New Bill Would Make FlyteNow Legal

Cool.

I don't see any good reason why consenting adults in a free country shouldn't be able to chose to do this. As long as private pilots aren't trying to pass themselves and their aircraft off as professional commercial safety level flights- and I think most reasonable people know they're not- no problem.
 
cowman said:
Cool.

I don't see any good reason why consenting adults in a free country shouldn't be able to chose to do this. As long as private pilots aren't trying to pass themselves and their aircraft off as professional commercial safety level flights- and I think most reasonable people know they're not- no problem.
Click to expand...

Uber is allegedly a "ride sharing" service that compensates drivers for sharing their cars. We all know it's just a cheaper way to run a taxi service. Surely this will end up the same way, basically commercial-level service without any regulatory oversight. If it's transparent and people can trust the service that's one thing. But do we really think for one minute the operators will have the same standards of training and maintenance that Delta or AA has?

I generally agree with your philosophy about consenting adults, but commercializing it and advertising takes it to a different level in my book.
 
Unfortunately most people who oppose amazing change like this, never look back and say "Oh now I see".

Luckily more of us are having the foresight to outnumber the teetotalers. Now they're becoming the minority voice and we can get on with actually making general aviation better, instead of pretending we did.
 
Last edited:
How many people are already flight sharing,without the bill? This will just commercialize it.
 
frfly172 said:
How many people are already flight sharing,without the bill? This will just commercialize it.
Click to expand...

Non-pilots? I would (perhaps naively) assume almost nobody.

Am I wrong for assuming this service is going to be advertised to non-pilots? That's the issue for me. I can't see how the customer base is going to be in any position to make an informed decision.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Non-pilots? I would (perhaps naively) assume almost nobody.

Am I wrong for assuming this service is going to be advertised to non-pilots? That's the issue for me. I can't see how the customer base is going to be in any position to make an informed decision.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. I don't see this as a way to promote general aviation, I see it as a way for some to become UberSky, and then the lawyers to destroy GA after a couple crashes.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Uber is allegedly a "ride sharing" service that compensates drivers for sharing their cars. We all know it's just a cheaper way to run a taxi service. Surely this will end up the same way, basically commercial-level service without any regulatory oversight. If it's transparent and people can trust the service that's one thing. But do we really think for one minute the operators will have the same standards of training and maintenance that Delta or AA has?

I generally agree with your philosophy about consenting adults, but commercializing it and advertising takes it to a different level in my book.
Click to expand...

I suppose it all depends on how you look at it.

Travel on commercial airlines is just about the safest thing you can do after all. I don't think there's any question that small ride sharing organizations will never even be able to come close to the safety level of current commercial ops.

On the other hand if you've got a GA pilot willing to not only make the trip but take you directly from your home town airport, to the other home town airport you're trying to get to... and he's willing to do it for 1/4 what you'd be spending on an airline ticket/cab/rental car that's compelling. Even with the caveat very clearly stated and understood that this is about as safe a car trip or maybe a motorcycle ride I still think you'll have takers. I also still think if, knowing it's not as safe, they want to do it that's OK regardless of how they find the pilot or how often he does it.

Now, if they come out and try to claim they're just as safe as Delta or whoever and are selling tickets.... well that's another matter.
 
Shouldn't adults be allowed to take risks?:nono: If GA is too dangerous for the general public then it is too dangerous for us. We are them. Every middleclass and up taxpayer is a precious gem that can't be risked.:lol:
 
How is a private pilot (who is losing money on the ride) being compared to either Uber(driver making money) or commercial airlines.

Just how do you expect this to snowball, really? The more rides a pilot shares, the more $$ he spends.
 
Phoenix said:
Shouldn't adults be allowed to take risks?:nono: If GA is too dangerous for the general public then it is too dangerous for us. We are them. Every middleclass and up taxpayer is a precious gem that can't be risked.:lol:
Click to expand...

Yes, *informed* adults should be allowed to take risks.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Non-pilots? I would (perhaps naively) assume almost nobody.

Am I wrong for assuming this service is going to be advertised to non-pilots? That's the issue for me. I can't see how the customer base is going to be in any position to make an informed decision.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
dukeblue219 said:
Non-pilots? I would (perhaps naively) assume almost nobody.

Am I wrong for assuming this service is going to be advertised to non-pilots? That's the issue for me. I can't see how the customer base is going to be in any position to make an informed decision.
Click to expand...

By reading the information posted on the theoretical sharing site. Required acknowledgement? If they can't read, ??
 
As has been said before, this may be determined by the insurance industry, esp. after a couple of crashes.
 
Kritchlow said:
Yes, *informed* adults should be allowed to take risks.
Click to expand...

Informed by whom and to what extent? Should all GA passengers be required to write an essay on GA safety? Maybe a multiple choice quiz for efficiency? Perhaps we could get an 'Adult Risk Czar' to regulate our risk taking. Goshdangit won't someone think of the precious taxpayers and the mortgages and student loan debt their untimely passing would leave behind?:rofl:
 
RotorDude said:
As has been said before, this may be determined by the insurance industry, esp. after a couple of crashes.
Click to expand...

If its working for the insurance companies now, what would change? More flights probably means more pilots paying for insurance. The claim rate shouldn't change significantly.

I don't know why I'm arguing this, haha. I wouldn't see myself having any motivation to share rides with random people. :dunno:
 
Phoenix said:
Informed by whom and to what extent? Should all GA passengers be required to write an essay on GA safety? Maybe a multiple choice quiz for efficiency? Perhaps we could get an 'Adult Risk Czar' to regulate our risk taking. Goshdangit won't someone think of the precious taxpayers and the mortgages and student loan debt their untimely passing would leave behind?:rofl:
Click to expand...

All I said was informed adults should be allowed to take risks.

Not sure about your diatribe..
 
Phoenix said:
Informed by whom and to what extent? Should all GA passengers be required to write an essay on GA safety? Maybe a multiple choice quiz for efficiency? Perhaps we could get an 'Adult Risk Czar' to regulate our risk taking. Goshdangit won't someone think of the precious taxpayers and the mortgages and student loan debt their untimely passing would leave behind?:rofl:
Click to expand...

I think a simple notice on the website plus a waiver to sign or placard on the aircraft informing the passenger that this isn't a commercial flight and therefore the pilot's and aircraft are not held to commercial standards is clear enough.

If it's important to someone the information is certainly available to anyone who cares to read into it further.
 
StinkBug said:
I feel the same way. I don't see this as a way to promote general aviation, I see it as a way for some to become UberSky, and then the lawyers to destroy GA after a couple crashes.
Click to expand...

Since there is already a fatal crash about two days out of three, I think it's going to take a lot more than a couple of crashes to lead to the destruction of GA.
 
Last edited:
cowman said:
...On the other hand if you've got a GA pilot willing to not only make the trip but take you directly from your home town airport, to the other home town airport you're trying to get to... and he's willing to do it for 1/4 what you'd be spending on an airline ticket/cab/rental car that's compelling...
Click to expand...

I'd be really surprised if it could be done that cheaply.
 
jimbilly said:
How is a private pilot (who is losing money on the ride) being compared to either Uber(driver making money) or commercial airlines.

Just how do you expect this to snowball, really? The more rides a pilot shares, the more $$ he spends.
Click to expand...

If the "Uberpilot" is trying to build flight time that he would otherwise have to pay money for, he's making a heck of a lot more money per hour than the Uber driver.

I'll say what I've been saying all along: If you want to "hold out" and take strangers along for a flight, don't charge them any money. You won't run afoul of the regs.

If you want to split costs, take your buddies up. "Holding out" to find people to go fly with you is a really bad idea on so many levels.
 
Brad Z said:
If the "Uberpilot" is trying to build flight time that he would otherwise have to pay money for, he's making a heck of a lot more money per hour than the Uber driver.

I'll say what I've been saying all along: If you want to "hold out" and take strangers along for a flight, don't charge them any money. You won't run afoul of the regs.

If you want to split costs, take your buddies up. "Holding out" to find people to go fly with you is a really bad idea on so many levels.
Click to expand...

Is paying less the same as making money? I don't think so. Best case, assuming he can find volunteers to ride share with him, he'll reach his goal faster pay half as much money for it and be gone out of the pool of Uberpilots.

A car dealer can make you a lot of money by making you a great deal on a new car!!
 
This will end up being another question on the insurance application. Do you Uberfly? If yes, expect double the rate.
 
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this bill for a number of reasons. The first, is it is so far from being a concern to me that I wish they'd just work on something relevant like PBOR or GAPPA rather than fighting for the pecuniary interests of a company like FlyteNow.

Second, as a matter of public policy I do see a substantial difference between Uber cars and the public being solicited to air travel. I can see no GOOD side to this legislation.
 
jimbilly said:
If its working for the insurance companies now, what would change? More flights probably means more pilots paying for insurance. The claim rate shouldn't change significantly.

I don't know why I'm arguing this, haha. I wouldn't see myself having any motivation to share rides with random people. :dunno:
Click to expand...

It will mean more income, potentially, if it encourages more flying. But it will also increase the liability, esp. if pilots feel compelled to complete missions they wouldn't otherwise. Therefore, only the insurance industry can decide where the balance lies and act accordingly. My guess is a rate increase for such pilots, possibly significant, but your guess is as good as mine.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Uber is allegedly a "ride sharing" service that compensates drivers for sharing their cars. We all know it's just a cheaper way to run a taxi service. Surely this will end up the same way, basically commercial-level service without any regulatory oversight. If it's transparent and people can trust the service that's one thing. But do we really think for one minute the operators will have the same standards of training and maintenance that Delta or AA has?

I generally agree with your philosophy about consenting adults, but commercializing it and advertising takes it to a different level in my book.
Click to expand...

Not so fast, there... Part 91 seems like decent regulatory oversight to me, no?

I seem to think that most people will have more confidence in airlines over flying in a single-engine Cessna with a private pilot. I don't think that FlyteNow has virtually any threat on airline or commercial aviation.
 
My concern with this type of bill is that, once the inevitable first crash occurs that is operating under this type of set up, every possible person will then come running out of the woodworks claiming, once again, and in even a louder voice, that " small planes are dangerous!" If people are getting on small planes and crashing as, "customers sharing a ride," then my fear is GA will come under even a more heavy attack and could be even more over regulated because then the Washington politicians who believe they must protect the populous from their own stupidity( the reverse of that statement is honestly more often true) will rush to pass legislation that penalizes GA even more.

GA does not need this type of program to continue- we need less regulations and cheaper fuel!
 
More, important, this is the mechanism that should be used in a republic that the legislators direct the beauracracy in specific relief. I am in favor, mostly because it puts the decision making in the hands of those who represent the people, and not a biased unelected crat.
 
Besides the legality of it all, the Flytenow business model seems flawed on several levels and not worthy of this kind of attention.

According to their site, the cost per ride for each "enthusiast" depends on the number of seats in the plane, regardless of how many actually ride. Assuming most pilots would be using 4-seaters, the amount of $$ you would "share" is limited unless you try to pack in 3 guests...which sounds like a GREAT idea :eek: Doesn't really seem worth the effort.

It's not hard to imagine scenarios where the pilot says "hey...be back by 4pm for our trip home" and the "enthusiast" is late...which then creates a domino effect of issues getting back in time before dark/weather/etc...

The problem is trying to treat this as "uber for the air" doesn't work. It's a completely different dynamic...and most people just don't understand all the peculiarities of flying these kinds of planes around.
 
docmirror said:
More, important, this is the mechanism that should be used in a republic that the legislators direct the beauracracy in specific relief. I am in favor, mostly because it puts the decision making in the hands of those who represent the people, and not a biased unelected crat.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I'm in favor of it.
 
I'll say what I've been saying all along: If you want to "hold out" and take strangers along for a flight, don't charge them any money. You won't run afoul of the regs.
Click to expand...

But feel free to put a note on your university or workplace bulletin board saying you're flying to Port A and anyway who wants to contribute gas money can come along.

Because that is and always has been legal, according to the Chief Counsel.

It's a distinction without a difference.

If the FAA wants to ban cost sharing then they should public a NPRM and outlaw it.
 
ahkahn said:
...I seem to think that most people will have more confidence in airlines over flying in a single-engine Cessna with a private pilot. I don't think that FlyteNow has virtually any threat on airline or commercial aviation.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Given most people's perception of the safety level of small private planes, even if FlyteNow wins in court or in Congress, I will be surprised if they get many takers among the non-pilot public.
 
Sorry to butt in again, but the entire philosophy of NPRM is alien to a republic.

It's either one way or the other. Publish the rule, and the people abide by it, or use the legislature which has been empaneled for such work. But to propose a rule, as if the voting public had any kind of effect on the result is just disingenuous.
 
docmirror said:
Sorry to butt in again, but the entire philosophy of NPRM is alien to a republic.

It's either one way or the other. Publish the rule, and the people abide by it, or use the legislature which has been empaneled for such work. But to propose a rule, as if the voting public had any kind of effect on the result is just disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Truth. And the FAA seems to get away with ignoring Congress quite a bit, actually - the photo ID requirement comes to mind.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Truth. And the FAA seems to get away with ignoring Congress quite a bit, actually - the photo ID requirement comes to mind.
Click to expand...

Hehe, compared to the EPA, the FAA are amateurs. I recall one example from the EPA where an NPRM directly opposed an exiting reg, and the new one still passed without modification. Now there are opposing regs on the books that are impossible to comply with. All part of the joy of 'cratology. :D
 
cowman said:
Cool.

I don't see any good reason why consenting adults in a free country shouldn't be able to chose to do this. As long as private pilots aren't trying to pass themselves and their aircraft off as professional commercial safety level flights- and I think most reasonable people know they're not- no problem.
Click to expand...

You think Buddy Holly knew? That's what got us where we are.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Truth. And the FAA seems to get away with ignoring Congress quite a bit, actually - the photo ID requirement comes to mind.
Click to expand...

The photo ID is a simple issue and the FAA isn't ignoring Congress on it, they are waiting for them to fund the proposal. How would you like to pay the $100 some dollars every 5 years for the same card like I do for my TWIC card? There are 2 stages to every congressional mandate. Getting Congress to agree on it, then getting Congress to fund it.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Uber is allegedly a "ride sharing" service that compensates drivers for sharing their cars. We all know it's just a cheaper way to run a taxi service. Surely this will end up the same way, basically commercial-level service without any regulatory oversight. If it's transparent and people can trust the service that's one thing. But do we really think for one minute the operators will have the same standards of training and maintenance that Delta or AA has?

I generally agree with your philosophy about consenting adults, but commercializing it and advertising takes it to a different level in my book.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't see this being good for GA at all.
 
Henning said:
The photo ID is a simple issue and the FAA isn't ignoring Congress on it, they are waiting for them to fund the proposal. How would you like to pay the $100 some dollars every 5 years for the same card like I do for my TWIC card? There are 2 stages to every congressional mandate. Getting Congress to agree on it, then getting Congress to fund it.
Click to expand...

That's a good point; the Constitution forbids spending money without an appropriation, and the Constitution trumps statutes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top