New Bill Would Make FlyteNow Legal

[Bonchie]

It does when you apply the differing standards under tort law, and what defines them. I'm not saying that it creates a difference in ultimate safety, but it does create a diffent liability environment as soon as money changes hands. That means the insurance industry needs to be cool with it and prepared with a line of product to meet the demand.

You keep saying this, but do you have any actual proof that a cost sharing payment somehow dramatically changes the legal liabilities within the law (exposure of parties expands, i.e. FlyteNow would be a target)? I've sat through hundreds of depositions and have never heard a lawyer try to make the case that liability is lessened by lack of payment in an injury case.

Cost sharing or simply giving free flights to friends already happens and is legal. And while I'm sure everyone here will claim they are amazing and give a power point and quiz on GA safety to every passenger they take, most don't bother to give a statistical rundown. That includes many CAP flights of kids as well. So they aren't necessarily any more knowledgeable of the risks then someone reading a waiver on a website.

As for insurance companies, it all depends on if it can be monetized at a level acceptable. Everyone is assuming they'll freak out. But if they see the opportunity to double the rates of a sizable number of pilots, they may support it, much less oppose it.

 

[Henning]

You keep saying this, but do you have any actual proof that a cost sharing payment somehow dramatically changes the legal liabilities within the law (exposure of parties expands, i.e. FlyteNow would be a target)? I've sat through hundreds of depositions and have never heard a lawyer try to make the case that liability is lessened by lack of payment in an injury case.

Cost sharing or simply giving free flights to friends already happens and is legal. And while I'm sure everyone here will claim they are amazing and give a power point and quiz on GA safety to every passenger they take, most don't bother to give a statistical rundown. That includes many CAP flights of kids as well. So they aren't necessarily any more knowledgeable of the risks then someone reading a waiver on a website.

As for insurance companies, it all depends on if it can be monetized at a level acceptable. Everyone is assuming they'll freak out. But if they see the opportunity to double the rates of a sizable number of pilots, they may support it, much less oppose it.

Insurance companies aren't going to freak out, they just need to create their tables for it.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

Uber style operations will kill GA manufacturing in a heartbeat. Since most GA pilots carry insufficient insurance, manufacturers are the ones that get sued. Even if they win, they still lose the cost of the legal defense.

 

[Lindberg]

But paying is what causes the difference right now. If there was no exchange of money the service wouldn't be in question. Not until there is an exchange of money do any of the factors come into play.

That's an FTC problem, not an FAA problem. Flights where a stranger is paying part of the fuel cost are no more dangerous than flights with strangers who pay nothing.

 

[Palmpilot]

That's an FTC problem, not an FAA problem. Flights where a stranger is paying part of the fuel cost are no more dangerous than flights with strangers who pay nothing.

There is a principle in use that says that paying passengers deserve a higher level of safety than non-paying ones. I think it's a good principle, because it prevents Part 91 operators from being subjected to Part 121 requirements.

 

[Henning]

That's an FTC problem, not an FAA problem. Flights where a stranger is paying part of the fuel cost are no more dangerous than flights with strangers who pay nothing.

Yes it is an FAA problem because they have the duty of issuing and enforcing government standards on aviation. They are not separate governments. Everybody in government's job is to protect the banks, that means you have to protect the insurance industry as well because they are conjoined twins of the same parent.

 

[Everskyward]

There is a principle in use that says that paying passengers deserve a higher level of safety than non-paying ones. I think it's a good principle, because it prevents Part 91 operators from being subjected to Part 121 requirements.

They are cost-sharing, not paying, in the way that Part 135 and 121 passengers are paying. I'm not sure if you are a private pilot or if you cost-share. But if you do, you are no more dangerous than someone who doesn't. Even if pilots don't cost-share in a formal sense, I'm guessing that more than a few passengers reciprocate in some way even if it isn't in cash.

 

[Henning]

You keep saying this, but do you have any actual proof that a cost sharing payment somehow dramatically changes the legal liabilities within the law (exposure of parties expands, i.e. FlyteNow would be a target)? I've sat through hundreds of depositions and have never heard a lawyer try to make the case that liability is lessened by lack of payment in an injury case.

Cost sharing or simply giving free flights to friends already happens and is legal. And while I'm sure everyone here will claim they are amazing and give a power point and quiz on GA safety to every passenger they take, most don't bother to give a statistical rundown. That includes many CAP flights of kids as well. So they aren't necessarily any more knowledgeable of the risks then someone reading a waiver on a website.

As for insurance companies, it all depends on if it can be monetized at a level acceptable. Everyone is assuming they'll freak out. But if they see the opportunity to double the rates of a sizable number of pilots, they may support it, much less oppose it.

What cost sharing does is creates a contract, and since what is happening is transportation, it is a "contract for carriage". Now, as soon as you introduce a 'contract for carriage', under tort (not FAA administrative) law you meet the definition of "Air Carrier". Air Carries are semi unique as they are one of the three industries to which Strict Liability applies; the other two are explosives and dangerous animals handling. As soon as you apply Strict Liability, the exposure increase is immense. Basically there is no getting out of it, and there are no set limits to the liability. Compare that to the typical $100k airframe, $1MM total liability exposure.

That is the problem faced, and it will not be formally addressed until their first fatal, unless of course the insurance just decides to treat it as commercial. Then you would have to have a really good ride share set up to balance out the extra insurance cost. It would be the rare pilot that would come out ahead.

 

[dtuuri]

There is a principle in use that says that paying passengers deserve a higher level of safety than non-paying ones. I think it's a good principle, because it prevents Part 91 operators from being subjected to Part 121 requirements.

I think the principle applies to strangers' expectations, since they don't know the operator personally. At least that's the way it seems to have started out before all this pro-rata, common purpose stuff began.

dtuuri

 

[Henning]

I think the principle applies to strangers' expectations, since they don't know the operator personally. At least that's the way it seems to have started out before all this pro-rata, common purpose stuff began.

dtuuri

That's still what it is. "What can the customer off the street expect?"

 

[Palmpilot]

They are cost-sharing, not paying, in the way that Part 135 and 121 passengers are paying.

I don't think it's necessarily an either/or situation. Even if Flyenow's proposal doesn't move the flights all the way to the level of Part 135 or 121 obligations, rightly or wrongly the FAA seems to have concluded that money changing hands, together with the appearance of holding out, deserves a higher degree of oversight than Part 91 provides.

I'm not sure if you are a private pilot or if you cost-share.

Commercial certificate, but I've never flown for hire, and I'm currently exercising sport pilot privileges. I gave up on soliciting cost-sharing long ago. Seemed like it wasn't worth the bother.

But if you do, you are no more dangerous than someone who doesn't.

As described above, and in my previous post, that's not the only issue involved.

Even if pilots don't cost-share in a formal sense, I'm guessing that more than a few passengers reciprocate in some way even if it isn't in cash.

Could be, but I don't think that creates the level of conflict between safety and passenger expectations as was described by Brad Z in post #58.

 

[Everskyward]

I don't think it's necessarily an either/or situation. Even if Flyenow's proposal doesn't move the flights all the way to the level Part 135 or 121 obligations, rightly or wrongly the FAA seems to have concluded that money changing hands, together with the appearance of holding out, deserves a higher degree of oversight than Part 91 provides.

Flytenow is using the membership idea to get around the problem of holding out to the general public. We'll see if it works.

Commercial certificate, but I've never flown for hire, and I'm currently exercising sport pilot privileges. I gave up on soliciting cost-sharing long ago. Seemed like it wasn't worth the bother.

Seems like I remember cost-sharing quite a bit when I was a PP, but I was 20 and many of my passengers were older friends and relatives with real jobs. Friends my age didn't seem opposed to it either. I offer to pay my share unless its someone who has repeatedly turned me down, even then, I would pay if they asked.

Could be, but I don't think that creates the level of conflict between safety and passenger expectations as was described by Brad Z in post #58.

I think the passenger expectation part should be covered by the membership angle.

I don't care one way or the other if they get permission to do this. What I see as the main irony in this thread is people claiming strangers don't know how unsafe Part 91 is, yet they are fine with private pilots flying strangers in other situations.

 

[Henning]

I don't think it's necessarily an either/or situation. Even if Flyenow's proposal doesn't move the flights all the way to the level Part 135 or 121 obligations, rightly or wrongly the FAA seems to have concluded that money changing hands, together with the appearance of holding out, deserves a higher degree of oversight than Part 91.

Exactly it's a foray into unknown territory. It doesn't meet the test of holding out, yet it creates a contract for carriage; and tort law doesn't care about the 'holding out' part. The level of oversight required needs to be determined by the insurance industry. The actuaries are scary brilliant at this stuff, but it's complex and takes a bit of time and data crunching to work it out how to address it best. I have a feeling they are behind the initiative as they stand to profit from it so they may have already started working on it, but still, it'll take a bit of time so don't expect this to happen by Christmas, or more likely the election, and I won't bet on it being particularly beneficial to the bottom line. The difference between Business/Personal and Commercial premiums on the 310 was close to $10k a year. It takes a lot of miles of ride sharing to make up $10k a year when your total cost is $250 an hour.

 

[dtuuri]

What I see as the main irony in this thread is people claiming strangers don't know how unsafe Part 91 is, yet they are fine with private pilots flying strangers in other situations.

Strangers don't know how unsafe the particular Part 91 operator is.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

Strangers don't know how unsafe the particular Part 91 operator is.

dtuuri

The FAA doesn't seem to mind strangers flying with other Part 91 operators. See the examples above regarding Angel Flight, Young Eagles, candidates for office, and CAP.

 

[Henning]

The FAA doesn't seem to mind strangers flying with other Part 91 operators. See the examples above regarding Angel Flight, Young Eagles, candidates for office, and CAP.

There is no contract for carriage in the above because there is no money exchanged, and the candidates for office exemption is one that has been worked out in detail and is necessitated by federal campaign law which trumps tort law, so administrative law creates a specific exemption for the courts to recognize. Once money changes hands you have agreed to provide something for consideration, under the law you have created a contract. Once you have a contract for carriage, the liability rules change drastically.

 

[Everskyward]

There is no contract for carriage in the above because there is no money exchanged, and the candidates for office exemption is one that has been worked out in detail and is necessitated by federal campaign law which trumps tort law, so administrative law creates a specific exemption for the courts to recognize.

You keep coming back to the money, whereas it's the varying claims about safety that I find ironic.

 

[txflyer]

If they don't mind stopping at the Hard 8 BBQ in Stephenville on the way to Amarillo, and maybe stopping for weather or a nature break, I'm all for it.

Also, if they don't mind off field work in case the winds are bad, sometimes I land in the field on a field if you catch my drift.

That one drives FBO managers and others nuts sometimes.

 

[Henning]

You keep coming back to the money, whereas it's the varying claims about safety which I find ironic.

Safety is a red herring, it's all about the money, it's always about the money, it's how we regulate most of society and create safety, by limiting the costs of unsafe acts and products, and that is executed through the tort law system. It's how America is designed to work, it's part and parcel to our 'free market' system and creating a fair playing field for the consumer. That leaves us seeking the point of diminishing returns between cost of liability from losses, and cost of opportunity from over regulation and excessive requirements and standards to be met. Naturally, this does not end up at a point of "0 losses", so the insurance industry is there to cover the losses and maintain consumer confidence in the system. You can kill as many people as you want as long as you are willing to make their families rich. Nobody complains to their congressman about their 10 million dollar settlement. Therein lies the crux of the matter with this model, will they be paying $1MM settlements, or will they be paying $10MM settlements? The difference between the two lies in the contract for carriage and if that is sufficient to apply Strict Liability. That won't be tested until the first accident because this is new territory with no precedent in law. It would create the first exception in Strict Liability, so it kinda challenges law. It revolves around if the jury cares about "holding out" being a vital constituent to being an "air carrier" under tort law because Strict Liability for air carriers is a global standard, and I'm not sure if you would find "holding out" to be a requirement in all ICAO member definitions or not. I suppose that information would come out in the arguments regardless who they support, I can't care to look myself.

People who are contemplating and discussing this on the merits of safety will always be confused because safety is not the problem, creating a new and unique state of liability is the problem. That puts potentially billions of exposed dollars at risk if they allow it to happen on a standard Business/Personal PP/IR premium. Right now you're asking the insurance company to bet on if a jury will accept the contract for carriage to nullify the non air carrier status and assign Strict Liability to an insurance company. My guess is that the insurance companies will bet on the jury applying Strict Liabilty and require a rider for these type of operations. In the boat industry, if you have a boat, and the license to operate it, but only want to do 6-12 charters a year, getting full time charter insurance would be prohibitive. So they sell "6 packs" of charter insurance, each is good for one charter up to a week, you pay a set fee up front, and call your insurance man to activate them individually as you have charters. The rest of the time you are insured under your business/pleasure policy. I see this product model to be very likely for this business sector, it could potentially work out if it broke down to a $25-$30 per flight premium. I would think that Flytenow is probably looking at incorporating that into their service as an agent as a profit center.

 

[Everskyward]

Safety is a red herring, it's all about the money, it's always about the money, it's how we regulate most of society and create safety, by limiting the costs of unsafe acts and products, and that is executed through the tort law system. It's how America is designed to work, it's part and parcel to our 'free market' system and creating a fair playing field for the consumer. That leaves us seeking the point of diminishing returns between cost of liability from losses, and cost of opportunity from over regulation and excessive requirements and standards to be met. Naturally, this does not end up at a point of "0 losses", so the insurance industry is there to cover the losses and maintain consumer confidence in the system. You can kill as many people as you want as long as you are willing to make their families rich. Nobody complains to their congressman about their 10 million dollar settlement. Therein lies the crux of the matter with this model,mill they be paying $1MM settlements, or will they be paying $10MM settlements? The difference between the two lies in the contract for carriage and if that is sufficient to apply Strict Liability. That won't be tested until the first accident because this is no territory with no precedent in law. It would create the first exception in Strict Liability, so it kinda challenges law. It revolves around if the jury cares about "holding out" being a vital constituent to being an "air carrier" under tort law because Strict Liability for air carriers is a global standard, and I'm not sure if you would find "holding out" to be a requirement in all ICAO member definitions or not. I suppose that information would come out in the arguments regardless who they support, I can't care to look myself.

People who are contemplating and discussing this on the merits of safety will always be confused because safety is not the problem, creating a new and unique state of liability is the problem. That puts potentially billions of exposed dollars at risk if they allow it to happen on a standard Business/Personal PP/IR premium. Right now you're asking the insurance company to bet on if a jury will accept the contract for carriage to nullify the non air carrier status and assign Strict Liability to an insurance company. My guess is that the insurance companies will bet on the jury applying Strict Liabilty and require a rider for these type of operations. In the boat industry, if you have a boat, and the license to operate it, but only want to do 6-12 charters a year, getting full time charter insurance would be prohibitive. So they sell "6 packs" of charter insurance, each is good for one charter up to a week, you pay a set fee up front, and call your insurance man to activate them individually as you have charters. The rest of the time you are insured under your business/pleasure policy. I see this product model to be very likely for this business sector, it could potentially work out if it broke down to a $25-$30 per flight premium. I would think that Flytenow is probably looking at incorporating that into their service as an agent as a profit center.

I'm sure there has already been a "first accident" where a pilot was splitting the cost with a passenger. I know there have been AF and YE accidents.

 

[Palmpilot]

...What I see as the main irony in this thread is people claiming strangers don't know how unsafe Part 91 is, yet they are fine with private pilots flying strangers in other situations.

I think folks are overestimating the general public's confidence in the safety of general aviation.

 

[Henning]

I'm sure there has already been a "first accident" where a pilot was splitting the cost with a passenger. I know there have been AF and YE accidents.

What does a YE pay? When you toss "an agency" into the mix as well, you add complications. No, seriously, this model has not been tested and bears serious risk to the insurers to use anything less than commercial rates until relevant and direct precedent can be established. I would also bet there will end up a CPL requirement as well.

 

[Everskyward]

What does a YE pay? When you toss "an agency" into the mix as well, you add complications. No, seriously, this model has not been tested and bears serious risk to the insurers to use anything less than commercial rates until relevant and direct precedent can be established. I would also bet there will end up a CPL requirement as well.

I don't think the FAA considers that their problem. Its the insurer's problem.

 

[Everskyward]

I think folks are overestimating the general public's confidence in the safety of general aviation.

The irony, as I see it, is trying to have it both ways.

 

[Henning]

I don't think the FAA considers that their problem. Its the insurer's problem.

The insurer's problem is why the FAA exists. The FAA enforces the standards the industry dictates need to be upheld in order to keep their product profitable. Who do you think comes up with all this regulatory stuff? Legislation is written by industry and handed to congressmen to make into law, then bureaucracy and industry work together to create the standards to enforce to get the level of loss to where it creates the greatest profits.

The Government is about protecting and promoting business, because we determine that is what is in our best social interest. Don't confuse yourself with anything besides protecting the money, and you will see why the process is the way it is.

 

[Everskyward]

The insurer's problem is why the FAA exists. The FAA enforces the standards the industry dictates need to be upheld in order to keep their product profitable. Who do you think comes up with all this regulatory stuff? Legislation is written by industry and handed to congressmen to make into law, then bureaucracy and industry work together to create the standards to enforce to get the level of loss to where it creates the greatest profits.

The Government is about protecting and promoting business, because we determine that is what is in our best social interest. Don't confuse yourself with anything besides protecting the money, and you will see why the process is the way it is.

That's your theory. Doesn't mean it's correct.

 

[Henning]

That's your theory. Doesn't mean it's correct.

Then no wonder this issue seems confusing to you.

 

[Everskyward]

Then no wonder this issue seems confusing to you.

It's not confusing, it's ironic. There's a difference.

 

[Henning]

It's not confusing, it's ironic. There's a difference.

That's just it, it's not ironic if you look at it from the liability perspective, it makes complete sense.

 

[Everskyward]

That's just it, it's not ironic if you look at it from the liability perspective, it makes complete sense.

As I stated. Your theory...

Besides, I doubt the people making the argument in this thread that Part 91 is dangerous (for Flytenow type operations) are from the insurance industry or the FAA.

 

[Henning]

As I stated. Your theory...

Besides, I doubt the people making the argument in this thread that Part 91 is dangerous (for Flytenow type operations) are from the insurance industry or the FAA.

No, they're idiots, why do you bother?

 

[Everskyward]

No, they're idiots, why do you bother?

Why does anyone post here? I find it entertaining to read other points of view, even if I think they are way out there.

 

[Henning]

Why does anyone post here? I find it entertaining to read other points of view, even if I think they are way out there.

That my dear is what is called trolling when you elicit, and expressly disallowed in the TOS.

 

[TEFLONSEAN]

That my dear is what is called trolling when you elicit, and expressly disallowed in the TOS.

Wow!!!! The pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Everskyward]

That my dear is what is called trolling when you elicit, and expressly disallowed in the TOS.

Reading is not trolling. If you want to talk about trolling you need to look in the mirror.

 

[TEFLONSEAN]

Reading is not trolling. If you want to talk about trolling you need to look in the mirror.

The king of trolls has no mirror......he is enlightening us....and if have an aversion to his enlightenment....lets just say....your in the majority.

 

[Henning]

Reading is not trolling. If you want to talk about trolling you need to look in the mirror.

But you are doing more than innocently reading, besides, I don't really give a ****. There's no humor left here either, just seething anger for the most part.

 

[Lindberg]

apropos of nothing.

blather

intransitive verb
: to talk foolishly at length —often used with on

 

[denverpilot]

There is a principle in use that says that paying passengers deserve a higher level of safety than non-paying ones. I think it's a good principle, because it prevents Part 91 operators from being subjected to Part 121 requirements.

And my examples showed clearly where the FAA themselves have not upheld that standard for a large number of exempt organizations.

They are cost-sharing, not paying, in the way that Part 135 and 121 passengers are paying. I'm not sure if you are a private pilot or if you cost-share. But if you do, you are no more dangerous than someone who doesn't. Even if pilots don't cost-share in a formal sense, I'm guessing that more than a few passengers reciprocate in some way even if it isn't in cash.

Don't even have to use the cost-sharing example. Just grab the glider example and it can be a full-fledged for-profit customer in the glider and a Private Pilot flying the tow plane.

I don't think it's necessarily an either/or situation. Even if Flyenow's proposal doesn't move the flights all the way to the level of Part 135 or 121 obligations, rightly or wrongly the FAA seems to have concluded that money changing hands, together with the appearance of holding out, deserves a higher degree of oversight than Part 91 provides.

Not in gliders.

Exactly it's a foray into unknown territory. It doesn't meet the test of holding out, yet it creates a contract for carriage; and tort law doesn't care about the 'holding out' part. The level of oversight required needs to be determined by the insurance industry. The actuaries are scary brilliant at this stuff, but it's complex and takes a bit of time and data crunching to work it out how to address it best.

Bah. Never seen an insurance company that far behind the eight ball. They've already got it sorted out. They're just waiting for the bureaucracy to decide. What you attribute to silly banking/government conspiracies is simply ineptitude and getting all the lawyers paid.

Safety is a red herring, it's all about the money, it's always about the money, it's how we regulate most of society and create safety, by limiting the costs of unsafe acts and products, and that is executed through the tort law system. It's how America is designed to work, it's part and parcel to our 'free market' system and creating a fair playing field for the consumer.

You can't even keep your world view straight. You know there's no such thing as a level playing field ever, in anything, and certainly not for the average consumer.

You yourself have argued far more that the only thing that could possibly create that on paper is your pseudo-Communism junk and the magical free energy that magically no one will own and will fly out of unicorn butts.

This whole thing is about giving an air of control over the uncontrollable.

In the case of CAP, benevolent groups, and glider clubs, FAA exercised some fear factor and muscle and then "benevolently allowed" Part 91 plus a token more in specially granted regs to rule over those operations, after the groups genuflected far enough.

They just want Flytenow to kiss the ring, and not make it too easy for folks who have been doing this stuff anyway, to continue to do so. Nobody's looking at the money transactions of every GA flight and couldn't if they wanted to. The "safety" argument is blown, as is the payment argument, by the very loopholes already provided to multiple membership groups.

The only thing incomplete is recognition of authority and appropriate begging by Flytenow.

It's not about the money. No individual at the FAA has any dog in that fight. They're not individually liable and don't care at all who pays for the flaming ball of wreckage. Even the taxpayer. Why would they? Not coming out of their budget. The federal budget isn't real anyway. It's just entertainment for TV. See "debt ceiling".

I know you badly want to fix this square peg of someone simply wanting to flex regulatory muscles into your round hole of global monetary conspiracy gobbledegook, but it simply doesn't fit. FAA takes zero damage from going either way on this, and the insurers don't even have to do the math. If they're not ready they simply send out an amendment banning the new activity under existing policies. All have that boilerplate in them, and can be instantly amended at any time.

If FAA wanted to push the safety or standards thing hard, they could just rescind the loopholes for the benevolent organizations and glider ops. It's doubtful they'd take that track. If it was really about who's paying, the Private Pilot flying the glider tow would have to pro-rata share the cost of the time the glider was on tow, and pay their own way back to the airport after release. The CAP pilot would have to pay their pro-rata share on live missions to fly cadets or fly VIPs/Law Enforcement/Emergency Managers.

So it's really not about either of those two things as long as there's exemptions. It's about the organization requesting the exemption begging appropriately for one.

It's definitely not insurance. SSA is the example there. Someone would fire up a "Uber-style Pilots Association" and have insurers competing to be the sole underwriter inside of a couple of months. And insurers would line up to do it.

Flytenow is crazy if they haven't contacted insurers and already made a sweetheart deal to prominently display a particular brand/underwriter as the "official insurance of Flytenow pilots" and agreed to a kick-back amount for the sales leads.

 

[Henning]

If they "have it sorted out" it means the idea will fail because the increase in to commercial premiums will make it cost prohibitive. As for level playing field, you have to maintain the illusion or you have revolution.