.

That's just clearly insane in the present quantum reality.

I don't think it's insane at all and whole-heartily agree with it. A pilot is pretty well known around the local FBO. There, one has a chance to size up another's competence before sharing the cockpit (or back seat). Not so when marketing on the world-wide web.

dtuuri

 

[Turningfinal]

I don't think it's insane at all and whole-heartily agree with it. A pilot is pretty well known around the local FBO. There, one has a chance to size up another's competence before sharing the cockpit (or back seat). Not so when marketing on the world-wide web.

dtuuri

Exactly. And there's a limited audience involved in that scenario. With the WWW, you're advertising to the entire general public.

 

[DJTorrente]

Exactly. And there's a limited audience involved in that scenario. With the WWW, you're advertising to the entire general public.

So the only thing wrong with a PP putting a flyer on the FBO bulletin board occurs when someone actually takes the pilot up on his offer -- which is more likely to happen if the bulletin board is the WWW, and that's what makes the WWW worse and intolerable, while the bulletin board is acceptable.

Oh yeah, that promotes GenAv; Yeah FAA!

 

[JeffDG]

Lawyer games. Use a dead language rather than attempting to speak in plain language.

RW games: I don't like the message, so I'll just criticize the method in which it was delivered.

 

[JeffDG]

Funny, the FAA continually encounters people who come up with creative ways to circumvent Part 135,and "ride sharing" is one way it's done with a creative way someone wants to interpret it.

Funny how the FAA could easily publish an NPRM putting the words "common purpose" into the regulation about expense sharing, but yet they haven't. They keep trying to work around the law they wrote with lawyer's letters.

 

[Palmpilot]

Do you think it would be different if FlyteNow didn't charge a commission? I sort of do. It would just seem more like that workplace bulletin board you speak of, and less like a commercial venture.

You could use a telephone to set up the flight, and if you went over your monthly minutes allotment, the phone company would be making money off of it. Does that make it seem like a commercial venture?

If you can afford to fly more because of sharing flight expenses, your fuel provider is making money off of it. Does that make your flight seem like a commercial venture?