Quick Question PLEASE for all private pilots

Rick Almeter said:
Thanks for all the input! Love the humor as well, again this was just a thought.. Someone will find a loophole eventually, I just hope it's me.
Click to expand...
You're better off getting investors to lobby the DOT to change the regs.
 
These threads seriously make me think of Ocean's 11 "failed casino robbery attempts" he came, he grabbed, they conquered....

 
Petition for an exemption, show how it's in the public interest, demonstrate an equivalent level of safety to a part 135 operation, then go for it. Your secret sauce includes a means to obtain an equivalent level of safety, right?
 
Rick Almeter said:
Thanks for all the input! Love the humor as well, again this was just a thought.. Someone will find a loophole eventually, I just hope it's me.
Click to expand...
Serious comment. Those others mentioned? They all thought they found a loophole. I refer to these rules an "intentionally vague." The reason is simple. For better or worse, it's about a general policy not to allow something that quacks like a commercial duck. Loopholes exist when rules get very specific.

"Receiving something of value" (the definition of compensation) in exchange for transportation is pretty broad. Hard to find loopholes and it allows the FAA to effectively close loopholes as quickly as they are opened. Add to that a no-tolerance policy to put the kibosh on things that no one else would object to. Fly a business associate for lunch as a way of networking for unrelated business? Surprise! Compensation! At least without a specific exemption.

The best argument so far has been the FlyteNow one. Fought it into the courts and one of the FlyteNow lawyers was a former member of the Chief Counsel's office who had authored FAA opinions on the subject and probably knows this area as well as or better than anyone. The Court if Appeals didn't seem to even give it serious attention.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The best argument so far has been the FlyteNow one. Fought it into the courts and one of the FlyteNow lawyers was a former member of the Chief Counsel's office who had authored FAA opinions on the subject and probably knows this area as well as or better than anyone. The Court if Appeals didn't seem to even give it serious attention.
Click to expand...
I haven’t heard any updates on this... did it stall? Vanish? Die?
 
bflynn said:
The USSC denied cert exactly one year ago (1/7/17). I suppose that means it is dead.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/flytenow-inc-v-federal-aviation-administration/

I briefly scanned the issue and could not find a constitutionally based complaint in it. Perhaps if I had parsed it better...
Click to expand...
The third issue in the Petition for Cert is the combined constitutional issue they raised. Cert and Denial of Cert don't usually go very deeply anyway.

Here's the Court of Appeals decision. The constitutional arguments begin on page 20 of the 23-page decision, which gives some idea of how much it impressed the judges.
 
AggieMike88 said:
I haven’t heard any updates on this... did it stall? Vanish? Die?
Click to expand...
Already answered, but for you any anyone else who want to view the collection, I still have most of the documents up through the Court if Appeals decision, including an mp3 of the oral argument in a shared Dropbox folder.
 
Typical PoA attitude. Guy comes in with an idea and everybody shoots it down without even considering it.
Rick is a new member here and instead of receiving a warm welcome, y'all give him sh*t and instant negativity.
He's not giving up, as you can see from his posts. He even went through all the trouble of making a video to explain.
 
BigBadLou said:
Typical PoA attitude. Guy comes in with an idea and everybody shoots it down without even considering it.
Rick is a new member here and instead of receiving a warm welcome, y'all give him sh*t and instant negativity.
He's not giving up, as you can see from his posts. He even went through all the trouble of making a video to explain.
Click to expand...
How does anyone get around this: "..for no actual pay obviously.." when it's well-established that flight time is "compensation" ?
 
Rick seemed fine with the commentary, sounds like he will fit right in here.
 
paflyer said:
How does anyone get around this: "..for no actual pay obviously.." when it's well-established that flight time is "compensation" ?
Click to expand...
One of the Chief Counsel's interpretation letters suggests that this can be gotten around by not logging the flight.
 
paflyer said:
How does anyone get around this: "..for no actual pay obviously.." when it's well-established that flight time is "compensation" ?
Click to expand...
It's even more well-established money is compensation.

One of the things the FlyteNow decision talks about is, 61.113 doesn't say sharing expenses is not compensation. It says sharing expenses - within very specific conditions - is permissible compensation.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The best argument so far has been the FlyteNow one.
Click to expand...

The problem with FlyteNow is that they were basically asking pilots (and then building an app around it) to hold out to the public. That's a violation. There's a way to make it all work without the flight sharing being the primary focus of the business. A couple major organizations already offer flight sharing on their web sites and the FAA is perfectly fine with it as it's not their core business and all participants have a common purpose.
 
BigBadLou said:
Typical PoA attitude. Guy comes in with an idea and everybody shoots it down without even considering it.
Click to expand...

“I want to drive around on highways at night without my headlights on...”

“You sir, deserve a warm welcome and nobody should immediately shoot that garbage down. It’s both dangerous and illegal but hey, awesome.”

LOL. He’ll be fine. We’ve all had stupid ideas.
 
azblackbird said:
A couple major organizations already offer flight sharing on their web sites and the FAA is perfectly fine with it as it's not their core business and all participants have a common purpose.
Click to expand...
Example?
 
midlifeflyer said:
Example?
Click to expand...

EAA OSH ride share board. The key is “common purpose” and it comes real close to the edge of where FAA might get unhappy. As long as expenses are split, it probably works on all counts but just barely. Strangers but strangers with a common destination and both are really wanting to go there, it’s not just a destination of convenience like a trip for an AirUber type thing easily could be.

But they probably also figure most folks going to OSH also aren’t quite as unknowing about the differences between Private and Commercial Operations either, unlike someone who just responded to a bulletin board business card that is “holding out” to fly them to their hometown in the middle of nowhere in South Dakota.

Just a guess. FAA seems to leave it alone. It’s grey.
 
denverpilot said:
EAA OSH ride share board. The key is “common purpose” and it comes real close to the edge of where FAA might get unhappy. As long as expenses are split, it probably works on all counts but just barely. Strangers but strangers with a common destination and both are really wanting to go there, it’s not just a destination of convenience like a trip for an AirUber type thing easily could be.

But they probably also figure most folks going to OSH also aren’t quite as unknowing about the differences between Private and Commercial Operations either, unlike someone who just responded to a bulletin board business card that is “holding out” to fly them to their hometown in the middle of nowhere in South Dakota.

Just a guess. FAA seems to leave it alone. It’s grey.
Click to expand...
That's a good example. And, yes, it is something very different than what FlyteNow (and the OP) proposed. Pretty pure in the common purpose area.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's a good example. And, yes, it is something very different than what FlyteNow (and the OP) proposed. Pretty pure in the common purpose area.
Click to expand...

Yep. And I’m just guessing that’s one of the examples the person intended. It’s brought up regularly as a reason that ride sharing at the Private Pilot level should be allowed like Uber.

I disagree, of course. Have just seen it before. When someone says “large Aviation organization” is doing it, that’s usually what they’re beating around the bush to say. Sake thing with AOPA fly-ins.

And sometimes they trot out Young Eagles not realizing there’s been a lot of legal work behind that sort of event... and some organizations have specific rules carved out for them.

As do more generic charities in the FARs, with the ability to ask for even more leeway on the Private/Commercial differences via the local FSDO. Get it in writing, any of this stuff can be waived. Not that hard. Paperwork and a few phone calls, and and solid safety plan written down, mostly.
 
azblackbird said:
Disagree with what?
Click to expand...

That ride sharing like Uber is the same as the typical ride share message board to an aviation fly-in. It’s right there in the sentence prior to “I disagree”.

In other words, the person who brought it up passive aggressively without naming the organizations or providing details, is likely just making that same old tired, and inaccurate argument, that the fly in message boards aren’t “common purpose” or that they’re “holding out”.

The ride share boards, if we are interpreting the vague post accurately, and from past experience with such posts, are right up against the line that FAA drew, but they’re not over it.

The Uber style stuff is definitely over that line, and can only be done under Part 135 or similar with an appropriately rated pilot, and appropriate 135 organizational authorization and aircraft maintained under different maintenance rules.

Flytenow and similar just thought they could get FAA to give up on decades of regs all designed, correctly or not (a different debate completely) where they could point to the rule book and say they provide the non-flying public with a higher standard for crew, procedures, and aircraft maintenance when they’re paying to go somewhere and not just flying somewhere with a friend...

One is equally splitting the operating costs and both parties want to travel to the destination separately. The other is paying a stranger to fly somewhere they normally wouldn’t go, after finding an ad for their services.

No intention to start a debate, I was just clarifying what the passive-aggressive post mentioning large Aviation groups was probably really about. Seen that post before...
 
denverpilot said:
EAA OSH ride share board.
.
.
.
Just a guess. FAA seems to leave it alone. It’s grey.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure there's a good way to enforce the prohibition without catching someone in the act of providing a ride, most likely with a ramp check. Doing widespread ramp checks at an event like Oshkosh or Sun-N-Fun would go against the FAA's surveillance policy.

Take a look at http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v06 surveillance/chapter 11/06_011_010.htm (excerpt below, emphasis added).

A. Surveillance Policy. Air shows, fly-ins, and other gatherings of general aviation aircraft and airmen are opportunities for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to present a positive image to the aviation community with whom we work and the general public. Many of the aircraft operators attending these aviation events are regular users of our air traffic and flight service facilities, but their contact with Flight Standards personnel may have been rare. Most of the people who fly their airplanes to fly-in events and air shows are aviation enthusiasts and hobbyists and are not employed in the aviation industry as pilots.
1) The FAA would like this important segment of airspace users to have a very positive image of inspectors and the safety activities inspectors perform. Therefore, the FAA encourages inspectors to establish early contact with sponsors and organizers of aviation events so that informational and FAA Safety Team activities can be planned to serve attendees.
2) Under no circumstances should these gatherings be targeted for a blanket sweep inspection of spectator airmen and aircraft.
3) The scope of surveillance conducted on aviation event performers and their aircraft will be determined by the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) manager.
4) Inspectors assigned work functions at aviation events should strive to earn the confidence of the attending and participating airmen. This can be accomplished by displaying expert technical knowledge as an aviation safety professional.
5) The guidance in this section does not preclude inspectors from taking appropriate action to resolve situations they observe that require immediate corrective action.​
Click to expand...
 
Half Fast said:
I'm not sure there's a good way to enforce the prohibition without catching someone in the act of providing a ride, most likely with a ramp check. Doing widespread ramp checks at an event like Oshkosh or Sun-N-Fun would go against the FAA's surveillance policy.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But formal enforcement is not the only avenue. In the case of EAA, the practice is well known, the sharing site easily accessible, and the organization a big player in national aviation which would not want to be painted by the FAA as supporting intentional violations. If the FAA frowned on it, I would expect the FAA to let EAA know. AFAIK, that has not happened.

We can play cute deep analysis games, but the bottom line for me is always the very simple one I mentioned earlier. When the FAA looks at the EAA rideshare, it doesn't hear quacking.
 
Half Fast said:
I'm not sure there's a good way to enforce the prohibition without catching someone in the act of providing a ride, most likely with a ramp check.
Click to expand...

The assumption being there’s something about the EAA ride share list that needs to be “prohibited” in the first place? Nah.

Like Mark says, it’s widely known and FAA doesn’t tap EAA on the shoulder and say, “Take that down...” so it’s a pretty safe bet it meets the definition of a shared private flight with operational cost sharing.

Might be funny if FAA offered up any open seats going to OSH on N1, but I doubt there are any when they arrive each year. ;) Full jet, I’m sure. Haha. Not too many who’d want to split operational costs with FAA for their seat, either. ;)

I suspect most enforcement on these things starts one of two ways... a tip (anonymous or otherwise) to a local FSDO from a commercial operator seeing someone else not have to go through the expense and effort they do... or interviews with survivors after crashes or other incidents.

That’s my guess anyway. Of course posting ads on YouTube saying you’ll happily fly anyone to BFE and back for ten easy payments of $19.95, might be kinda stupid, these days, too. ;)
 
It's been my observation that the FAA is willing to give you wide latitude to kill yourself, becomes much more involved if you include your friends and family, and becomes damn serious if you are inviting the general public. Many years ago, airline operations were dangerous. After decades of effort, this has changed to where it is the safest form of transportation,and I do believe the FAA intends to keep it that way. Even part 135 charter operations have a good safety record, but part 91, not so much. Like @denverpilot said, the FAA will tolerate rideboards for aviation membership organizations, if for no other reason than it's likely that all involved parties are knowledgeable enough to decide whether or not they're willing to take the risk for any given flight. Members of the general public aren't qualified to make such a decision, and I'd expect the FAA is going to do what it can to keep the general public away from part 91 operations, other than flight instruction.

I still think there is neither sufficient supply nor demand to justify an Uber style app for GA airplanes, even if it were legal.
 
Last edited:
Zeldman said:
To make this all legal... have the passenger hold a gun on the pilot. When it is time to return, the pilot can hold the gun on the passenger.


Jiminies.... do I have to think of everything here..????
Click to expand...
While your efforts are appreciated and some of your ideas may be workable if modified, you have got to learn to think of the children! If there is a child on the flight and they see a gun then they will be tainted for life and won’t be permitted to live in Chicago or New York.
 
FWTxPilot said:
Got me, too! I couldn't resist even though I knew better.
Click to expand...
;)
But I got only 3 members (well, those who admitted it openly).
There are still plenty others who thought I was serious. (or that Rick was serious) :)

C'mon, guys, don't feed the trolls. Do I need to post a meme?
 
midlifeflyer said:
Serious comment. Those others mentioned? They all thought they found a loophole. I refer to these rules an "intentionally vague." The reason is simple. For better or worse, it's about a general policy not to allow something that quacks like a commercial duck. Loopholes exist when rules get very specific.

"Receiving something of value" (the definition of compensation) in exchange for transportation is pretty broad. Hard to find loopholes and it allows the FAA to effectively close loopholes as quickly as they are opened. Add to that a no-tolerance policy to put the kibosh on things that no one else would object to. Fly a business associate for lunch as a way of networking for unrelated business? Surprise! Compensation! At least without a specific exemption.

The best argument so far has been the FlyteNow one. Fought it into the courts and one of the FlyteNow lawyers was a former member of the Chief Counsel's office who had authored FAA opinions on the subject and probably knows this area as well as or better than anyone. The Court if Appeals didn't seem to even give it serious attention.
Click to expand...
Awesome input, thanks! Yeah I read up on FlyteNow, that was a pretty good idea. All making more sense now, thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top