3 ms·

It's interesting to read the linked letter from FAA counsel. The interpretation is that if the pilot was going to fly from A to B anyway, they can take passeng

by smackfu 12y ago

It's interesting to read the linked letter from FAA counsel. The interpretation is that if the pilot was going to fly from A to B anyway, they can take passengers from A to B because the passengers and the pilot have a common purpose of getting from A to B. But if the pilot is only flying from A to B because the passengers want to do it, then the pilot has a different purpose than the passengers, and it's illegal. The pilot should also in theory have "business to conduct" at point B, rather than just flying there for the fun of it. Applying that distinction to real life would be pretty messy though. Letter (PDF): http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2011/haberkorn%20-%20(2011)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc...

dragonwriter 12y ago
That letter also seems to contradict the assertions in the blog post about both whether the "holding out" test would apply to the kind of flights offered through Flytenow and how the "holding out" test is applied.
voska 12y ago
"if you are traveling to Long Island for a wedding but your passengers express an interest in going to Long Island to attend a baseball game." "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" You can't just go there to transport people, but if you want to grab a burger at the airport restaurant while the people coming with want to go explore the city, that's allowable as you both have a purpose in going to that destination besides just transporting people. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2011/haberkorn%20-%20(2011)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc...
- paulgerhardt 12y ago
  From that same letter, the FAA seems to strongly imply it's ok to ask your friends if they want a ride on Facebook (say by posting in your own feed) but not ok to ask the General Public by 'holding out' (by posting in a public group on Facebook). "Holding out is accomplished when one communicates to the public, or a segment to the public, that transportation services are indiscriminately available to any person with whom contact is made." Signing up for FlyteNow and playing around with the website makes it pretty clear there is 'holding out' going on here. Which is a shame because it's a rather nice idea and more akin to carpooling aggregators than Lyft or Uber. Being able to see if pilots have previous airline or military experience is a plus too.
bake 12y ago
And if other pilots are like me, destination is often irrelevant -- I have a general intention/desire to fly (log hours, stay current, etc.), and I'll go wherever weather, time and budget permit. If I want to log two hours of cross-country flight time on a given day, which I will do regardless of having a passenger, is it against regulation to let that ride-sharing passenger pick the destination and split the bill?
- mcguire 12y ago
  One thing to consider is whether, if the passenger wants to go somewhere where weather may not permit, you will fly there anyway. In other words, will you take more risks based on your passenger's desires? I am completely unaffiliated with the FAA, but I suspect that kind of thought process will be involved before they yank your ticket.
- smackfu 12y ago
  My reading is that would not be allowed, since your purpose of the flight (flying) is different from your passengers (getting from A to B).
- sokoloff 12y ago
  Under those facts as presented, the FAA counsel has ruled that fails the common-purpose test. A different set of facts might be able to be judged as legal. You: The weather is great this Saturday for 200 miles in every direction. I'm going flying for currency purposes. Anyone want to come along? Other: I want to go to Martha's Vineyard this weekend. You: I've heard there's a great restaurant on the airport there and I've always wanted to go. I've decided (just now) that I'm flying specifically to MVY this weekend. Would you like to come? Other: Yes. Can I pay for gas? You: Only half of it, because as a private pilot, I must pay my pro-rata share. If you did that, you're skirting right on the line, but I think you're legal. If the conversation goes like: You: The weather is great this Saturday for 200 miles in every direction. I'm going flying for currency purposes. Anyone want to come along? Other: I want to go to Martha's Vineyard this weekend. Could you take me? You: Sure; I'd love to do you the favor of taking you to someplace that I hadn't already decided to go! Other: Great. Can I pay for gas? You: Only half of it, because as a private pilot, I must pay my pro-rata share. That would be clearly illegal, per the FAA counsel interpretation and the demand for a "common purpose" to the trip which isn't met. (Oh, and by the way, isn't required by the FARs either, but it's been a consistent [and reasonable, IMO] policy interpretation.)
mcguire 12y ago
I believe it is supposed to be messy. My understanding of those regulations is that they are intended to prevent unqualified pilots from engaging in commercial flights for passengers that may not be able to give informed consent about the dangers involved, while still allowing a private pilot to take Aunt Mildred up so she can see her house[1]. It's a messy problem. [1] And the family on vacation, etc., etc.
- mortenjorck 12y ago
  I think you've cut straight to the core of the FAA's reasoning in this matter. And sound reasoning it is: According to a 2007 article in the Journal of the American Medical association, general aviation accounts for 94% of all aviation fatalities. [1] You are literally 82 times more likely to die in a private aircraft than in a commercial airliner. But as you say, it's an issue of informed consent – perhaps the FAA can draft rules around making users of flight sharing services aware of the risks, while promoting safe practices by pilots (though one might argue that is exactly what commercial licensure is for). [1] http://doctorgrayson.com/Aircraft.pdf http://doctorgrayson.com/Aircraft.pdf
forgotketchup 12y ago
It's worth mentioning that the definition of common purpose in this letter is considerably looser that what the FAA has used in the past. I'm having trouble finding the link at the moment, but I seem to remember private pilots getting in trouble when they carried passengers (on the pilot's schedule, not the passengers', as in this case) who had a different purpose for the flight--in other words, both pilot and passengers had a purpose for the flight, but it wasn't a "common purpose." The FAA letter also calls into question the legality of the entire purpose of Flytenow: The letter explicitly states that publically posting the particulars of the flight (destination, date, and time) is probably illegal.

by smackfu 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

That letter also seems to contradict the assertions in the blog post about both whether the "holding out" test would apply to the kind of flights offered through Flytenow and how the "holding out" test is applied.

voska 12y ago

"if you are traveling to Long Island for a wedding but your passengers express an interest in going to Long Island to attend a baseball game." "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" You can't just go there to transport people, but if you want to grab a burger at the airport restaurant while the people coming with want to go explore the city, that's allowable as you both have a purpose in going to that destination besides just transporting people. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2011/haberkorn%20-%20(2011)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc...

paulgerhardt 12y ago
From that same letter, the FAA seems to strongly imply it's ok to ask your friends if they want a ride on Facebook (say by posting in your own feed) but not ok to ask the General Public by 'holding out' (by posting in a public group on Facebook). "Holding out is accomplished when one communicates to the public, or a segment to the public, that transportation services are indiscriminately available to any person with whom contact is made." Signing up for FlyteNow and playing around with the website makes it pretty clear there is 'holding out' going on here. Which is a shame because it's a rather nice idea and more akin to carpooling aggregators than Lyft or Uber. Being able to see if pilots have previous airline or military experience is a plus too.

bake 12y ago

And if other pilots are like me, destination is often irrelevant -- I have a general intention/desire to fly (log hours, stay current, etc.), and I'll go wherever weather, time and budget permit. If I want to log two hours of cross-country flight time on a given day, which I will do regardless of having a passenger, is it against regulation to let that ride-sharing passenger pick the destination and split the bill?

mcguire 12y ago
One thing to consider is whether, if the passenger wants to go somewhere where weather may not permit, you will fly there anyway. In other words, will you take more risks based on your passenger's desires? I am completely unaffiliated with the FAA, but I suspect that kind of thought process will be involved before they yank your ticket.
smackfu 12y ago
My reading is that would not be allowed, since your purpose of the flight (flying) is different from your passengers (getting from A to B).
sokoloff 12y ago
Under those facts as presented, the FAA counsel has ruled that fails the common-purpose test. A different set of facts might be able to be judged as legal. You: The weather is great this Saturday for 200 miles in every direction. I'm going flying for currency purposes. Anyone want to come along? Other: I want to go to Martha's Vineyard this weekend. You: I've heard there's a great restaurant on the airport there and I've always wanted to go. I've decided (just now) that I'm flying specifically to MVY this weekend. Would you like to come? Other: Yes. Can I pay for gas? You: Only half of it, because as a private pilot, I must pay my pro-rata share. If you did that, you're skirting right on the line, but I think you're legal. If the conversation goes like: You: The weather is great this Saturday for 200 miles in every direction. I'm going flying for currency purposes. Anyone want to come along? Other: I want to go to Martha's Vineyard this weekend. Could you take me? You: Sure; I'd love to do you the favor of taking you to someplace that I hadn't already decided to go! Other: Great. Can I pay for gas? You: Only half of it, because as a private pilot, I must pay my pro-rata share. That would be clearly illegal, per the FAA counsel interpretation and the demand for a "common purpose" to the trip which isn't met. (Oh, and by the way, isn't required by the FARs either, but it's been a consistent [and reasonable, IMO] policy interpretation.)

mcguire 12y ago

I believe it is supposed to be messy. My understanding of those regulations is that they are intended to prevent unqualified pilots from engaging in commercial flights for passengers that may not be able to give informed consent about the dangers involved, while still allowing a private pilot to take Aunt Mildred up so she can see her house[1]. It's a messy problem. [1] And the family on vacation, etc., etc.

mortenjorck 12y ago
I think you've cut straight to the core of the FAA's reasoning in this matter. And sound reasoning it is: According to a 2007 article in the Journal of the American Medical association, general aviation accounts for 94% of all aviation fatalities. [1] You are literally 82 times more likely to die in a private aircraft than in a commercial airliner. But as you say, it's an issue of informed consent – perhaps the FAA can draft rules around making users of flight sharing services aware of the risks, while promoting safe practices by pilots (though one might argue that is exactly what commercial licensure is for). [1] http://doctorgrayson.com/Aircraft.pdf http://doctorgrayson.com/Aircraft.pdf

forgotketchup 12y ago

It's worth mentioning that the definition of common purpose in this letter is considerably looser that what the FAA has used in the past. I'm having trouble finding the link at the moment, but I seem to remember private pilots getting in trouble when they carried passengers (on the pilot's schedule, not the passengers', as in this case) who had a different purpose for the flight--in other words, both pilot and passengers had a purpose for the flight, but it wasn't a "common purpose." The FAA letter also calls into question the legality of the entire purpose of Flytenow: The letter explicitly states that publically posting the particulars of the flight (destination, date, and time) is probably illegal.