Sharemysky.org

LDJones said:
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.
Click to expand...

The commonality needn't even be that specific. It's enough that you each have a reason to go from A to B at time T.
 
Hmmm, So what ya'll are saying is that pilot tells his passenger that he'll be wheels up at 7am, and passenger gets there on time, and they go to their destination, passenger tops up the tanks. They do what ever they went there to do, and return. Upon arrival, pilot tops up the tanks. Pilot and passenger split the rental cost of the airplane. And the pilot can get slapped for violating the rules of holding out, common carriage, pt 135/121, etc. because he told the passenger what time he was departing, and accepted half the rental fee, and fuel cost.
I call B.S.
 
8anepuza.jpg
 
acrophile said:
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?
Click to expand...

My explanation is here in AC 120-12A. "Holding out" doesn't require advertising, just a willingness to transport anybody. Private carriers aren't willing to do that--they transport family, employees, associates, etc.

dtuuri
 
Flytnow (https://flytenow.com/) is getting started as well. Here's their FAQ take on the issues: https://flytenow.com/faq

"Can I use Flytenow as a private pilot?
Yes. Flytenow’s service complies with 14 CFR 61.113(a)-(d), which allows a private pilot to receive pro rata reimbursement from his passengers for fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees, so long as the pilot and his passengers share a bona fide common purpose for conducting the flight. Flytenow facilitates common purpose because pilots, rather than enthusiasts, unilaterally dictate the destination (and purpose) of an adventure, and enthusiasts express shared interest in the specific date, points of operation, and adventure.

Would this be considered "Holding Out"?
When you create an adventure, you are not "holding out" under 14 C.F.R. 119.5(k) because your adventure does not communicate to the public that transportation services are indiscriminately available but rather, only available to an enthusiast who has a demonstrated common interest in the specific date, points of operation, and adventure. Moreover, Part 119 applies to Air Carriers and Commercial Operators for Compensation or Hire, not pilots engaged in the genuine sharing of expenses under 14 CFR 61.113(a)-(d)."

I would assume they have talked to the FAA about this before launching.
 
dtuuri said:
My explanation is here in AC 120-12A. "Holding out" doesn't require advertising, just a willingness to transport anybody. Private carriers aren't willing to do that--they transport family, employees, associates, etc.

dtuuri
Click to expand...
That AC deals with the differences between private carriage and common carriage. It does not explain why you think ride-sharing is carriage.
 
dtuuri said:
My explanation is here in AC 120-12A. "Holding out" doesn't require advertising, just a willingness to transport anybody.
Click to expand...

I agree that holding out does not require advertising. But the very notion of holding out only applies to carriers. The relevant sentence in AC-120 12A says "A CARRIER becomes a COMMON carrier when it 'holds itself out' or to a segment of the public, as willing to furnish transportation within the limits of its facilities to any person who wants it" (emphasis added).

So IF you're a CARRIER, holding-out makes you become a COMMON carrier, according to AC 120-12A. But nothing in that AC says that holding-out makes you a carrier to begin with. Nothing in that AC suggests that a pilot is being a carrier merely by soliciting passengers (with or without cost-sharing) who have a bona fide common purpose. And if you're not a carrier, there's no rule against holding-out (or at least none that I know of or that anyone in this thread has cited).
 
acrophile said:
...nothing in that AC says that holding-out makes you a carrier to begin with. Nothing in that AC suggests that a pilot is being a carrier merely by soliciting passengers (with or without cost-sharing) who have a bona fide common purpose.
Click to expand...
Sure it does, that's what the AC is all about. Even "time-sharing" arrangements that are specifically authorized by Part 91 can be illegal "common carriage" if the owner shows a willingness to share time with anybody who wants it. Like all things FAA, chances are good you won't be held to account until some event occurs or you tic somebody off--who might just be another person who thinks you're unfairly competing with their legal business enterprise.

I'm merely rendering my opinion rooted in my experience in dealing with the FAA as an air carrier myself and having a feel for their mindset. The above FAQ sounds like pure double-talk to me. If they ran it past the Chief Counsel, you can be sure they'd have printed the interpretation in bold highlight. But... nothing's there.

dtuuri
 
Henning said:
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.
Click to expand...
For a first-time, one-time situation, that is the reading I get from HQ FAA.
 
timwinters said:
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.
Click to expand...
That web site becomes a commercial operator providing air transportation for hire (I'll bet they take a cut of the funds) and paying the pilot for his/her services. The pilot is now operating as a paid pilot for an operator providing air transportation for hire. Death by bugaloo for the pilot involved.
 
If you google "private pilot ride sharing" you get many links to these kinds of sites. There's even a link to a prior thread on this site. :)

What I'm getting as is if the FAA objected to what goes on on these kinds of sites you would think that we would have heard about it by now. Ride share bulletin boards have been around forever even though the sites on the internet are fairly new. If there had been some kind of enforcement action we have people here who would not hesitate to post it. We already know from the letter in response to Ron that the FAA has no problem with the sites per se and that each flight would need to be judged on its own merit.
 
Everskyward said:
What I'm getting as is if the FAA objected to what goes on on these kinds of sites you would think that we would have heard about it by now.
Click to expand...
The FAA has no say over what the sites do. The sites don't violate the FAA's rules -- only the pilots using them, and that's whom the FAA will take action against if they catch them violating 61.113.
 
Ron Levy said:
The FAA has no say over what the sites do. The sites don't violate the FAA's rules -- only the pilots using them, and that's whom the FAA will take action against if they catch them violating 61.113.
Click to expand...
As these sites, not to mention bulletin boards, have been around for a while, I will be waiting to see someone post a situation where a pilot has received a violation for using one of these sites to find a legitimate ride-sharer.
 
dtuuri said:
Sure it does, that's what the AC is all about. Even "time-sharing" arrangements that are specifically authorized by Part 91 can be illegal "common carriage" if the owner shows a willingness to share time with anybody who wants it.
Click to expand...

No, that's only IF the pilot is acting as any sort of carrier AND shows a willingness to fly whoever wants it.

That's the whole question here: why do you think the FIRST of those two conditions is met? Why do you think the pilot is acting as a carrier if there's a bona fide common purpose? What wording in the AC do you think addresses THAT question? I see none.
 
acrophile said:
No, that's only IF the pilot is acting as any sort of carrier AND shows a willingness to fly whoever wants it.

That's the whole question here: why do you think the FIRST of those two conditions is met? Why do you think the pilot is acting as a carrier if there's a bona fide common purpose? What wording in the AC do you think addresses THAT question? I see none.
Click to expand...

It's a fair question, but I'm not in the mood to discuss it any further. I've been in aviation all my life and been through many "what if" scenarios along these lines over the years. You can always parse the language so that it seems to allow what you deep down wish to do. The reality is, if you're willing to fly around members of the general public, and in my opinion using a website is proof of that, you're acting as a carrier. Flying friends, neighbors and family is ok. "Common purpose" isn't the only requirement, imo.

dtuuri
 
I think it's narrow sited a tad to look at the world, and say only immediate friends and relatives can qualify as common purpose private passengers.

The web blows that out of the water. We have a medium here where I can post I'm flying to Amarillo next week would anyone like to go? and maybe in fifteen minutes someone will say yes.

So limiting the 'common purpose' group to strictly private immediate family or the latest soup du 'jour is preposterous. imho. :dunno:
 
dtuuri said:
The reality is, if you're willing to fly around members of the general public, and in my opinion using a website is proof of that, you're acting as a carrier. Flying friends, neighbors and family is ok. "Common purpose" isn't the only requirement, imo.
Click to expand...

+1

txflyer said:
I think it's narrow sited a tad to look at the world, and say only immediate friends and relatives can qualify as common purpose private passengers.

The web blows that out of the water. We have a medium here where I can post I'm flying to Amarillo next week would anyone like to go? and maybe in fifteen minutes someone will say yes.

So limiting the 'common purpose' group to strictly private immediate family or the latest soup du 'jour is preposterous. imho. :dunno:
Click to expand...

American, United, southwest and all of the other airlines must feel like idiots for dealing with all this 121 nonsense. Just get a website, post when you're planning on flying somewhere, and just charge pro-rata fares. Hey, in the social media world, we're all friends, right? Surely a $69 fare to Vegas can't be more than pro rata, right?

If we're going to set different standards for holding out, then how can these websites not be in violation of the spirit of the rule, if not the letter? Every pilot who's ever passed a check ride has gotten one of those "can you fly me to..." requests. It one thing when those requests are from your parents; it's totally different when you're advertising rides on a public board to the Vineyard, the Outer Banks, or Catalina.

Oh, but you're going there anyway, so it's common purpose right? How's that get enforced? OK, I'm flying DC to ACK tomorrow, three seats available. I only "sell" two seats, so I change my mind and decide to mow my lawn instead. If I don't make the flight because no one else takes me up on my offer, the common purpose argument is pretty weak, no?

[sarcasm]Hey, I'm flying a bunch of PnP dogs to Philly next week. Three seats available. $50 each. Maybe I put a student pilot in the left seat and charge him for flight instruction too, right? After my PnP tax deduction, I can make a ton of money at this. Woo boo, who said you can't make a small fortune in aviation? [/sarcasm]
 
Brad Z said:
+1



American, United, southwest and all of the other airlines must feel like idiots for dealing with all this 121 nonsense. Just get a website, post when you're planning on flying somewhere, and just charge pro-rata fares. Hey, in the social media world, we're all friends, right? Surely a $69 fare to Vegas can't be more than pro rata, right?

If we're going to set different standards for holding out, then how can these websites not be in violation of the spirit of the rule, if not the letter? Every pilot who's ever passed a check ride has gotten one of those "can you fly me to..." requests. It one thing when those requests are from your parents; it's totally different when you're advertising rides on a public board to the Vineyard, the Outer Banks, or Catalina.

Oh, but you're going there anyway, so it's common purpose right? How's that get enforced? OK, I'm flying DC to ACK tomorrow, three seats available. I only "sell" two seats, so I change my mind and decide to mow my lawn instead. If I don't make the flight because no one else takes me up on my offer, the common purpose argument is pretty weak, no?

[sarcasm]Hey, I'm flying a bunch of PnP dogs to Philly next week. Three seats available. $50 each. Maybe I put a student pilot in the left seat and charge him for flight instruction too, right? After my PnP tax deduction, I can make a ton of money at this. Woo boo, who said you can't make a small fortune in aviation? [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...


I haven't studied the website's, and don't plan on doing it, but there has to be a disconnect between the law where you draw the line and say "yep, that's for hire, and nope, that's private."

To my understanding, the websites are a cloud where pilots can state their intentions, and if anyone wants to fly along for the common reason of going to that specific location, then that was handled pretty privately by three individuals, and should fit the commonality rules imo. :redface: The pilot, the share, and the conduit or website which handled the meeting are all private entities.

I don't see a lot wrong with it if the code is adhered to to the best of a pilot's ability. There's a lot of IMC in the rule.
 
Brad Z said:
Oh, but you're going there anyway, so it's common purpose right? How's that get enforced? OK, I'm flying DC to ACK tomorrow, three seats available. I only "sell" two seats, so I change my mind and decide to mow my lawn instead. If I don't make the flight because no one else takes me up on my offer, the common purpose argument is pretty weak, no?
Click to expand...

I agree that in this scenario, there's no legitimate common purpose. Instead, the pilot is deliberately creating the illusion of a common purpose in order to game the system, and is actually acting as a (common) carrier. And that's the sort of thing the FAA presumably had in mind when it stated in its letter to Ron that some individual flight listings could be found to be in violation, even though there's no inherent problem with conducting flights listed on cost-sharing sites.

Is the common-purpose distinction hard to enforce for these sites? Probably, just as the same distinction is even harder to enforce when no website is involved. Suppose, for example, a co-worker quietly offers you money to fly them a few hundred miles away this weekend, a flight you have no other reason to make. There's no legit common purpose, but the FAA would find it hard to enforce that rule here. That's no reason not to share costs in other situations when there is a bona fide common purpose (with or without a website).

Empirically, these sites have been operating openly and with the FAA's knowledge for about a decade, and there are no known instances of the FAA busting any pilot for flights that were listed on the sites. Nor has the FAA warned pilots not to make use of the sites. On the contrary, their letter to Ron assures us it's ok, except for individual flights that fail to meet the common-purpose test (as in your hypothetical example).
 
acrophile said:
Empirically, these sites have been operating openly and with the FAA's knowledge for about a decade, and there are no known instances of the FAA busting any pilot for flights that were listed on the sites. Nor has the FAA warned pilots not to make use of the sites. On the contrary, their letter to Ron assures us it's ok, except for individual flights that fail to meet the common-purpose test (as in your hypothetical example).
Click to expand...

When I read the letter I came away with the exact opposite impression: The FAA stood mute on the website while cautioning the participant pilots that usual and long-time tests would still apply to every flight on the basis of the individual case facts. It could be argued, for example, that the website only was used to connect family members via a private log-in, so was never soliciting the general public.

Ask yourself how it would look in the newspaper a few days after you wipe out a young family and some reporter finds out you've been on this website taking strangers for charter flights without an operating certificate for a long time--and the FAA has done NOTHING to stop it! Do you think the same FAA conducting an investigation of the accident is going to run to your defense? No way. It took a long time before the Challenger accident at Teterboro shook up the illegal charter business, but did they ever shake it up. The fall-out even closed down a real highly respected and large multi-million dollar aircraft management company (how soon we forget the name--EDIT: TAG, I think) who basically, IIRC, parsed the rules the same way as the accident company, although doing so with the utmost professionalism.

I'm left wondering if this is a generational gap here... digital vs. analog thinking, if I may. In my analog generation I wonder if we're more tolerant of nuance. Don't need everything in ones and zeros, i.e., it is or it isn't. Really, these conversations remind me of ones I used to have with my mother when I was a kid. I'd ask, "Why?" and she'd say, "Just because!"

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
When I read the letter I came away with the exact opposite impression: The FAA stood mute on the website while cautioning the participant pilots that usual and long-time tests would still apply to every flight on the basis of the individual case facts. It could be argued, for example, that the website only was used to connect family members via a private log-in, so was never soliciting the general public.
Click to expand...
As I read the original post, this particular website is handling the money between passenger and pilot -- maybe even taking a cut? I'm pretty sure the FAA would not approve of that and would have jurisdiction to do something to the website operator.
 
Ron Levy said:
As I read the original post, this particular website is handling the money between passenger and pilot -- maybe even taking a cut? I'm pretty sure the FAA would not approve of that and would have jurisdiction to do something to the website operator.
Click to expand...

For sure! It'll happen someday too, just a matter of time. Unfortunately somebody will probably die first.

I'd like to offer some advice to those having a hard time deciding when passengers can pay the pilot: When they've known you well enough to form an opinion of your over-all abilities and character. If they have no clue what kind of a person you are, then they probably don't know what kind of a pilot you are either and shouldn't be even riding with you let alone paying you for it.

dtuuri
 
acrophile said:
No, that's only IF the pilot is acting as any sort of carrier AND shows a willingness to fly whoever wants it.
Click to expand...
You may be missing the analysis. You are treating "acting as a carrier" and "showing a willingness" as two different things.

One who is "showing a willingness to fly whomever wants it" for some sort of compensation is "acting as a carrier." That's pretty much a (English, not FAA) definition of what a common carrier is.
 
dtuuri said:
When I read the letter I came away with the exact opposite impression: The FAA stood mute on the website while cautioning the participant pilots that usual and long-time tests would still apply to every flight on the basis of the individual case facts. It could be argued, for example, that the website only was used to connect family members via a private log-in, so was never soliciting the general public.
Click to expand...
The FAA had no problem with the sites themselves but cautioned about the flights with open dates. They said the other flights may or may not meet the tests for ride-sharing but they couldn't comment without the details of the particular flights which makes sense. They didn't say the whole idea was in violation as some here seem to think.
 
So why doesn't someone ask a SPECIFIC question of the FAA and see if the FAA can be cornered into giving a SPECIFIC answer. The problem with the letter to Ron is that the FAA provided a nebulous answer to a nebulous question and thus, there is no answer.
 
Everskyward said:
The FAA had no problem with the sites themselves but cautioned about the flights with open dates. They said the other flights may or may not meet the tests for ride-sharing but they couldn't comment without the details of the particular flights which makes sense. They didn't say the whole idea was in violation as some here seem to think.
Click to expand...

"Caution" is the keyword. Here's a more recent interpretation specifically about posting via Facebook: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...1/haberkorn - (2011) legal interpretation.pdf

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
"Caution" is the keyword. Here's a more recent interpretation specifically about posting via Facebook: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...1/haberkorn - (2011) legal interpretation.pdf

dtuuri
Click to expand...

Well, that contained a few more specifics but still didn't provide clear guidance.

1. Common Purpose is met.
2. It's not an issue for a third party to handle the money and "take a cut" (Regardless of what Ron says).
3. They didn't answer the "holding out" question but alluded that these sites may not pass the smell test.
 
timwinters said:
So why doesn't someone ask a SPECIFIC question of the FAA and see if the FAA can be cornered into giving a SPECIFIC answer. The problem with the letter to Ron is that the FAA provided a nebulous answer to a nebulous question and thus, there is no answer.
Click to expand...
Even if you asked a specific question and got a specific answer it wouldn't help, because it might not apply to another case with different details. That's what I get out of it anyway.
 
timwinters said:
2. It's not an issue for a third party to handle the money and "take a cut" (Regardless of what Ron says).
Click to expand...

But they did question the relationship of the passengers and the pilot when PayPal was being used. I know that in this day and age, no one carries cash or checks so it's not unusual for friends to PayPal each other, but I do agree that when a service is used to facilitate the transfer of funds that the relationship of the two parties is in question.
 
Brad Z said:
But they did question the relationship of the passengers and the pilot when PayPal was being used. I know that in this day and age, no one carries cash or checks so it's not unusual for friends to PayPal each other, but I do agree that when a service is used to facilitate the transfer of funds that the relationship of the two parties is in question.
Click to expand...

I also think that there is a difference between a service like PayPal (which is designed to facilitate any generic financial transaction) and a service which is designed to facilitate financial transactions between pilots and passengers specifically. In the end, after reading this thread, I have to agree that it is the relationship between the two parties that matters and not the conduit of payment.
 
Ron Levy said:
That web site becomes a commercial operator providing air transportation for hire (I'll bet they take a cut of the funds) and paying the pilot for his/her services. The pilot is now operating as a paid pilot for an operator providing air transportation for hire. Death by bugaloo for the pilot involved.
Click to expand...

They claim to be a non-profit.
 
I think the FAA only cares about revenue, not profit.
 
Palmpilot said:
I think the FAA only cares about revenue, not profit.
Click to expand...

I understand that but they claim to be a non-profit that promotes GA through donations.

If they were taking a cut on flights they'd of gotten busted by now.

The point is simply that it's an assumption by some in this thread that they are. They may not be and may be above board on that issue.
 
Bonchie said:
I understand that but they claim to be a non-profit that promotes GA through donations.

If they were taking a cut on flights they'd of gotten busted by now.

The point is simply that it's an assumption by some in this thread that they are. They may not be and may be above board on that issue.
Click to expand...

I don't think being a non-profit makes any difference to the FAA.
 
timwinters said:
So why doesn't someone ask a SPECIFIC question of the FAA and see if the FAA can be cornered into giving a SPECIFIC answer. The problem with the letter to Ron is that the FAA provided a nebulous answer to a nebulous question and thus, there is no answer.
Click to expand...
Exactly. They are going to look at it on a case-by-case basis. They can't quite say it's all always illegal, but pretty much every time they look at one of these cases, the pilot gets fried. Caveat aviator.
 
Bonchie said:
They claim to be a non-profit.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. The term "profit" cannot be found in any of the regulations involved, only "air transportation for hire or compensation" with no requirement for profit before the regulation is violated, and no minimum value for the compensation. There is a specific exception for certain kinds of flights for non-profit events in 91.146, but these flights involving transportation from Point A to Point B don't fit that regulation.
 
Bonchie said:
I understand that but they claim to be a non-profit that promotes GA through donations.
Click to expand...
They can claim anything they want, but all that matters is what they do. Whether they are a non-profit or for-profit is not relevant in this regard -- read the regulations.

If they were taking a cut on flights they'd of gotten busted by now.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not, but that would not change whether or not they are violating the regulation, and certainly wouldn't change whether the pilots involved are in violation of one FAR or another. In any event, the FAA has in the two interpretations linked above (mine and Haberkorn's) provided some pretty good guidance on what a pilot can and cannot do on one of these sites. Read and heed.
 
Ron Levy said:
They can't quite say it's all always illegal, but pretty much every time they look at one of these cases, the pilot gets fried. Caveat aviator.
Click to expand...
Let's see some real examples which originated with sites like these.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top