New Bill Would Make FlyteNow Legal

What about the real victims here -- the investors who heard blah blah blah Uber blah blah blah and assumed there was a viable business model! :D
 
This thread is getting boring. Let me ask a question for anyone who might still actually be paying attention.

Would you, as a pilot, actually offer seats on your flights? Insurance, regulations, etc. aside, would it be worth the time, effort, and payload hit? It seems that logistical issues for small planes would invitably sink the business model.

In my experience, for anything more than a burger flight, my plane (a 182!) seems to fill up. Bags, stuff, people. When it was the two of us and a dog, we seemed to cube out with stuff. Now that we have a 7 month old, forget about it. I'm sure others travel lighter, but one of the nice things about having your own plane is taking whatever you'd like.

Also, logistics. You can all plan to meet at 9am, but what if the weather that morning suggests you need to leave at 7am. Do you ditch your paying passengers?

What if the flight is delayed, costs more because of headwinds, etc. What if it's less?

How do you handle a diversion, where you land half-way and drive or book a last minute airline ticket to the destination?

I'm not adverse to the sharing economy. I did a stint on Relay ride renting out an extra car that I had. I found the renters to be often flaky. It got a little better when I listed it to pilots only (I eventually moved it to an airport with no courtesy cars) but even that became logistically problematic on occasion. The big issue I had was people acted like they were dealing with a business, rather than just a dude with a car. Thankfully I never had issues with breakdowns, crashes, etc. It did get vandalized by an airport employee, but that wasn't the fault of relay rides.

I've also considered making my base suite available on AirBnB. I guess the reality is I'm not all that interested in having strangers around for long periods of time. Maybe extreme extroverts love this stuff.

To me, the reason Uber X works is because it's immediate, it's for a short period of time, and people can look inside a car quickly and determine if they'd like to take on the risk. If the driver is dangerous, they can ask the driver to pull over and get out. Can't really do that in a plane, assuming you knew that the pilot was doing something dangerous.

Now if Flytenow and similar operations were limited only to offering othering pilots rides, or sharing flight time, then my thoughts on it would probably be different.
 
The reality is that GA isn't busy, or trusted by the public, enough for this to ever become more than a small niche market. I think if it was just openly allowed to operate unencumbered, it will fail regardless.
 
denverpilot said:
...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.
Click to expand...


I think you are correct on the kissing part. Not too sure on the anatomy.

:wink2:
 
I can see where an Uber style service where the only requirement to participate is a PPL could be a complete disaster. The safety record is bad enough, now you're introducing outside pressure to a possibly low time or rusty private pilot to get somewhere on time.

What if you changed the pilot requirements? If you were an insurance company, would you insure the following "Uber" style service with some minimum training requirements?

Single engine piston w 100/hr inspections
Commercial/Instrument Rated Pilot with Minimum 500hours TT and 100 in type.
Must have more than 35 flight hours logged within previous 90 days
Must complete the equivalent of a BFR every 6 months.

The opinion of the insurance companies is what matters. Not sure if FlyteNow has done this, but I think the first step would be to get the backing of an insurance company before going to congress.

I think there is precedent, corporations who do allow their employees to fly private aircraft typically have a similar set of requirements - driven by insurance I am sure.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
I can see where an Uber style service where the only requirement to participate is a PPL could be a complete disaster. The safety record is bad enough, now you're introducing outside pressure to a possibly low time or rusty private pilot to get somewhere on time.

What if you changed the pilot requirements? If you were an insurance company, would you insure the following "Uber" style service with some minimum training requirements?

Single engine piston w 100/hr inspections
Commercial/Instrument Rated Pilot with Minimum 500hours TT and 100 in type.
Must have more than 35 flight hours logged within previous 90 days
Must complete the equivalent of a BFR every 6 months.

The opinion of the insurance companies is what matters. Not sure if FlyteNow has done this, but I think the first step would be to get the backing of an insurance company before going to congress.

I think there is precedent, corporations who do allow their employees to fly private aircraft typically have a similar set of requirements - driven by insurance I am sure.
Click to expand...

Why would a pilot with those specs be interested in paying a pro-rata share? They can get a real job (low-paying, but real).

I think more realistic limits would be IFR (or VFR-Commercial) pilots only, maybe 100-125 TT minimum, and at least 10 hours in the past month flown.

You weed out a lot of rusty, low time pilots that way and you ensure with the IFR rating that they've got some (theoretical) competency with weather. But at the same time you have the limits low enough for people to actually do it. There are probably a lot of 150ish hour, IFR pilots that would be good candidates to do this while building toward their commercial.
 
Brad Z said:
This thread is getting boring. Let me ask a question for anyone who might still actually be paying attention.

Would you, as a pilot, actually offer seats on your flights? Insurance, regulations, etc. aside, would it be worth the time, effort, and payload hit? It seems that logistical issues for small planes would invitably sink the business model.
Click to expand...

Yes. I have often given rides between two fairly distant destinations using Craigslist comm rideshare(and I lived to tell the tale!). Most people using it want to go 100-1000 miles or so, and they aren't picky about exact times or locations. I dropped a guy off in Pueblo CO once who was headed for Seattle. I just got him halfway, and he was happy enough for the ride to pay a fuel stop.

So, change from a car, to a plane and same-same. But no - the FAA says we can't use a method like CL comm rideshare, because -- well, because, because they said so!

I would be happy to post a rideshare offer on CL with my plane, but the fact is, if I landed in a field outside of west OK, and told the passenger to get out and walk, I might face the wrath. If the FAA said ok, then I talk to my insurance co, and tell them I might give rides to perfect strangers and what do they think of that. If they tell me to pound sand, maybe I need a new insurer, or maybe I tell them to change my policy, because it's not restricted right now.

If they die in a rideshare plane ride, and their family sues my estate cuz I'm dead too, I guess I'd be upset - were I still alive. If I survive and the pax don't, then I'll fight that cause of action along side my insurer. But, not interested in going against the fedguv with unlimited money, and unlimited resources, and all the lawyers my tax money can buy.
 
dell30rb said:
I can see where an Uber style service where the only requirement to participate is a PPL could be a complete disaster. The safety record is bad enough, now you're introducing outside pressure to a possibly low time or rusty private pilot to get somewhere on time.

What if you changed the pilot requirements? If you were an insurance company, would you insure the following "Uber" style service with some minimum training requirements?

Single engine piston w 100/hr inspections
Commercial/Instrument Rated Pilot with Minimum 500hours TT and 100 in type.
Must have more than 35 flight hours logged within previous 90 days
Must complete the equivalent of a BFR every 6 months.

The opinion of the insurance companies is what matters. Not sure if FlyteNow has done this, but I think the first step would be to get the backing of an insurance company before going to congress.

I think there is precedent, corporations who do allow their employees to fly private aircraft typically have a similar set of requirements - driven by insurance I am sure.
Click to expand...

I don't think the loss factors will be greatly affected, just the liability factor. I also see the limitation to commercial rated as a likelihood. I think the whole crashes will increase is a spurious assumption at best because as hours flown increase, so does competence. I don't see the rate of crashing increasing from something like this.
 
Henning said:
No, they're idiots, why do you bother?
Click to expand...

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

Awww, what a chummy little display of civility and respect. Glad to see the MC is right on top of stamping out this sort of badspeak. We won't be seeing any more of this after Jan 1, will we? :rolleyes:
 
Bonchie said:
Why would a pilot with those specs be interested in paying a pro-rata share? They can get a real job (low-paying, but real).
Click to expand...

Its like Part 135 light. Keep some basic requirements that enhance safety. Ditch the expense and paperwork.

Similar to Uber. The more regulated taxi companies deliver sub-standard service at a higher price, and I can't imagine they are any safer. The drivers make less money too.
 
Last edited:
I gave a hitchhiker a ride once. Called my boss and he said it was OK. I'm sure he didn't agonize over all the possible consequences. We got some free passes to the guy's B&B but never used them.
 
dell30rb said:
Its like Part 135 light. Keep some basic requirements that enhance safety. Ditch the expense and paperwork.

Similar to Uber. The more regulated taxi companies deliver sub-standard service at a higher price, and I can't imagine they are any safer. The drivers make less money too.
Click to expand...

I could go for this. A new endorsement, ala HP or complex.

"Pilot Smith has shown competence in RideShare for private pilots. Demonstrated valid ADM, understands weather patterns, and limitations, computes weight and balance with multiple loading examples, and shows effective use of flights skills to share rides with non-selective passengers in a private plane not for hire. Signed Joe Bagadonuts, CFI 000000000, 1 Apr 2016."
 
Bonchie said:
You weed out a lot of rusty, low time pilots that way and you ensure with the IFR rating that they've got some (theoretical) competency with weather. But at the same time you have the limits low enough for people to actually do it. There are probably a lot of 150ish hour, IFR pilots that would be good candidates to do this while building toward their commercial.
Click to expand...

The problem with having a 150ish hour newly instrument rated pilot fly strangers X/C for profit (Uber model here, not necessarily flytenow) is that they are really pretty green at that point. I got my IR about 150 hours and one year into flying. I was just taking baby steps with getting my ticket wet at that point, I was definitely not ready to make decisions with the pressure of a paying passenger needing to get somewhere.

You want to open it up to more average GA pilots, or young CFI's trying to get to 1500 hours. Your average instrument rated GA pilot already has a few hundred hours, getting a commercial is a breeze and can be done in a few days. An active young CFI will hit 500 hours within a full season of getting their rating.
 
Everskyward said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Private" means "not public". Private pilots are not for public consumption. The exceptions prove the rule.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
"Private" means "not public". Private pilots are not for public consumption. The exceptions prove the rule.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

If I may correct you, in this context "private" would be more correct to say "not commercial". Because private pilots are made up of the public, and they do give rides to anyone, anytime, anywhere(within law) for no remuneration at all. It's only when $$$ is present that everything changes. Or - in the FAAs warped sense of remuneration when flight time is considered $$$$. However, 'private' pilot in this context is not a 'commercial' pilot, but yes - we are of and by the public.
 
Henning said:
The reality is that GA isn't busy, or trusted by the public, enough for this to ever become more than a small niche market. I think if it was just openly allowed to operate unencumbered, it will fail regardless.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
Everskyward said:
I gave a hitchhiker a ride once. Called my boss and he said it was OK. I'm sure he didn't agonize over all the possible consequences. We got some free passes to the guy's B&B but never used them.
Click to expand...

I've given a lot of rides to time building ramp rats to give them some multi time. Either I'm on a quick turn picking up some parts, or they have a buddy fly a cross country to pick them up a couple/few hundred miles down the road.
 
The thing that is most valuable that I see about this is it removes the 'common interest' stipulation from cost sharing. That alone may be worth this exercise even if the business model doesn't pan out.
 
Henning said:
I've given a lot of rides to time building ramp rats to give them some multi time. Either I'm on a quick turn picking up some parts, or they have a buddy fly a cross country to pick them up a couple/few hundred miles down the road.
Click to expand...

So how does that work? You let them fly as PIC?
 
Gubbins said:
So how does that work? You let them fly as PIC?
Click to expand...

Yeah, they fly the plane, they're my autopilot I can't afford.:lol: I don't need to log the time and likely won't anyway, they are welcome to it. Yes, I give them the left seat and take off and landing as well, but I'm in position to take instant action.
 
dtuuri said:
"Private" means "not public". Private pilots are not for public consumption. The exceptions prove the rule.

dtuuri
Click to expand...
The FAA has granted these exceptions. Why not operations like FlyteNow?
 
Everskyward said:
The FAA has granted these exceptions. Why not operations like FlyteNow?
Click to expand...

To be honest, I think it is because FlyteNow looks superficially like Uber, or an on demand taxi service, despite the fact that that there are critical differences. When it comes to safety, it's too easy for the FAA to just say it looks close enough to ban the practice rather than to embrace the real distinctions.
 
Everskyward said:
The FAA has granted these exceptions. Why not operations like FlyteNow?
Click to expand...

The reason would be the insurance industry wrote it into whatever piece of legislation or committee generated operating rules. The FAA doesn't much care where the rule comes from, just that they get the budget to enforce it.
 
PPC1052 said:
To be honest, I think it is because FlyteNow looks superficially like Uber, or an on demand taxi service, despite the fact that that there are critical differences. When it comes to safety, it's too easy for the FAA to just say it looks close enough to ban the practice rather than to embrace the real distinctions.
Click to expand...

But as argued before, FlyteNow is not "on demand" and not like Uber, regardless of the publicity they are putting out. It's more like a big company carpool.
 
Everskyward said:
Don't some carpoolers pay for a portion of the driver's gas?
Click to expand...

Probably, I never have, every one I was in just rotated driving, or company sponsored and paid. They do however share 'common purpose' That's really the stickler in the rules as they are. Most people ignore it already, but it's still there.
 
Henning said:
Probably, I never have, every one I was in just rotated driving, or company sponsored and paid. They do however share 'common purpose' That's really the stickler in the rules as they are. Most people ignore it already, but it's still there.
Click to expand...

But 'common purpose' only means that you are going to the same location, not necessarily participating in the same activity. I remember back as a private pilot I flew to Santa Barbara with some people. My friend and I drove up to Solvang. The other two went to a Dead concert.
 
Everskyward said:
But 'common purpose' only means that you are going to the same location, not necessarily participating in the same activity. I remember back as a private pilot I flew to Santa Barbara with some people. My friend and I drove up to Solvang. The other two went to a Dead concert.
Click to expand...

That is your interpretation and while with some merit, not hard and fast, with countering arguments in (some which is a big part of the problem) CC interpretations. That is why it will be nice to get rid of it completely to end the bloody ambiguity.
 
Everskyward said:
The FAA has granted these exceptions. Why not operations like FlyteNow?
Click to expand...

Neither private nor charitable. Even Angel flight is treading on water, IMO. Should there be lower operating standards for charitable flights that don't reimburse the pilots for fuel? Should there be lower than commercial standards for passengers who accept charity than those who pay full fare? Not in my opinion, yet that's the way it is now.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
But as argued before, FlyteNow is not "on demand" and not like Uber, regardless of the publicity they are putting out. It's more like a big company carpool.
Click to expand...

Hence, my stating: "despite the fact that that there are critical differences."
 
Everskyward said:
But 'common purpose' only means that you are going to the same location, not necessarily participating in the same activity. I remember back as a private pilot I flew to Santa Barbara with some people. My friend and I drove up to Solvang. The other two went to a Dead concert.
Click to expand...

The primary difference between driving and flying is that driving never incurs Strict Liability, the tort rules and liability reliefs don't change between between non commercial and commercial ops in driving, in aviation they do. As soon as you have consideration, you have a contract for carriage, and at this point have to assume that Strict Liability applies, and that affects aan added layer of risk upon the insurance company stock holder.
 
denverpilot said:
Flytenow should be filing every YE scheduled event website they can find as evidence, and every glider club's online flight schedule where a Private Pilot was scheduled to fly the tow plane, and asking for a copy of thE link to CAPs cadet flight schedule to be also placed into evidence.
Click to expand...

Ugh. You're right, of course, from FlyteNow's perspective, but unfortunately when the FAA is called upon to defend against these things, I think it's a lot more likely that they'll simply rescind all the exemptions, and no more cost-sharing or flying for work for ANYONE than it is that they'll let FlyteNow actually go into operation.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Ugh. You're right, of course, from FlyteNow's perspective, but unfortunately when the FAA is called upon to defend against these things, I think it's a lot more likely that they'll simply rescind all the exemptions, and no more cost-sharing or flying for work for ANYONE than it is that they'll let FlyteNow actually go into operation.
Click to expand...


That's certainly a risk. I suspect the popularity of the other exempt activities would be brought before a number of Congress Critters simultaneously, if they cancelled them, and FAA would be slapped in the political arena really hard for trying that.

They probably know it, too. Which is why all the legalese and courtroom games as a smokescreen. Trying to make either the safety angle or the payment angle argument when you have exemptions in the books for both, screams "can't be true" to any judge who's paying attention.

Gotta wave the hand pretty hard to keep the judge's eyes from looking at what's in their other hand.
 
Henning said:
The reason would be the insurance industry wrote it into whatever piece of legislation or committee generated operating rules. The FAA doesn't much care where the rule comes from, just that they get the budget to enforce it.
Click to expand...


Cute. Cite a specific "piece of legislation" and show the link to the insurer.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Ugh. You're right, of course, from FlyteNow's perspective, but unfortunately when the FAA is called upon to defend against these things, I think it's a lot more likely that they'll simply rescind all the exemptions, and no more cost-sharing or flying for work for ANYONE than it is that they'll let FlyteNow actually go into operation.
Click to expand...
Except they now have to go back and say that they were wrong to allow it... and there's some way that I can see that creating factions within the FAA about the matter.
 
denverpilot said:
Cute. Cite a specific "piece of legislation" and show the link to the insurer.
Click to expand...

:confused: Most all of it. Who do you think creates legislation? The commerce involved parties do. It's the way the system is designed, government is meant to be the buffer between industry and society. That is the way capitalism is designed to operate under Rule of Law. People are supposed to complain about problems to their representatives. Those representatives then take the problem to industry and say "my constituents demand redress" then an industry committee is formed fights and negotiates the issue, and finally draft legislation that they are happy with, give it back to the representatives who haggle over it in committee and add unpopular riders to it if it has good public support, and keep changing it around and adding things to it until nobody is happy with it. At that point it gets signed into law by the POTUS or not depending on political best benefit.

That's why we have a country everyone likes hating to live in.
 
Henning said:
:confused: Most all of it. Who do you think creates legislation? The commerce involved parties do. It's the way the system is designed, government is meant to be the buffer between industry and society. That is the way capitalism is designed to operate under Rule of Law. People are supposed to complain about problems to their representatives. Those representatives then take the problem to industry and say "my constituents demand redress" then an industry committee is formed fights and negotiates the issue, and finally draft legislation that they are happy with, give it back to the representatives who haggle over it in committee and add unpopular riders to it if it has good public support, and keep changing it around and adding things to it until nobody is happy with it. At that point it gets signed into law by the POTUS or not depending on political best benefit.



That's why we have a country everyone likes hating to live in.
Click to expand...


You got less specific. You went from claiming FAA legislation and regs are written by insurance companies to "all of them are" when pressed for a specific example and a link to the specific insurer.

Nice theory. No evidence. Case dismissed.
 
denverpilot said:
You got less specific. You went from claiming FAA legislation and regs are written by insurance companies to "all of them are" when pressed for a specific example and a link to the specific insurer.

Nice theory. No evidence. Case dismissed.
Click to expand...

It's the way the entire system was designed to work. You ask for a specific to include when you need specifics to exclude. Understand how your government works. Is that something that no one born in America understands? If you want a specific, Pt 135. That was insurance all the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top