

The Legality of Ride Sharing in Aviation - voska
http://blog.flytenow.com/the-legality-of-ride-sharing-in-aviation

======
noonespecial
Forgetting the legality of the matter for a moment: Inexperienced pilots plus
small planes plus the pressure of an implicit promise to fly at a certain
_time_ is a bad mix.

CPLs get extra training and experience that GAs don't that helps them say "I
know you're paying lots of money and are very important and all that but we're
not flying through that".

My gut instinct on services like this is that somebody is going to die. The
FAA is making an ass of themselves in the tech community with the drone
nonsense right now, but these rules are written on tombstones.

~~~
yock
The opposite situation might even be worse. Pilot-in-command says you're go,
but you're not keen on the weather. Suddenly the PIC is super pissed that
you're not sharing the cost of the ride anymore, and you have a lot of very
bad options. Pay for a ride you aren't going to take, get in an airplane in
circumstances you feel aren't safe, or piss off this individual who's going to
bad mouth you to everyone he knows.

It really seems like this could persuade a lot of people to make bad
decisions.

~~~
shapov
Is there a baseline that could be established to dictate what bad weather is?
So that the decision is taken away from both the pilot and the passenger?

~~~
yock
If this baseline were so easily quantifiable, then there would be volumes
written about it and the community would have settled on one long ago. The
apparent risk is different for everyone, and weather is highly unpredictable.

------
scjody
A couple of suggestions if the people behing Flytenow are reading this:

* Provide a link from your blog back to the main website, so if I start by reading this (or any other) blog post, it's easy for me to learn more.

* Let me see what's available before signing up! I'm curious, but not that curious about what you're offering.

~~~
andzt
Definitely on those two. Also, I'm confused on why the "region" is really a
city and not a full geographic area.

To clarify: is the point of the service to offer flight sharing for convenient
flights all over New England to get to remote or local airports faster? Or is
this only to go flying/sightseeing for fun?

------
maxcan
It may be FAR compliant, it may not be. But, like Lyft drivers getting
tickets, if shit goes down, you're going to pay the price, not Flytenow.

I'm not gonna sacrifice my certificate to find out. I'd rather spend those
legal fees on a CPL.

~~~
lake_rogue
Pilot, not attorney. I'll be shocked if FAA permits this -- though happy to
see anything that helps make more general aviation enthusiasts.

What I infer through having read various FAA letters in the past is that there
needs to be a personal relationship between the parties (preferably
established in-person) in a context outside of "share airplane ride".

Of relevance is the FAA's 1985 Chero letter [1] about a similar
Pilot/Passenger sharing: "The PPA system is not a casual one of an individual
pilot wishing to take some friends or acquaintances with him on a trip. The
PPA system would violate the letter, as well as the spirit, of Section
61.118."

The Haberkorn Letter (2009) [2] has relevant content: "You question whether
advertising, on Facebook, the specific time and date of your trip to your
"friends/family/acquaintances" would be acceptable as a private pilot, since
you do not consider yourself to be holding out to "the general public." As
described above, 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."

In a later paragraph:

"You question whether you may post the specific time and date that you are
travelling to Long Island on an FBO's bulletin board in order to carry two
additional passengers with in exchange for a pro rata reimbursement of the
operating expenses. Again, the FAA cautions that this type of advertising may
be construed as holding out (see explanation in question 1 above)."

And in a later paragraph in regards to being reimbursed via PayPal:

"Whether or not such payment comes through an online payment system such as
Paypal has no bearing on the legality of this situation. However, payment
through Paypal would suggest that there is an interest in carrying passengers
with whom there is no previous personal relationship and that the offer to
accept passengers is being made to the general public (see concerns raised in
question 1 above)."

With regards to how Flytenow describes things: "Flytenow facilitates common
purpose because pilots, rather than enthusiasts, unilaterally dictate the
destination (and purpose) of an adventure, and enthusiasts express shared
interest in the specific date, points of operation, and adventure."

The last time I checked United Airlines unilaterally dictates the destination
of their adventures and the specific dates and points of operation. These
characteristics do not seem to me to turn the flight into a "bona fide common
purpose".

Again, without having explicitly stated it I believe the FAA wants expense-
sharing passengers to be: \- friends \- family \- acquaintances

And not just those artificially constructed for the purpose of working around
FAA rulings. At least, this is how I'll interpret the FAA rulings & letters
until they explicitly state otherwise. Again, IANAL, hope they rule favorably,
but wouldn't risk my license to learn the answer is "no".

[1]
[http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=88055&st...](http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=88055&start=15)

[2][http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc...](http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2009/bobertz%20-%20\(2009\)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf)

~~~
voska
There is no regulation requiring a "prior personal relationship" to share
costs.

~~~
forgotketchup
You're correct that the text of FARs does not explicitly require a prior
personal relationship. However, as they are applied and interpreted _in
practice_ , you're almost guaranteed to get in hot water if you fly-share as a
private pilot on a regular basis with people you don't know. And that's really
not news to anyone with a private pilot certificate or anyone who has spent
time looking into getting one.

------
smackfu
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...](http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2011/haberkorn%20-%20\(2011\)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf)

~~~
bake
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?

~~~
sokoloff
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.)

~~~
bake
Long overdue response, but this is really helpful -- thanks for laying it out.

------
will_brown
I know the prevailing philosophy in the start-up world is that its better to
ask forgiveness than ask permission...but legally I would take the
conservative approach and suspend services to pilots with only a private
license, and pending the FAA response only permit those with a commercial
license?

Hell flytenow could even sponsor the cost of pilots getting their commercial,
in exchange for exclusivity until the amount is reimbursed.

~~~
sokoloff
If they suspend service to pilots without a commercial license, they harm
their overall position, IMO.

It is not enough to have a commercial rating. If you are engaging in an
(technically, almost any) operation which requires a commercial rating, you
also need a 2nd class medical certificate and most of those operations would
fall into part 135 (charter) or part 121 (scheduled airline service).

The items that a commercial pilot can do under part 91 that a private pilot
cannot are very limited in scope: 1\. Tow banners 2\. Tow gliders 3\. Provide
sightseeing flights in a 25 mile radius (and landing back at the same airport)
4\. Fly certain types of cargo 5\. Fly powerline patrol, aerial fishspotting,
aerial photography 6\. Conduct demo flights for aircraft sales purposes 7\.
Part of the path towards becoming a paid flight instructor.

None of those are "fly passengers in air taxi operations".

The company seems to be taking the position that they are helping to
coordinate already legal Part 91 flights, and it would be inconsistent of them
to require a commercial certificate to do that.

~~~
snowballsteve
It seems like their operation would fall in the exact same legal situation as
Angel flights, or Pilot's for Paws, or Lighthawk. None of which seem to have
common-purpose. Now these organizations seem to ignore compensation issues,
but there are cases where logging hours alone was deemed compensation so it is
arguable that compensation does occur irregardless of monetary transactions. I
can't help but notice though that these organizations often require 500 or
1000 hours of their volunteer pilots, which could likely make many of them CPL
holders already.

~~~
sokoloff
I fly PnP somewhat regularly and have done Angel Flights in the past. There is
no compensation at play for those flights, making them perfectly legal Part 91
operations. I pay, out of pocket, 100% of the costs of those flights.

The FAA has conclusively ruled (first in 1993) that the ability of a pilot,
who is paying 100% of the costs of the flight, to claim a charitable deduction
for those costs is NOT compensation.

Flight time that you paid 100% of the costs to do is never a problem in terms
of a compensation concern for a private pilot.

From:
[http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2012/media/JulAug201...](http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2012/media/JulAug2012Because.pdf)

As you probably know, the FAA interprets “compensation” as meaning the receipt
of anything of value. However, the FAA Chief Counsel’s office has clarified
the issue of charitable deductions in a number of interpretations.
Specifically, it has stated that “since Congress has provided for the tax
deductibility of some costs of charitable acts, the FAA will not treat
charitable deductions of such costs, standing alone, as constituting
‘compensation or hire’ for the purpose of enforcing [the Federal Aviation
Regulations].” (Note: This interpretation is specifically addressed in FAA
Order 8900.1 (Volume 4, Chapter 5, Section 1, paragraph 4-922) which also
states that “inspectors should not treat the tax deductibility of costs as
constituting ‘compensation or hire’ when flights are conducted for
humanitarian purposes.”)

It would be hard to argue that Flytenow's operations fall into the category of
"conducted for humanitarian purposes", plus the fact that money is changing
hands, so this situation isn't at all like AngelFlight, PnP, Dove Flights
(Citation Special Olympics airlift), etc. in the eyes of the FAA.

------
bentcorner
It's interesting to read this in light of discovering "What Colour are your
bits?" [1]. I am not a pilot, but it seems that the FAA considers the "colour"
of your flight to be a very important thing.

[1] [http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23](http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23)

------
nether
This will be good for beginner pilots to make some cash. I used to attend a
flight school and knew some graduates making minimum wage as entry-level
flight instructors, and there are stories abound of commercial pilots not
doing much better (Google "LAX ghetto"). They're basically glorified bus
drivers. By cutting out all the mega airport overhead (airlines pay the
airport for facilities, terminal use, baggage handling, and of course the TSA)
we could see a much greater proportion of airfare go straight to the pilot,
traveling in this way.

~~~
blktiger
You can't make money this way since you can not be paid more than your pro-
rata share of the flight costs. By definition that means the money you get
from passengers is going to be less than what you paid to fly.

~~~
sokoloff
You're right that you can't make money, but you can be paid more than your
pro-rata share of the flight costs.

Suppose you and 3 passengers take a flight where the direct costs total $400.

Your pro-rata share of $400 is $100. Your passengers could pay you up to $300.
$300 is more than $100, so you can clearly be paid more than your pro-rate
share.

The FAR says you can't pay LESS than your pro-rata share. In this case, you
aren't.

