Todos
← Back to Squawk list
FAA to officially rule on flight-sharing services
There's been a lot of debate about the legality of flight sharing services like FlyteNow and AirPooler, but AirPooler has officially requested the FAA's legal interpretation to put the matter to bed. (techcrunch.com) Más...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Private pilots fly with cost sharing passengers every day. This is not Uber, not fare paying, not air taxi. As long as the posted flights proceed as planned (weather permitting, of course) regardless of passengers showing up or not, and the passenger cost is truly the pro-rata share of the plane's operating expenses, I see nothing wrong with it. That lines up with the regs. Is it illegal to post on a bulletin board that "I'm flying down to XXXX on July 12, anyone want to go and split the gas?"
You are right - and I guess it is a little different than Uber because the point of Uber is specifically to provide a service for hire. I think this has a huge opportunity to get out of control.
If as a private pilot, I post a note on the FBO bulletin board saying I am flying to XXXX on July 12th, lets split the gas - the audience is pretty limited to mostly other pilots and hangar jockeys. They have a pretty good idea what GA is about. But where do we draw the line when you move to the internet? Would it be legal to post on the rideshare board on Craigslist? If it goes on a site like FlyteNow and I post I am flying to XXXX on July 12th, 2 seats left, $112 per seat is that going to far?
And then how do you enforce people that are not holding out (nobody bought a seat so I am cancelling the flight) ... or that the cost/price really is the pro-rata share?
Unfortunately the rule making is not keeping up with the technology. I am glad the FAA is going to issue an opinion on this.
If as a private pilot, I post a note on the FBO bulletin board saying I am flying to XXXX on July 12th, lets split the gas - the audience is pretty limited to mostly other pilots and hangar jockeys. They have a pretty good idea what GA is about. But where do we draw the line when you move to the internet? Would it be legal to post on the rideshare board on Craigslist? If it goes on a site like FlyteNow and I post I am flying to XXXX on July 12th, 2 seats left, $112 per seat is that going to far?
And then how do you enforce people that are not holding out (nobody bought a seat so I am cancelling the flight) ... or that the cost/price really is the pro-rata share?
Unfortunately the rule making is not keeping up with the technology. I am glad the FAA is going to issue an opinion on this.
I agree it could get out of control. I think monthly limits are a good way to go toward containing that concern. I don't think it is going too far posting online if done properly. Hopefully they have a plane profile page where the hourly costs are maintained. Any database person can come up with a standard deviation query to flag the outliers. The site should calculate the passenger's share of the cost based on the plane profile, planned hours for the flight (including return), and the number of passengers who sign on (pro-rata). This is better than craigslist!
As far as holding out, the site should require the pilot and passengers to update the posting with the status of the flight. The only options should be: 1) Completed (pilot must include log info), 2) Not completed due to weather, and 3) Not completed due to mechanical/safety. The records should be maintained, and subject to audit if the site or FAA suspects a pilot is not following the rules.
Done right, with the service working with/providing useful data to the FAA, it could really help private pilots. Maybe even help stem the decline of the pilot population.
As far as holding out, the site should require the pilot and passengers to update the posting with the status of the flight. The only options should be: 1) Completed (pilot must include log info), 2) Not completed due to weather, and 3) Not completed due to mechanical/safety. The records should be maintained, and subject to audit if the site or FAA suspects a pilot is not following the rules.
Done right, with the service working with/providing useful data to the FAA, it could really help private pilots. Maybe even help stem the decline of the pilot population.
Note that the FAA has a much narrower view of this. To share costs pro rata, the pilot passengers must have a common purpose in the trip. If they're going on the trip for different reasons, then it's actually not legal, and private pilots *have* been busted on this. Read:
http://crankyflightinstructor.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/a-warning-about-pro-rata/
I'm not (at all!) saying that I think the FAA's rules are good or proper or even easy to understand, but just that the rules do exist and are not always followed.
I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few of the sharing scenarios are actually prohibited by current rules.
http://crankyflightinstructor.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/a-warning-about-pro-rata/
I'm not (at all!) saying that I think the FAA's rules are good or proper or even easy to understand, but just that the rules do exist and are not always followed.
I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few of the sharing scenarios are actually prohibited by current rules.
I am curious if the FAA's pro-rata opinion has ever been tested in court. "Common Purpose" as defined in the article you linked sits in one huge grey area. I get that two people flying to a meeting or a breakfast fly-in are going on a common purpose. What about if I am flying with my wife to visit my in-laws - where I plan to play golf most of the trip? Is that no longer a common purpose in the eyes of the FAA (unless I bring her to the golf course with me?)
I guess what I mean is you can make anything appear as a common purpose - or not. If I am flying passengers with I just met, the common purpose could be we want to travel to (insert city name here) in a small airplane.
It seems like these regs are really only enforceable if some sort of audit or investigation takes place... like after an incident. Probably not from a ramp check.
I guess what I mean is you can make anything appear as a common purpose - or not. If I am flying passengers with I just met, the common purpose could be we want to travel to (insert city name here) in a small airplane.
It seems like these regs are really only enforceable if some sort of audit or investigation takes place... like after an incident. Probably not from a ramp check.
Sadly, it's not hard to find records of successful enforcement actions over just this issue:
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/3730.PDF
Yes, it would only happen if they found out, but there are numerous ways that can happen. One of the passengers might blab near an inspector. Or a nosy person on the ramp might see money change hands. Or somebody might post something on Facebook or Twitter after the flight about what a great pilot you are ...
For me, it's simple. I'm happy to fly others around, but I don't take money or anything else, period. Yes, it's a tough rule and some don't agree with it, but it's hard to color inside these lines.
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/3730.PDF
Yes, it would only happen if they found out, but there are numerous ways that can happen. One of the passengers might blab near an inspector. Or a nosy person on the ramp might see money change hands. Or somebody might post something on Facebook or Twitter after the flight about what a great pilot you are ...
For me, it's simple. I'm happy to fly others around, but I don't take money or anything else, period. Yes, it's a tough rule and some don't agree with it, but it's hard to color inside these lines.
