Uber-Style Flight-Sharing Service Shot Down by U.S. Court
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
I'm a private pilot / IFR with around 250 hours of pilot-in-command time in single engine planes (I'm guessing that's square in the middle of this company's target pilot demographic). I have a full-time job and fly recreationally. On numerous occasions I've flown friends and relatives e.g. from Palo Alto to the LA area and asked them to split flight costs. Also, while I've never done this personally, it's pretty common for pilots to seek out other pilots on message boards and the like to "split time" on some flight, where cost is split and both pilots can log some flight time.
So on the one hand, if this app were just an enhancement of that same basic pattern ... I'm flying to LA who wants to look down at I-5 traffic from 4500 feet ... then I would think it's great.
The problem is that this service is clearly intended to be more than that. And when you start getting customers who don't understand general aviation and have expectations that my Flyte(?) will run like an airline (or at least air taxi) when it will not be, you have a bad situation.
To give one concrete example, once after promising to take someone on a tour of the golden gate bridge area, dragging her to the airport, doing a pre-flight inspection, and taxiing all the way to the runway, I made a last minute decision to cancel after a new weather report freaked me out a bit. She understood, and we rescheduled. If the person next to me were not a close friend but in fact a "paying customer", perhaps business person with a meeting that afternoon in LA, would I have felt pressured to fly into an unsafe situation? Probably! This is one of several scenarios where the service just seems like a bad idea, from both a pilot and passenger perspective.
I really hate being on the side of 'regulators' in any dispute, but flying is meaningfully different from driving a car. General Aviation already has a reputational problem with sloppy, low-experience pilots putting themselves and their families in danger, and frankly I don't think adding unwitting customers to the mix is going to help the situation at all.
Their general theme for GA aviation seems to be, we'll let you go play around on weekends and kill yourself, but as you begin to involve more people, and especially the public and paying customers, we're going to keep an increasingly close regulatory eye.
You can go 20 years without touching an aircraft, and as long as you have a valid medical, a flight instructor can give you a 1 hour checkout flight and do 3 landings and you're officially a fully current pilot.
Some people refer to the first 100 flight hours after you receive your first license as the 'death zone' because the pilot is generally so unprepared that even a minor problem becomes life threatening.
I stopped my training when I had just short of 40 hours. The only required procedure I hadn't completed yet was the night flight time. But no way would I have felt comfortable flying passengers at 30 hours. Hell, it was around that time that I ran into problems both with an engine refusing to shut off on the ground (student using the airplane after me didn't read my notation in the log and broke the throttle cable trying to shut the engine off), and on another airplane, the engine hesitating when I throttled back up during a stall recovery.
Minor details, but it's coming across stuff like this and learning to deal with it that makes the extra flying hours valuable.
Like the GP, I'm generally against regulation, but I agree that the FAA seems too lax in this case.
Are there other fields where you're very familiar with where you're still against regulation? It seems odd to me that you're for regulation in a field where you recognize the reasons for it, but are against it in general, implying areas where you don't have much expertise.
(Reminds me of when someone in Profession X sees the news get stories and facts about their profession wrong all the time, but continues to trust the news on stories about other fields. I forget what that phenomenon is called.)
It's better stated if I say that I prefer to err on the side of less, rather than more, regulation.
Not if you're transgender. I've heard from multiple people in the trans community that as soon as the FAA finds out a pilot is trans, they immediately begin treating you like a potential terrorist. They'll order you to immediately turn over your license and won't give it back until you've gone through a ridiculously onerous set of psych evals.
The FAA actively and deliberately holds trans people to more stringent standards than cis people, and they treat trans pilots like criminals.
I'm not sure of a good way to handle this.
>Something automatic?
You seem to be assuming pilots and passengers have no regard for their own well-being. Just like the discretion shown by the OP in their story about canceling a flight, pilots have strong incentives to not fly if there is an increased likelihood they can't do so safely. I would see the "automatic" aspect likely being conditions which prohibit flying while even further discretion still being available to pilots.
These companies already have internal processes and mechanisms for handling these problems, which they impose in addition to FAA procedures.
The purpose of the FAA regulations and the ban in this case is to address pilots operating outside of this system. Essentially all commercial pilots employed on passenger flights have hundreds of hours of flight time, as an implicit condition of even getting such a job. The air taxi startup would have allowed pilots with almost no flight time (~40 hours) to take on passengers, which is an untenable safety hazard, given that new pilots are the cause of most accidents. It's not that these pilots have no regard for their own well-being; it's that they don't know enough to even know when it would be dangerous to fly.
1. You do realize these pilots can already fly passengers, correct?
2. This is the type of problem companies help solve all of the time. The minimum wage worker making my burger has no idea when meat is safe for consumption, but a whole series of internal precautions allows him to serve me a burger in a safe manner.
In your example of food safety, I believe it's your state department of public health that solved the problem, not the restaurant.
Obviously restaurants had an interest in food safety. You're being a little silly with your sarcasm. The question is whether food was as safe as we (citizens) wanted, and whether food safety would improve with government regulation. I suspect the answers were "No" and "Yes", respectively.
Take recent issues at Chipotle for example. Without government intervention, they easily might decide that it's cheaper to pay marketers and public relations experts than to improve the safety of their supply chain and service.
2) Flying an airplane is nothing like making a cheeseburger. I do not think it is a worthwhile goal to allow unskilled people to operate airplanes, especially if they are carrying passengers. Instead we should focus on making sure the operators of the planes are as capable as possible to first avoid dangerous situations and then deal with them when they are unavoidable. This is exactly what the FAA does.
If you screw up a cheeseburger maybe someone gets sick, if you screw up in an airplane people die. They aren't even remotely the same thing.
- Instrument rated pilots
- special, expensive, instruments (radars, etc...)
- extra pair of skilled eyes (2 pilots)
- n + 1 engines / APU
- bigger planes that have less restrictions (more power which means you can bring more weight (more luggage), take off safely from higher altitude, manoeuvre in higher cross winds etc....)
I'm not familiar with air transport regulations, however, and some of these things may apply there.
14 CFR 61.133 (b)(1) states:[0]
A person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate
with an airplane category or powered-lift category rating
and does not hold an instrument rating in the same
category and class will be issued a commercial pilot
certificate that contains the limitation, “The
carriage of passengers for hire in (airplanes)
(powered-lifts) on cross-country flights in excess of
50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited.”
> I would seek companies that provide internal safeguards
My comment was narrowly referring to OP's lack of imagination in envisioning solutions to the "bad weather" criticism raised.
One of such restrictions is that unless you have a Commercial license, you can't take compensation for the flight[1]. Even so far as to have a passenger pay for a "$100 hamburger." [2]
[1]FAR 61.113(a) states that "no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft." The legal definition of "compensation" is broader than just meaning that money was exchanged. If the pilot gains any economic advantage, it could be considered compensation--for example, the acquisition (and thus building) of flight time, or the fostering of business goodwill, and excessive reimbursement of flight expenses, including payment for meals or lodging.
"A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees."
But anyway, I completely agree with you, any private pilot who took part in this service is asking for their certificate to be suspended. This is definitely outside the scope of that exception and is asking for problems by allowing private pilots to take part.
Edit: Just noticed that their FAQ still claim that this is completely okay for a private pilot to use [2]. This should be removed.
[1] http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=69df887b632147859ca...
According to the Wikipedia link you posted, a "$100 hamburger" is an excuse a pilot will make for the opportunity to fly. It has nothing to do with covertly charging for a private flight.
You are, however, allowed to split expenses evenly with passengers -- provided everyone is sharing the same common purpose (e.g. flying for fun). But the key part here is that the pilot isn't allowed to receive anything that could be remotely interpreted as compensation.
Right, I know. I was trying to introduce the concept to a group of people who had probably never heard of it - while also showing that it's a real thing that a group of pilots get together just to fly somewhere.
The problem Flytenow and its pilots ran into is that the FAA decided that participants were operating as common carriers, and flying for a common carrier requires a commercial license.
The FAA defines common carriage as a service meeting four elements: (1) a holding out of a willingness to (2) transport persons or property (3) from place to place (4) for compensation. Elements #1 and #4 are the key elements.
Flytenow argued that its service does not meet either of those. They lost on #4 because expense sharing is compensation. It doesn't matter that it is a form of compensation that is allowed for non-commercial pilots. They lost on #1, I think based on skimming the court's opinion [1], because their service is easily available to the general public.
Note that the FAA does not have a problem with non-commercial pilots sharing expenses with passengers when they are not doing it in a way so readily available to the general public. If you mention to your coworkers that you are renting a Cessna to fly to some specific place to visit family over the holidays and a co-worker says they want to go there too the FAA would have no problem with you taking them with you and having them pay their share of the expenses. Even putting a notice on the bulletin board at work, where it might be seen by dozens of people, that you are taking that trip and asking if anyone wants to come along and share expenses would almost certainly be fine.
[1] https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/77E3D4B7...
That's not compensation. What he is talking about is two pilots, usually broke pilot students at the same FOB, who have their PPL but need hours for their CFI, IFR or some other type rating. So they share gas and then do different legs as pilot in command, it's cheaper, you get your hours and have some company. I can tell you from first hand experience, solo cross-country, is boring as hell. I even did it before GPS was a thing and you have to do IFR landmark based nav - still boring.
If you mention to your coworkers that you are renting a Cessna to fly to some specific place to visit family over the holidays and a co-worker says they want to go there too the FAA would have no problem with you taking them with you and having them pay their share of the expenses.
It's been a while since I flew, but that was definitely one of the things that was drilled into me as "not legal" behavior for a non-commercial pilot. Your scenarios would bust all 4 common carriage rules. "Goodwill (dropping off clients) is not bona fide purpose (likely is compensation)[1]."
[1]https://www.nbaa.org/events/amc/2011/news/presentations/1011...
If the restriction is to keep pilots or planes who are not flight worthy from being in the air then take a more direct approach. If the idea is to keep people from competing with private charters and the like then come out and say so.
While I'm skeptical of many of the effectiveness and true purpose behind many measures that are supposed to ensure safety, this restriction is not senseless or absurd.
I think a comparable car service would be one that allowed teens (including those 16-18) to advertise for passengers who would help cover fuel costs. I'll note that Uber requires that drivers be at least 21.
In fact, even pilots with the highest possible certification (Airline Transport Pilot) cannot provide transport unless operating under a company with a Part 119 Commercial Air Carrier license.
It doesn't matter whether passengers are paying or not, similar to how in cars if you put X KMs on it requires the same amount of maintenance.
Have you seen a taxi? They are regular cars. Just like an Uber...
Air taxi services come under FAR Part 135[1][2]. This sets standards for an air taxi service as a business. The standards are below those for an airline, but above those for recreational flight. A general basis of US aviation regulation is that you can kill yourself if you want to, but you can't kill other people. So there are low level licenses such as "Sport pilot" and "Private pilot", and low levels of inspection for private planes. There's an "experimental" category of aircraft, often owner-built from kits. These crash about one order of magnitude more than commercially built aircraft.
Once it's a business, the rules get much tougher. The pilot, plane, and business are all regulated. The pilot has to have 1200 hours and meet other criteria, the plane has to have some redundant equipment, and the business has to keep records of aircraft, flights, pilots, and inspections. Single engine aircraft can be used, but they must have some redundant equipment, such as dual alternators, plus the usual IFR instruments.
Here are Flytenow's terms:
"FLYTENOW OFFERS INFORMATION AND A METHOD TO CONNECT PILOTS WHO ARE FLYING TO A DESTINATION WITH ENTHUSIAST WHO HAVE A COMMON PURPOSE IN SUCH DESTINATION, BUT DOES NOT AND DOES NOT INTEND TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES OR ACT IN ANY MANNER AS A TRANSPORTATION CARRIER, AND HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY FOR ANY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES VOLUNTARILY PROVIDED TO ANY ENTHUSIAST BY ANY PILOT USING THE FLYTENOW PLATFORM."
"As a Member, I agree that I am about to voluntarily participate in various activities, including flying activities as a passenger, pilot, student pilot, copilot, or instructor. In consideration of Pilot permitting me to participate in these activities, I, for myself, my heirs, administrators, executor, and assigns, hereby covenant and agree that I will never institute, prosecute, or in any way aid in the institution, prosecution of, any demand, claim, or suit against Pilot for any destruction, loss, damage, or injury (including death) to my person or property which may occur from any cause whatsoever as a result of my participation in the activities with Pilot. I know, understand, and agree that I am freely assuming the risk of my personal injury, death, property damage, or loss or destruction that may result while participating in the activities with Pilot."
This is no way to run a business.
[1] http://www.avweb.com/news/usedacft/184520-1.html [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-135
How does that compare to the rate of car crashes?
You'd have to take into account that if a plane malfunctions in mid-air a crash is a likely outcome, whereas if a car malfunctions whilst on the road a crash is an unlikely outcome (the likely outcome is you get to call the AA or the local equivalent and you waste some time).
That's what he meant with 'flying is inherently dangerous'. As in: if something goes wrong you find yourself in a spot that is not a natural position for a human being, you're very far above the planet and your plane likely does not have standard equipment to deal with that situation (and neither do you). This as contrasted with a car which will simply coast to a halt by the roadside. That's still not a 100% safe situation but much more safe than being a mile up in a small airplane that decides to stop working for some reason. If it is 'just' an engine issue you'll be making a forced landing and if you're unlucky the terrain may be rough enough to flip the plane, if it is anything besides an engine problem it may simply be 'game over' for anybody on board of the plane.
General aviation: 11.2 fatal accidents and 19.7 fatalities per million hours
Commercial aviation: 0.2 fatal accidents and 6.5 fatalities per million hours
Driving: .528 fatal accidents and .588 fatalities per million hours [1]
[1] http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/notes/safetyvsdriving....
" GA flying covers small training aircraft capable of cruising at 100mph, and business jets capable of cruising at several hundred miles per hour, so choosing an average cruise speed is difficult, but for the sake of argument, we'll choose 150mph. This gives us a comparison of:
GA: 7.46 fatal accidents and 13.1 fatalities per 100M miles
driving: 1.32 fatal accidents and 1.47 fatalities per 100M miles
Still quite a bit more dangerous per mile than for driving. (More than I would expect actually.)
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/safety
General aviation is somewhere between as dangerous as driving and ten times more dangerous. With current regulations.
I have a feeling that the present generations think that relatively sane job market where employees ae not treated as resource to be used up is something that occurs naturally, and are happy to keep reversing all the changes our grandparents' grandparents paid in blood for, that let us have safe workplaces and not-too-unhealthy hours.
This is flatly false. Many of us believe that the vast majority of "regulation" is made in a corporatistic, profiteering mode.
...so much so that, when a perhaps quite reasonable regulation, such as this one, comes along, it is necessary to evaluate whether it is a boy crying wolf.
And that sucks.
> Problems start when the interest of those creating the regulations are not aligned with the population.
It's also possible that it's just the nature of government power, and has nothing to do with the interests of the individuals ostensibly involved.
The majority of the public (at least in the US) of a legal driving age possess a drivers license. Even persons without a drivers license are generally familiar enough with cars/vehicles to make a baseline assumption about the safety of the vehicle and/or driver. I'm not saying you can 100% accurately judge this, but that overall most people can make an informed decision about the risk they are undertaking with a ride-sharing service like Uber.
Conversely, most people do not have pilots licenses, familiarity with small aircraft, or an ability to properly judge safe vs. unsafe conditions. Couple that with the fact that you are dealing with a method of travel that succeeds only if it can defy gravity without incident for the duration of the trip, and you have (IMO) a much much higher risk than with something like Uber.
And yet people worry a lot about things that are much less dangerous than driving or getting a lift. I don't know how you're defining "informed", but the decisions people make about driving certainly aren't reasonable or rational in an objective sense.
Although state DOT logic would imply "uber general aviation" would be OK, the FAA has never felt the need to obey state DOT logic, which overall is probably good.
Often regulations exist to mitigate information assymmetries. That's why they tend to be so much more permissive for a person to put him- or herself at risk, than to put strangers at risk.
Now apply this to almost every contract a person enters into. Especially something big like buying a home.
In other words, not even remotely comparable.
I think at least part of the regulations is to limit the incentive for less-qualified pilots to fly at all. If pilots without commercial licenses are allowed to fly as de facto commercial pilots, they will have additional incentive to fly, and do more of it.
The risks the FAA manages are not just those to paying customers; aviation imposes external risks, as well.
There is already a gray market of small airplane sightseeing tours. Many are neighbours who want to see their house from above. And some want to fly with exciting loopings in aerobatic monoplane above their home ('Extra' planes are loud). What is more annoying to the public: Low-altitude flights of Cessna's around the block? Or higher-altitude flights from airport A to airport B?
<archer>Er...Phrasing?</archer>
[1] http://www.universalairacademy.com/downloads/COM_Reqirements... [2] http://www.livescience.com/49701-private-planes-safety.html
Why should people who didn't pass these tests be allowed to fly people around commercially?
Also, why couldn't that company provide the certificate?
We like living inside and eating regularly. Ditching these kinds of structures may lead back to the iron age, and wherever people have walked down the road of ditching them bad bad bad things have happened.
> Why should people who didn't pass these tests be allowed to fly people around commercially?
By that I meant: people who didn't pass these tests should, not be allowed to fly people around commercially -- so I share the opinion of that US court.
> Also, why couldn't that company provide the certificate?
By that I meant: "cover their pilots cost of certification and do the other duties (e.g. ensure maintenance gets done, and be liable if it isnt) airlines have to do", not "just hand out certifications".
My current instructor had almost 100 hours of solo time before he went for his PPL check ride, specifically because he understood how dangerous it was, and he wanted to know he was ready before bringing his friends up in the air.
If you want to make the argument that the FAA should revisit the Part 119 Air Carrier Certificate requirement for CPLs, I don't see a problem with that, but I do see a lot of issues with letting a 60-hour PPL fly a family of three across the country.
I just wanted to explain that it's not only flight time regulations but a lot more you need to complete to get a CPL (oh and we didn't even mention the medical yet) _and_ to fly commercially.
A CPL is not enough to fly commercially. It's always a CPL/ATPL and an airworthyness certificate of the operator. But I think you know that :)
Yet the title of your link is "Why Private Planes Are Nearly as Deadly as Cars" and by nearly, the clickbait means:
"Breaking out the data per mile puts the accident rate of private aviation at one-sixth the accident rate in automobiles"
The truth is likely somewhere in between that 1:120 range.
Depends on how you measure.