Jump to content

No ride sharing for you


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

The reason is, you are allowed to kill yourself and your friends with a private license. You need a Commercial license and an ATCO certificate to kill total strangers.

At the end of the day they're both equally dead, so I really don't see the need for the extra license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, steingar said:

At the end of the day they're both equally dead, so I really don't see the need for the extra license.

Some folks want to deal with licensed electricians. Others are happy dealing with some unlicensed guy who puts a flyer under your car windshield.

The aviation answer was best made by a friend of mine on an email list...

I must admit, I'm happy to see this shut down, since I've gone through the trouble and expense to get a Commercial License, and then get a Letter of Authorization from the FAA (which involved enrolling in a  Drug Testing Program, among other things), and acquired extra insurance for my airplane - all this in order to offer Sightseeing Rides....  I would not like it a bit if some low-time private pilot was able to undercut me and offer the same services for less than my actual costs.

The purpose of the rules separating private from public operations is two-fold. One is to protect the public which generally knows nothing about GA and has no clue about the differences in certification and the training and safety standards various levels have to maintain.  The other is to protect those operations that have and continue to jump through the compliance and financial hoops to get and maintain those certifications. There's a reason gray charters are typically found out by unhappy Part 135 operators.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion it's all silly and unnecessary. It's shared by many, not only in aviation, but in many professional fields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, steingar said:

Why should I need a special license to fly the same airplane to the same airports just because someone is paying me?  It is the same exact operation.  The rules are simply archaic and stupid.

The pilot certification isn't the barrier to entry.  In reality with a commercial license or ATP you still can't fly around for money.  The barrier to entry is a 135/121 operating permit which requires certifying the plane, your procedures, your pilots, and a host of other things.  The rules are pretty simple and not that archaic, they just don't lend themselves to non-commercial operations doing commercial work.  The result in the US has been the largest, safest, and most robust commercial aviation sector in the world.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll agree. I actually think the FAA is really too generous with the current rule. I could accept a rule where sharing of expenses was only allowed between rated pilots. In other words, if you're taking non pilots up for a flight, you're not allowed to accept anything. If flying with another pilot such as sharing time working on a new rating, splitting expenses would be allowed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, M20F said:

The issue isn't sharing, the issue is holding out.  In order to advertise or otherwise make people aware of an operation you need a certificated operation.  This has always been the case and this case changes nothing in that regard.  The easiest example is posting a note on a bulletin board at your home airport saying you are flying to Florida and asking if any others want to share the flight, that is and always has been disallowed under part 91.  

Making a private Internet forum to essentially do the same thing the bulletin board does is a horse with different spots, it is though still a horse.

People rarely if ever get in trouble for sharing expenses and I would venture all of us at one time or another have broke this FAR (fly me back from Maxwells and I will buy your gas) in one fashion or another.  The FAA has little interest in enforcing that rule.  Where people run afoul is with the holding out part, and that the FAA always seems to have a strong interest in enforcing.

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/August/20/FAA-warns-flight-sharing-services

 

Thank you for the explanation. I didn't realize you could not post on a physical bulletain board that you were making a trip.

I now understand fully why this was banned and the judge ruled correctly in my new opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

I'll agree. I actually think the FAA is really too generous with the current rule. I could accept a rule where sharing of expenses was only allowed between rated pilots. In other words, if you're taking non pilots up for a flight, you're not allowed to accept anything. If flying with another pilot such as sharing time working on a new rating, splitting expenses would be allowed.  

I'm glad the FAA isn't as restrictive as you. I like the idea of three buddies going to the Super Bowl together and being able to split the cost of the weekend trip, including the flight.

I might agree with you that the liberalization of "common purpose" to "common destination" was a bit problematic in terms of opening a door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Seth said:

Thank you for the explanation. I didn't realize you could not post on a physical bulletain board that you were making a trip.

I now understand fully why this was banned and the judge ruled correctly in my new opinion.

A physical bulletin board is not necessarily precluded. There is a 1976 FAA interpretation that said it was ok for a college student to post a planned weekend trip on a college bulletin board to get a shared cost passenger. One of the most recent FAA interpretations on the subject, the 2011 Haberkorn letter gives an "it depends" to both bulletin boards and sites like Facebook.

the FAA's practical standard for enforcement really hasn't changed that much. The FAA is looking to prevent grey charters and it pretty comes down to whether what is going on looks like a commercial operation. "If it quacks like a duck..." And "I'll know it when I see it" are the two phrases that come to mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think part of the problem may also be the 'common purpose'.  Going to the same city for different reasons probably isn't a common purpose.  Finding a couple friends on a forum who want to go to a specific event (Oshkosh, football game, fly-in, etc) is a common purpose.  The forum does not exist to find people to share expenses.  It exists to share information about our aircraft.  The websites they were referring to existed solely to match up planes and people.

Not a lawyer so don't quote me if you get hauled in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

I think part of the problem may also be the 'common purpose'.  Going to the same city for different reasons probably isn't a common purpose.  Finding a couple friends on a forum who want to go to a specific event (Oshkosh, football game, fly-in, etc) is a common purpose.  The forum does not exist to find people to share expenses.  It exists to share information about our aircraft.  The websites they were referring to existed solely to match up planes and people.

Not a lawyer so don't quote me if you get hauled in.

Read the Haberkorn letter I linked to a few posts ago. It was a surprise to many, although it retrospect, it invites more cynicism that surprise.

==============================

Second, you question whether you and your passengers share a common purpose if you are travelling to Long Island for a wedding but your passengers express an interest in. going to Long Island to attend a baseball game. The existence of a bona fide common purpose is determined on a case-by-case basis. Based on these facts, there appears to be a bona fide common purpose, as the destination was dictated by the pilot, not the passengers, and both you and your passengers have personal business to conduct in Long Island. The purpose of this flight is not merely to transport your passengers to Long Island.

==============================

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • 2 months later...
On 12/22/2015 at 6:18 AM, Seth said:

So what if the site was non-profit with no commercial purpose except to increase pilot communication for ride sharing to lower costs and be more efficient.  No profit, someone personally paying for the forum, and pilots who have to sign in this non public, have access.  Would it still not be allowed due to this ruling?  It just seems to smack in the face of sharing rules that we know and are allowed.  I guess I just don't understand the ruling logic.

I don't plan to join or use the site, but I just don't get the logic in why they said you can't do what the law says you can do.

I guess I'm missing something.

-Seth

 

 

 

I agree...how is this any different than a notice at the airport bulletin board offering to share flight expenses?We have been allowed to do that for decades...but now it's on the internet ,it becomes illegal...I don't understand the legal logic also

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, peevee said:

Both smack of holding out to the public to me.

True, but the physical bulletin board is among some limited things that have been ok through the years. Most of them were cited in the FlyteNow argument to support their position that the FAA was attempting to regulate internet access.

Sometimes it's about degree. There's a Chief Counsel opinion that talks a bit about using Facebook to ask friends if they want to share a ride  and comes down with what is pretty much, "well, it depends." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.