Sharemysky.org

W

Walsh029

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
16
Display Name
Display name:
Matt
Hi guys,

I'm a long time reader of this forums. I've probably read every thread in Hangar Talk and Flight Following for the last two years. (At least for the first two pages before the thread inevitably digresses into an off topic argument)

Anyway, I saw an ad on my Facebook for this service called Sharemysky.org. I looked at the site which is pretty scarce of quality information and didn't have any of my questions answered. Naturally, I was curious so I went here to read about it and didn't see a thread on the topic so I thought I would bring it up.

The website basically says it matches up pilots with passengers. I was interested in the legalities of this and how this service complies with the regs. It says that pilots post flights and passengers then sign up and pay for the flights on the website. Seems to me like a 135 operation but I'm probably wrong. I would not be a user of the service as I really don't have any desire or monetary need to take on the hassle/ liability of carrying a paying passenger but was hoping to hear the forum experts thoughts on the service.

Thanks!

Matt
 
There's a FAA legal opinion letter out there that says such sites are legal, but the underlying operations may not be. Certainly, I'd be leery as a pilot to post open seats.

A similar site is flytenow.com. They've done a better job at spelling out the pro-rata share requirement, but I don't think it's taken off.
 
Welcome to the forum Matt,looks like a good way to get a visit from your local FAA inspector.
 
DavidWhite said:
That definitely looks less than legal.
Click to expand...

Sites like this have been operating for years now with considerable publicity and no apparent opposition from the FAA. A pilot plans a personal flight and then checks whether anyone wants to come along and pay a pro rata share. Can you say why that "definitely looks less than legal" to you?

Here's what the FAA itself has said about such sites:
http://forums.jetcareers.com/attachments/faa-letter-ride-sharing-pdf.27126/
 
The FAA doesn't get involved in the legality (or not) of a web site, since web sites don't operate aircraft (yet?). Their silence on the matter is not an implied opinion on the legality of flight operations that stem from such sites, however.

I could open a site offering paid seat tickets aboard my C-182, flying anywhere you want me to take you. The site would be perfectly legal. The FAA would yank my ticket in response to my following through with such activity -- but they would probably not care about the site remaining up afterwards.
 
Walsh029 said:
Hi guys,

I'm a long time reader of this forums. I've probably read every thread in Hangar Talk and Flight Following for the last two years. (At least for the first two pages before the thread inevitably digresses into an off topic argument)

Anyway, I saw an ad on my Facebook for this service called Sharemysky.org. I looked at the site which is pretty scarce of quality information and didn't have any of my questions answered. Naturally, I was curious so I went here to read about it and didn't see a thread on the topic so I thought I would bring it up.

The website basically says it matches up pilots with passengers. I was interested in the legalities of this and how this service complies with the regs. It says that pilots post flights and passengers then sign up and pay for the flights on the website. Seems to me like a 135 operation but I'm probably wrong. I would not be a user of the service as I really don't have any desire or monetary need to take on the hassle/ liability of carrying a paying passenger but was hoping to hear the forum experts thoughts on the service.

Thanks!

Matt
Click to expand...

There's an interesting letter from the FAA that basically says "These services themselves are legal, but not so much the pilots and flights." Personally if I saw a good opportunity in it where it was someone going where I was going, I'd do it. With the letter being a bit ambiguous, and other similar services also in operation for several years where I'm not hearing about any busts (I have no idea if even one connection was ever facilitated either though so....) so I have a feeling that unless the FSDOs start receiving complaints from 135 operators, the FAA wold rather not have to police that and leave it up to people not to abuse the system. Besides, it's not like you're going to get into any real trouble if you are just using it as a ride share board. About all that will happen the first time at least is you will be told that you can no longer do it.
 
Last edited:
C182P said:
The FAA doesn't get involved in the legality (or not) of a web site
Click to expand...

They take action against illegal operators and pilots of illegal flights. And I've seen no indication of that happening in connection with these sites. Plus, the FAA has said (in the letter I linked to) that there's no inherent problem with the flights that the sites promote.
 
There have been pilot ride shares before, but they never help facilitate the monetary exchange of funds from passenger to pilot. In the era of Lyft and Uber, you'll see more and more of them until the FAA finally starts cracking down.
 
acrophile said:
They take action against illegal operators and pilots of illegal flights.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is what I said - and since web sites don't conduct flights of any kind, they're irrelevant to FAA enforcement.
And I've seen no indication of that happening in connection with these sites. Plus, the FAA has said (in the letter I linked to) that there's no inherent problem with the flights that the sites promote.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying with certainty there is a problem, I'm only saying the FAA is strict on anything that smells like holding out. That, coupled with typical knee-jerk reactions, is enough to keep me clear of such visibility.
 
Henning said:
There's an interesting letter from the FAA that basically says "These services themselves are legal, but not so much the pilots and flights."
Click to expand...

The letter I linked to said there could be a problem if a pilot lists a flight without specifying a destination or date. In that case, the FAA said, the common-purpose requirement might not be met. Otherwise, the letter says there's no problem. The pilot just needs to be making the flight anyway, not scheduling it at the passengers' request.
 
DavidWhite said:
That definitely looks less than legal.
Click to expand...

Posting that you have a seat available is the only technical glitch. The website itself, no worries; posting that you are looking for a ride to Seattle, no worries; having a seat available for a flight to Seattle you were making and calling that person up and offering them the ride on pro rata, no problem. Posting that you have a seat available going to Seattle for a pro rata share, now we have a potential problem, that can be viewed as holding out.

I haven't heard of any busts over this yet though, so I think the FAA is either hoping it won't become a problem, or there is no activity to speak of that comes from these sites.
 
Henning said:
Posting that you have a seat available going to Seattle for a pro rata share, now we have a potential problem, that can be viewed as holding out.
Click to expand...

But the regulations about "holding out" only distinguish between different types of carrier (namely, common vs. noncommon), unless there's another invocation of that term that I don't know about. The point of the FAA letter I linked to is that flight-sharing sites, and their pilots, do not count as carriers at all, provided that the pilot lists a personal flight that she or he was planning to make anyway, rather than a flight requested by and conducted for the passenger(s).

The FAA letter specifically addresses a site that advertised cost-sharing as an aspect of the ride-sharing. So advertising the pro-rata cost has already been ruled not to create an inherent problem for the legality of the flight (provided that the common-purpose requirement is met).
 
Not legal. Not even close. If the FAA catches any pilot taking money from that web site for flying passengers the web sited located and from whom the web site collected money, they are toast. You'd almost certainly be in violation of your aircraft insurance policy, too -- and the implications of that get really huge.

BTW, guess who it was to whom that letter acrophile linked was addressed? :D
 
Last edited:
acrophile said:
Sites like this have been operating for years now with considerable publicity and no apparent opposition from the FAA. A pilot plans a personal flight and then checks whether anyone wants to come along and pay a pro rata share. Can you say why that "definitely looks less than legal" to you?

Here's what the FAA itself has said about such sites:
http://forums.jetcareers.com/attachments/faa-letter-ride-sharing-pdf.27126/
Click to expand...
Did anyone open the attachment and read to whom it was addressed? :D

Edit: I see Ron beat me to it.

What I got from the letter was that the site itself was OK but the individual flights might be open to enforcement. What the Regional Counsel specifically didn't like were the flights which had open-ended dates which might indicate that there was no commonality of purpose.
 
Not risking my hard earned pilot certificate on something like that which is open to so much interpretation...

Guess what? Flying is expensive.

Get over it.
 
vdehart said:
Not risking my hard earned pilot certificate on something like that which is open to so much interpretation...

Guess what? Flying is expensive.

Get over it.
Click to expand...

You're not really risking anything. If there is an issue, the first time around, you will be counseled on what you can no longer do and that will pretty much be the end of it.
 
Everskyward said:
What the Regional Counsel specifically didn't like were the flights which had open-ended dates which might indicate that there was no commonality of purpose.
Click to expand...

I think if you publish a schedule then they'd say you're holding out as a common air carrier, so they get you one way or the other.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
I think if you publish a schedule then they'd say you're holding out as a common air carrier, so they get you one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Not if the "schedule" lists personal flights that you were planning to take anyway for your own purposes (as opposed to scheduling them just to transport passengers). That's the point of the FAA's letter to Ron.
 
dtuuri said:
I think if you publish a schedule then they'd say you're holding out as a common air carrier, so they get you one way or the other.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's kinda damned either way to offer the flight up. I think though that as long as it passed the quack test they'll not be too fussed. Here is an interesting scenario, say I live in San Diego and work in Long Beach and I commute every day to work from Montgomery Field. I list that on one of these ride share sites, "I commute for work daily, ride share pool for those also commuting." Now, this passes technical and quack test. I think in a Bonanza or 310 I wouldn't attract any attention. I think with a Chieftain or King Air 200 I might fall under scrutiny, especially if the seats were filled, but even so It wouldn't necessarily be illegal either.
 
Counseled ? Hah! If you were a working pilot and you get slapped with an illegal 135 operation, you're going to get more than counseled. You can expect a suspension.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not legal. Not even close.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand how you came to that conclusion. If the payment from passenger to pilot is made through the website then the website is merely a money handler...not the payer. I don't see that as any different than if a buddy and I flew to the coast to get Crawfish and he paid me for his 1/2 of the expenses through PayPal or with his visa. PayPal or visa didn't pay me, they merely handled the transfer of money from my buddy to me.

As far as the legality of using the site is concerned...

When I was still working and flying SE MO to Medina, OH and back every week, I don't think I would have hesitated posting my flights on this site.

Every Monday morning I departed SE MO at approx 12z and arrived at Medina about 16z.

Every Friday afternoon I departed Medina at 19z and arrived SE MO at 23z.

If I'd posted this schedule, someone went with, and paid their 1/2. I say it's legal.

However, if someone said "hey could you drop me off at Columbus, OH"? And I did...then illegal since I had no reason to go to Columbus and common purpose is out the window.

That's my take on the situation.
 
flyingron said:
Counseled ? Hah! If you were a working pilot and you get slapped with an illegal 135 operation, you're going to get more than counseled. You can expect a suspension.
Click to expand...

If you are a 'working pilot' doing this then you are abusing the system and should be slapped. If you are a pilot commuting to his engineering job and takes half a dozen fellow commuters on a pro rata basis, it's not so clear cut as a bust.
 
flyingron said:
Counseled ? Hah! If you were a working pilot and you get slapped with an illegal 135 operation, you're going to get more than counseled. You can expect a suspension.
Click to expand...
Henning is pretty much correct. Not always but the FAA response to this kind of stuff is often an initial "you know you can't do that" except in extreme circumstances. And even then, it's surprising how much rope the FAA will give someone.

There's the somewhat interesting Gorman case where the pilot, a check carrier, dropped his Part 135 certificate figuring that since he limited his business to only one customer he was in private carriage no longer requiring a Part 135 certificate. Besides, since he took all the seats (other than his) out, he was no loner operating with less than 20 passenger seats and therefore longer subject to Part 135 requirements.

Initial contact was by an Inspector who counselled him on his error, followed by a series of written communications warning him to stop. The emergency revocation came about 5 months later after all other attempts to get him to voluntarily stop failed. Gorman v NTSB
 
I think in some cases it would be legal.

Unless the FAA decides that the search for common purpose can not be advertised...which would be impossible as then no one would ever be aware they shared common purpose...

...then I don't see how it's illegal or against the regs for someone to advertise or make contact through a website about a possible common purpose flight, I.E. "I commute to city A for work at this time everyday, anyone else already have a need to go to city A who wants to split costs?" Not only does such a situation satisfy common purpose, it's pretty much the legal example given by the FAA or others in everything I've read on common purpose.

This assumes the website itself makes $0 from the flights themselves.
 
Last edited:
Believe what you want, but Howard Fried might have a different story for you.
There are definitely others that I personally know the pilots.
Just because you know pilots who got a slap on the wrist, doesn't mean that is universally the case.

Often it depends on what "special focus" the FAA is giving at any given time. They get a crash when you've got something that smells like an illegal 135 ops, they'll start looking for the usual suspects to HANG.
 
acrophile said:
Not if the "schedule" lists personal flights that you were planning to take anyway for your own purposes (as opposed to scheduling them just to transport passengers). That's the point of the FAA's letter to Ron.
Click to expand...

It's hard for me to see how the FAA would allow private pilots to carry paying passengers under circumstances that seem to me the same as those they don't allow of legitimate on-demand air carriers: http://www.jetlaw.com/insights/wp-content/uploads/on-demand-v-scheduled-sept-2007.pdf

But I'm anxious to hear how they will.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
It's hard for me to see how the FAA would allow private pilots to carry paying passengers under circumstances that seem to me the same as those they don't allow of legitimate on-demand air carriers: http://www.jetlaw.com/insights/wp-content/uploads/on-demand-v-scheduled-sept-2007.pdf
Click to expand...
I don't think that article is relevant to what we are discussing here. That case has to do with the difference between on-demand and scheduled flights because the operator has a certificate for on-demand 135 and not scheduled. Since the departure and destination airport are set, and departure times are very specific (some down to a 36 minute window) and not negotiated with the customer, the FAA is saying that these flights would be seen as scheduled and not on-demand. However, as the article points out, the FAA didn't specify how large a window would be necessary to take it back into the on-demand category. If you google "empty leg charter" you'll see that this is still a viable business model with many flights being offered by various companies. The fact that the charter company would be paid for these flights (most likely far more than the passenger's pro rata share of expenses) does not even come into question.

These ride sharing sites have been around for a long time. Before that there was the bulletin board at the FBO. Can anyone come up with examples of pilots who have been cited for a violation on a legitimate cost-sharing flight which originated from one of these sources? I realize there are cases of illegal charter but I am not talking about that.
 
Everskyward said:
I don't think that article is relevant to what we are discussing here. That case has to do with the difference between on-demand and scheduled flights because the operator has a certificate for on-demand 135 and not scheduled. Since the departure and destination airport are set, and departure times are very specific (some down to a 36 minute window) and not negotiated with the customer, the FAA is saying that these flights would be seen as scheduled and not on-demand. However, as the article points out, the FAA didn't specify how large a window would be necessary to take it back into the on-demand category. If you google "empty leg charter" you'll see that this is still a viable business model with many flights being offered by various companies. The fact that the charter company would be paid for these flights (most likely far more than the passenger's pro rata share of expenses) does not even come into question.

These ride sharing sites have been around for a long time. Before that there was the bulletin board at the FBO. Can anyone come up with examples of pilots who have been cited for a violation on a legitimate cost-sharing flight which originated from one of these sources? I realize there are cases of illegal charter but I am not talking about that.
Click to expand...

Well, it's the 'ride-sharing' aspect that's relevant, not the 'empty-leg' business model aspect of the article. Telling customers what time the plane will depart is what scheduled air carriers do. Charging money that's not enough to cover all costs--they do too. :) So, if it looks like a duck...

This common carriage by private pilots ought to be clearly seen as illegal, imo. The fact the pilots avail themselves of a third-party enabler in the form of a free website shouldn't make any difference.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
Telling customers what time the plane will depart is what scheduled air carriers do.
Click to expand...
But a private pilot can tell their passengers what time they are departing. That doesn't mean that the passengers can't pay their pro-rata share. In fact the opposite (passengers dictating the time) would be more of a problem.
 
dtuuri said:
Telling customers what time the plane will depart is what scheduled air carriers do.
Click to expand...

You're overlooking the key difference, which is the "common purpose" criterion that distinguishes air carriers (both common carriers and private carriers) from pilots who are merely sharing flights and costs. That's the criterion that was emphasized in the FAA letter about flight-sharing.

If you solicit cost-sharing passengers for a personal flight that you're making anyway for your own purposes (and they want to go to the same destination at the same time), then the common-purpose criterion is met and you're ok. If you schedule a flight just in order to accommodate a passenger's travel plans (and collect some money from them in the process), then you're in violation.
 
I'm doing a weekly commute and often have 2-4 empty seats. I've thought about using the local bulletin board to help out others who'd rather do a 2-3 hr flight rather than 9-10 in a car. Our "common purpose" is work on one end and being with our families at the other.

The tricky part with this site is to actually cost share you need to know the costs. Eastbound with the wind we've made it in under two hours, although 2:15 to 2:30 is more typical. Westbound add an hour or so. You don't know the actual times, thus costs, until you fly it. I'm not sure how'd they'd deal with that.
 
Everskyward said:
Did anyone open the attachment and read to whom it was addressed? :D

Edit: I see Ron beat me to it.

What I got from the letter was that the site itself was OK but the individual flights might be open to enforcement. What the Regional Counsel specifically didn't like were the flights which had open-ended dates which might indicate that there was no commonality of purpose.
Click to expand...

The amazing thing to me is that someone would go running to the FAA on something like this in which they have no involvement. Talk about the ultimate busy-body. "Mommy, mommy....look what those boys are doing over there!!" Sheesh.
 
LDJones said:
The tricky part with this site is to actually cost share you need to know the costs. Eastbound with the wind we've made it in under two hours, although 2:15 to 2:30 is more typical. Westbound add an hour or so. You don't know the actual times, thus costs, until you fly it. I'm not sure how'd they'd deal with that.
Click to expand...

The way FlyteNow (for example) does it is that the pilot estimates what each passenger's share will be. If the actual pro rata cost turns out to be less, the passenger pays less. If it turns out to be more, the passenger just pays the estimated cost. Limiting it to the estimated cost is not a regulatory requirement, but rather FlyteNow policy. They realize that passengers would be reluctant to sign up if there's no upper limit to how much they might end up paying.
 
Everskyward said:
But a private pilot can tell their passengers what time they are departing.
Click to expand...
Not if the passengers are common carriage.

acrophile said:
If you solicit cost-sharing passengers...<snip>
Click to expand...
Then you're "holding out" for common carriage.
LDJones said:
The amazing thing to me is that someone would go running to the FAA on something like this in which they have no involvement. Talk about the ultimate busy-body. "Mommy, mommy....look what those boys are doing over there!!" Sheesh.
Click to expand...

:lol: I had the exact same reaction!

dtuuri
 
LDJones said:
The amazing thing to me is that someone would go running to the FAA on something like this in which they have no involvement.
Click to expand...

Huh? Maybe they were thinking of participating and wanted to know in advance if it was legal. Or maybe they were thinking of setting up a similar service.
 
dtuuri said:
Not if the passengers are common carriage.

Then you're "holding out" for common carriage.
Click to expand...

No. If you and your passengers have a bona fide common purpose for the flight, then you're not acting as any kind of carrier--neither a common carrier nor a private carrier. "Holding out" is merely what distinguishes those two types of carriers; "holding out" has no regulatory significance if you're not acting as any kind of carrier in the first place.

If you think a pilot is acting as a carrier despite having a common purpose with his or her passengers (despite the FAA's letter that says the opposite), could you explain please why you think so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top