That seems to be a pretty succinct summarization!
No red flags, but some yellow ones.
That's about the way I read it, too. But outside of any FAA issues, what do you know about the people you find on one of these ride-share boards? And what might they be carrying with them? Drugs? Guns? A surprise package from Osama bin Ladn?
I think you're right, but I also think the "holding out" would allow them to pile on the penalties, and the public post would provide documentary evidence of intent.
Hey, he's getting out there! He was a lecturer and aviation sciences program director at University of Maryland, Eastern Shores. And he was quoted in Aviation Week last month, too! http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/PILOTS03128.xml
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Levy_Ron_334048814.aspx said:
I agree, if someone is caught scamming the system that opinio won't help.
They knew I was teaching at the U and made an assumption. They never dropped the title from their database when I left.
Exactly.
Do you think he know Mary Ann and Ginger?
Yes, I think you're very close, although I think #2 is really shaky due to lack of definite travel dates/times. The only thing that would make #3 better would be a definite return date. Based on my reading of the FAA letter, you should have fixed go/return dates to be sure the "common purpose" criterion is met. With flexible travel dates, I think you risk running afoul of that standard.
I think that's true. The FAA only gets into enforcement mode when someone complains or a pilot is foolish enough to do something wrong with an Inspector watching.
I'm sure people will be doing that, and that they do it all the time. But if they get caught, they're toast.
Even if nothing happens on the flight, there are a lot of reasons why the rider could be unhappy about the situation and complain to the FAA. That could range from scaring the heck out of them in flight (even if you didn't do anything wrong, passengers occasionally become irrationally afraid) to the passenger being upset because you weather-delayed the flight and s/he "didn't get what I paid for." IOW, you can do everything right but still have a complaint filed, and the FSDO is legally required to investigate all complaints. That's another reason why I recommend sticking with friends and family for this kind of stuff.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. But more importantly than that, I think that's also what Ms. Alkalay was saying. In fact, I don't think the FAA cares whether all individuals involved have the same reason for being at the destination at that time, just that all aboard have a reason for being at the same destination at the same time. That's what I think they mean by "common purpose."
The way I read it, you're fine if you're also in the band.
But you get bonus points for the photo of a complete drum kit, plus guitar and amp, stuffed into a light single.
It is OK to advertise for riders as long as you stay within the "common purpose" requirement, i.e., you say specifically when and where you are going, you have a reason for going there at that time, and you don't change either for the benefit of the rider.
That's not quite what she said. Read it carefully, and you'll see she says there is nothing inherently illegal about that web site or using it, but there is significant potential for a pilot to violate the rules when doing so, especially by violating the "common purpose" requirement in posting a ride without a specific destination/date, filling a rider's request for a ride when the pilot has no reason to go to that destination on that date, or changing destination/date for the rider's convenience. IOW, it's not automatically illegal, but it is a giant opportunity to screw up if you aren't careful how you go about it.
Nope. The only flight you can share expenses on in that situation is a direct flight from your home base to Albany, because that's the only place you have your own reason to be going -- you have no reason to be stopping in Boston or Worcester other than to pick up the passengers.
Either the pax or the local 135 operator who finds out you're running what amounts to a faux 135 operation without an operating certificate. As I understand it, those are the two most common sources of those sorts of complaints. Most of the time, it's just an integrity check.
Depends on whether or not your mom complains to the FAA about it.
It's the "wherever, whenever" part that is the problem, not the "holding out" on Facebook. As noted above, it can be legal to advertise for shared expense riders if you stay within the "common purpose" requirement. But it is also very easy to fall afoul of that one when advertising for riders, so mind your p's and q's.
Not my interpretation -- mostly Loretta Alkalay's (and I did speak with her personally about this issue), plus some other FAA Counsels. I'm just passing it on.
First, here's the link to the Haberkorn letter. In reading the Haberkorn letter, I see nothing at odds with the Alkalay letter discussed at the top. If the common purpose requirement is adhered to, there should be no problem, and Ms. MacPherson (or rather Nancy Sanchez, who actually wrote the Haberkorn letter) makes it clear that the Haberkorn letter does not say outright that listing a ride on Facebook is illegal per se. However, the Haberkorn letter reiterates Ms. Alkalay's caution about that, making clear that it is very easy to violate the common purpose clause when you put your offer out to a hundred million people on Facebook.
I'd be surprised if the 135 operator isn't a far distant second place.
Whatever. It happens, and with sufficient regularity that one should not dismiss it.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Tom, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
