3 ms·

It's amazing that Flytenow seems to think the FAA's position doesn't "answer ... questions" or is arbitrary. The FAA's position seems quite clear and based on

by cge 12y ago

It's amazing that Flytenow seems to think the FAA's position doesn't "answer ... questions" or is arbitrary. The FAA's position seems quite clear and based on reasonable ideas, even from the letters Flytenow links to and then seems to wilfully misinterpret. Private pilots can't be compensated for flights. The exception is that, if the pilot and passengers have a common purpose, which doesn't seem to be "oh, we happen to want to go to the same city," then they can share expenses. Thus, if a pilot and some of her friends are sitting around and say "hey, it would be great to go see X," they can pool their money to do so. Nothing the FAA seems to say officially suggests that advertising for random strangers to go on a flight is acceptable, and quite a few articles Flytenow links to seem directly contradicted by the FAA's letters. It's not clear that posting on airport bulletin boards was ever really acceptable, but may have been disregarded in that it only really advertised to other pilots, with a clearer understanding of the risks. These rules are based on far more vital safety issues than taxis, and, as you point out, the rules around carrying paying passengers are reasonable, unlike taxis. Uber and Lyft can at least argue that they are fighting an unfair system. Flytenow can't. For that matter, their response, keeping the platform up but removing expense-sharing, seems blatantly in contempt of the letter, and it seems certain that they'll be punished, harshly. What possible reason would there be for a site where pilots can find "non-paying" passengers to tag along with them on flights, significantly increasing their own costs, unless the expectation is that pilots will use the site to find passengers who will pay under the table?

Guichard 12y ago
The entire ruling was about compensation. Additionally, neither the Federal Aviation Regulations nor the FAA has ever recognized any distinction between friends or strangers, i.e., a prior existing relationship has no bearing on common purpose. Otherwise, how could you decide if common purpose exists? Is there a secret handshake? One conversation, two conversations? Maybe, just asking: can we be friends so we can fly together? That's a slippery slope.
- hatandsocks 12y ago
  > The entire ruling was about compensation. Right, and, plain as day, private pilots cannot fly people around for money. That's the baseline. You can't accept money in exchange for flying an airplane unless you hold a commercial or ATP certificate. The FAA carved out an exception that allows pilots to share operating costs with passengers IF the pilot and passengers share a common purpose for the flight AND the pilot isn't advertizing the flight to the public or some subset of the public ("holding out"). I'll grant you there isn't a sharp, black line that divides when a private pilot is and is not breaking the cost sharing rule, but Flytenow is clearly outside the grey zone (or, pilots who use Flytenow are).

by cge 12y ago

Guichard 12y ago

The entire ruling was about compensation. Additionally, neither the Federal Aviation Regulations nor the FAA has ever recognized any distinction between friends or strangers, i.e., a prior existing relationship has no bearing on common purpose. Otherwise, how could you decide if common purpose exists? Is there a secret handshake? One conversation, two conversations? Maybe, just asking: can we be friends so we can fly together? That's a slippery slope.

hatandsocks 12y ago
> The entire ruling was about compensation. Right, and, plain as day, private pilots cannot fly people around for money. That's the baseline. You can't accept money in exchange for flying an airplane unless you hold a commercial or ATP certificate. The FAA carved out an exception that allows pilots to share operating costs with passengers IF the pilot and passengers share a common purpose for the flight AND the pilot isn't advertizing the flight to the public or some subset of the public ("holding out"). I'll grant you there isn't a sharp, black line that divides when a private pilot is and is not breaking the cost sharing rule, but Flytenow is clearly outside the grey zone (or, pilots who use Flytenow are).