12 ms·

Uber-Style Flight-Sharing Service Shot Down by U.S. Court

93 points by philip1209 11y ago

fencepost 11y ago
The court case was a question about whether the FAA was correct in requiring that pilots using the service have commercial licenses and the court said "Yes, that's within their authority." The FAA stance was that commercial pilots receive significantly more scrutiny and I believe are required to have significantly more experience than private pilots without commercial licenses. 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.
- brulez 11y ago
  The problem with the current FAA rules is that even commercial pilots are banned from taking part in a service like this. 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.
  - cwyers 11y ago
    I don't have a problem with that, either. Uber drivers put a lot more stress on their cars than ordinary drivers do, but ordinarily the worst consequence of that is that someone gets stuck at the side of the road waiting for a tow truck. If the same holds true for Uber-but-for-planes, the consequences of that are potentially a lot more severe. Requiring that commercial flights are held to a different standard as far as aircraft maintenance and such, not just pilot licensing, makes a lot of sense to me.
    - fleitz 11y ago
      There's maintenance standards for a reason if you put X hours on a plane you have to do the required maintence for X hours. Commercial licenses are much more about making sure the maintenance is actually done because people might skip the maintenance. 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...
  - Animats 11y ago
    Flying is inherently dangerous. Only with huge amounts of effort has it been made safe. There's about one general aviation crash a day in the US. 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 http://www.avweb.com/news/usedacft/184520-1.html [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-135 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-135
    - lmm 11y ago
Kinnard 11y ago
Wish they could break the rules and get away with it like Uber. I guess the sky racket, unlike the city-by-city taxi rackets, is still too big for the Valley to tackle.
- poof131 11y ago
  When do laws actually matter? The commercial requirement to fly people for money doesn’t seem even remotely unreasonable - 250 hrs. [1] That is not a lot of flight time. General aviation is also about 20 times more dangerous than driving a car [2], and I’d argue even more for the pilots with less than 250hrs. Glad to see this ruling. I hope we are beginning to see peak regulatory disruption. [1] http://www.universalairacademy.com/downloads/COM_Reqirements_updated.pdf http://www.universalairacademy.com/downloads/COM_Reqirements... [2] http://www.livescience.com/49701-private-planes-safety.html http://www.livescience.com/49701-private-planes-safety.html
  - chinathrow 11y ago
    It's not only a simple 250h flight time requirement - you also need further theoretical tests to pass, another flight check and most importantly, even then you still need to fly for a company which holds an active airworthyness certificate.
    - Ao7bei3s 11y ago
      So? 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?
      - sgt101 11y ago
        Why have police, or any sort of civil society? It's impossible for most individuals to accurately or reliably evaluate risks or manage properly understood risks individually a social contract is required. This regulates the behaviour of actors so as to make transactions generally safer encouraging participation and economic activity. If a social structure (like a regulatory body) doesn't step in then naïve players are exploited, sometimes to the extent that they end up dead. 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.
AndrewKemendo 11y ago
I don't see how this is even a question. If you go through pilot training for a single engine land license (basic flight license) you go through all of the different categories and their restrictions. 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. [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$100_hamburger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$100_hamburger
- noxryan 11y ago
  It sounds like they we're trying to use exception (c) of FAR 61.113[1] "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=69df887b632147859cad7320ec7f9351&mc=true&node=pt14.2.61&rgn=div5#se14.2.61_1113 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=69df887b632147859ca... [2] https://flytenow.com/faq#pilot https://flytenow.com/faq#pilot
- belleandsebasti 11y ago
  That $100 hamburger reference is completely unrelated. 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.
halkoy 11y ago
I think, the decision is true because there can be so much security problems
frik 11y ago
Some Uber/lyft services where shut down too in various countries by courts. Sometimes they are in a gray area, sometimes they are against the local law, sometimes they are fine. The question is, is the current law what the majority of the public wants? (if not, maybe consider to change it) (The definition of law from Merriam-Webster: "Law is a binding custom or practice of a community; ...", see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law#Definition ) At least in the taxi business, Uber/Lyft lowered the price, increased the convience and the available options for the end user. 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?
- kuschku 11y ago
  Or the 10 cessnas crashing into private houses a day that would happen if the regulation was that lax?
randycupertino 11y ago
Doesn't that already exist, called NetJets?
- chinathrow 11y ago
  Yes for travelling with a business jet. They also follow the regulations.
kevindeasis 11y ago
It would be really hilarious if they decide to move their operations in other countries. Slowly but surely influencing countries one at a time until its time to go back and try again in US. Would that strategy work?
- neuro_imager 11y ago
  As a frequent international flyer my thoughts are "Jesus, I hope not."
TeMPOraL 11y ago
I wonder how far it has to go for people to realize that regulations aren't there to make your life miserable. Uber for commercial aviation? Uber for surgery? Uber for biotech? Uber for nuclear weapons research? Some industries are heavily regulated for a reason.
- fnazeeri 11y ago
  Pretty soon I'm going to need an Uber for all these Ubers...
  - ddalex 11y ago
    It's called the startup industry.
- marcalc 11y ago
  I think the point is not regulation, but some kind economic interventionism. Regulation should really be praised for a lot of services.
- Hermel 11y ago
  No one doubts that most regulation has been created with good intentions. Problems start when the interest of those creating the regulations are not aligned with the population. Once given the power to regulate, politicians and officials tend to use that power regardless of whether the regulation in question is really needed.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Sure, but even comments here questioning the regulations behind air travel show that people's idea of their interest may not be aligned with their actual interest. 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.
  - 11y ago
acslater00 11y ago
I'm of two minds on this one, but the mind that says 'glad it's being shut down' is winning. 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.
- imglorp 11y ago
  Historically I think the FAA has been spot on with most of its regs, which are, as the saying goes, written in blood. 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.
chatwinra 11y ago
Flight-Sharing Service Shot Down..... <archer>Er...Phrasing?</archer> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyLWrKh2fB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyLWrKh2fB0

93 points by philip1209 11y ago

The court case was a question about whether the FAA was correct in requiring that pilots using the service have commercial licenses and the court said "Yes, that's within their authority." The FAA stance was that commercial pilots receive significantly more scrutiny and I believe are required to have significantly more experience than private pilots without commercial licenses. 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.

brulez 11y ago
The problem with the current FAA rules is that even commercial pilots are banned from taking part in a service like this. 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.
- cwyers 11y ago
  I don't have a problem with that, either. Uber drivers put a lot more stress on their cars than ordinary drivers do, but ordinarily the worst consequence of that is that someone gets stuck at the side of the road waiting for a tow truck. If the same holds true for Uber-but-for-planes, the consequences of that are potentially a lot more severe. Requiring that commercial flights are held to a different standard as far as aircraft maintenance and such, not just pilot licensing, makes a lot of sense to me.
  - fleitz 11y ago
    There's maintenance standards for a reason if you put X hours on a plane you have to do the required maintence for X hours. Commercial licenses are much more about making sure the maintenance is actually done because people might skip the maintenance. 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...
- Animats 11y ago
  Flying is inherently dangerous. Only with huge amounts of effort has it been made safe. There's about one general aviation crash a day in the US. 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 http://www.avweb.com/news/usedacft/184520-1.html [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-135 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-135
  - lmm 11y ago

Kinnard 11y ago

Wish they could break the rules and get away with it like Uber. I guess the sky racket, unlike the city-by-city taxi rackets, is still too big for the Valley to tackle.

poof131 11y ago
When do laws actually matter? The commercial requirement to fly people for money doesn’t seem even remotely unreasonable - 250 hrs. [1] That is not a lot of flight time. General aviation is also about 20 times more dangerous than driving a car [2], and I’d argue even more for the pilots with less than 250hrs. Glad to see this ruling. I hope we are beginning to see peak regulatory disruption. [1] http://www.universalairacademy.com/downloads/COM_Reqirements_updated.pdf http://www.universalairacademy.com/downloads/COM_Reqirements... [2] http://www.livescience.com/49701-private-planes-safety.html http://www.livescience.com/49701-private-planes-safety.html
- chinathrow 11y ago
  It's not only a simple 250h flight time requirement - you also need further theoretical tests to pass, another flight check and most importantly, even then you still need to fly for a company which holds an active airworthyness certificate.
  - Ao7bei3s 11y ago
    So? 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?
    - sgt101 11y ago
      Why have police, or any sort of civil society? It's impossible for most individuals to accurately or reliably evaluate risks or manage properly understood risks individually a social contract is required. This regulates the behaviour of actors so as to make transactions generally safer encouraging participation and economic activity. If a social structure (like a regulatory body) doesn't step in then naïve players are exploited, sometimes to the extent that they end up dead. 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.

AndrewKemendo 11y ago

I don't see how this is even a question. If you go through pilot training for a single engine land license (basic flight license) you go through all of the different categories and their restrictions. 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. [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$100_hamburger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$100_hamburger

noxryan 11y ago
It sounds like they we're trying to use exception (c) of FAR 61.113[1] "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=69df887b632147859cad7320ec7f9351&mc=true&node=pt14.2.61&rgn=div5#se14.2.61_1113 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=69df887b632147859ca... [2] https://flytenow.com/faq#pilot https://flytenow.com/faq#pilot
belleandsebasti 11y ago
That $100 hamburger reference is completely unrelated. 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.

halkoy 11y ago

I think, the decision is true because there can be so much security problems

frik 11y ago

Some Uber/lyft services where shut down too in various countries by courts. Sometimes they are in a gray area, sometimes they are against the local law, sometimes they are fine. The question is, is the current law what the majority of the public wants? (if not, maybe consider to change it) (The definition of law from Merriam-Webster: "Law is a binding custom or practice of a community; ...", see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law#Definition ) At least in the taxi business, Uber/Lyft lowered the price, increased the convience and the available options for the end user. 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?

kuschku 11y ago
Or the 10 cessnas crashing into private houses a day that would happen if the regulation was that lax?

randycupertino 11y ago

Doesn't that already exist, called NetJets?

chinathrow 11y ago
Yes for travelling with a business jet. They also follow the regulations.

kevindeasis 11y ago

It would be really hilarious if they decide to move their operations in other countries. Slowly but surely influencing countries one at a time until its time to go back and try again in US. Would that strategy work?

neuro_imager 11y ago
As a frequent international flyer my thoughts are "Jesus, I hope not."

TeMPOraL 11y ago

I wonder how far it has to go for people to realize that regulations aren't there to make your life miserable. Uber for commercial aviation? Uber for surgery? Uber for biotech? Uber for nuclear weapons research? Some industries are heavily regulated for a reason.

fnazeeri 11y ago
Pretty soon I'm going to need an Uber for all these Ubers...
- ddalex 11y ago
  It's called the startup industry.
marcalc 11y ago
I think the point is not regulation, but some kind economic interventionism. Regulation should really be praised for a lot of services.
Hermel 11y ago
No one doubts that most regulation has been created with good intentions. Problems start when the interest of those creating the regulations are not aligned with the population. Once given the power to regulate, politicians and officials tend to use that power regardless of whether the regulation in question is really needed.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Sure, but even comments here questioning the regulations behind air travel show that people's idea of their interest may not be aligned with their actual interest. 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.
- 11y ago

acslater00 11y ago

I'm of two minds on this one, but the mind that says 'glad it's being shut down' is winning. 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.

imglorp 11y ago
Historically I think the FAA has been spot on with most of its regs, which are, as the saying goes, written in blood. 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.

chatwinra 11y ago

Flight-Sharing Service Shot Down..... <archer>Er...Phrasing?</archer> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyLWrKh2fB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyLWrKh2fB0