
FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets - cjensen
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=22494&omniRss=press_releasesAoc&cid=102_P_R
======
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I am completely against any "disruption" in the airline industry via safety
arbitrage.

~~~
Waterluvian
Help a layperson. Do you mean a company that competes by cutting corners with
safety?

~~~
pliftkl
Not the person you are responding to, but as someone who probably feels the
same way, I'm ok with someone disrupting my local taxi monopoly by having
someone who is not certified driving the car that is taking me to the airport,
because I can largely agree that most humans can drive a car. I'm much less ok
with the person flying my airplane not being certified.

~~~
saddlerustle
That seems backwards, given planes are 10x safer than cars

~~~
mikestew
Commercial flights, yes, and that’s because we certify and license the crap
out of such things. And thus we circle back around to parent’s point.

I don’t have a source at hand, but IIRC flying a private plane is one of the
better and more reliable ways to get yourself hurt or killed.

~~~
toomuchtodo
My life insurance policy specifically denies a claim if I'm flying general
aviation (private plane). It is that much more dangerous than commercial (on
par with driving in a car).

[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opinion/The-Dangers-of-
Pr...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opinion/The-Dangers-of-Private-
Planes.html)

"The National Transportation Safety Board found that in 2011, _94 percent of
fatal aviation accidents occurred in what’s called general aviation._ That
category includes private small planes flown by amateurs as well as
professionally piloted corporate flights in high-powered aircraft, such as the
Gulfstream IV jet that crashed in May in Bedford, Mass., killing all seven
people on board. By contrast, commercial aviation had no fatal accidents that
year. _Statistics from the N.T.S.B. show that general aviation aircraft
average nearly seven accidents per 100,000 flight hours, compared with an
average of 0.16 accidents per 100,000 hours for commercial airlines._ "

Emphasis mine.

~~~
unethical_ban
Your insurance company sounds like a bag of dicks. Do they also deny a claim
if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, which is legal? What about
skydiving, or skiing a black diamond course, or attempting Longs Peak in the
winter without three layers on?

~~~
NikolaNovak
Sometimes I forget the USA centric nature of forum until I read riding without
helmet is legal... :0

I've see motorcycles without helmet last time I was down south in the fall and
it scares the absolute beejesus bonkers out of me :/

(I've been riding for a decade, do occasional dirt trails, and have doing
motorsport rallying a while back, but never enough of a daredevil to mount a
bike without helmet and armour)

~~~
morganvachon
> Sometimes I forget the USA centric nature of forum until I read riding
> without helmet is legal... :0

It varies by state; this is one of those occasions where the federal
government leaves it up to each state to mandate as they please. You might be
surprised to learn that Georgia, a deeply Republican (i.e. anti-regulation)
state, has strict requirements for motorcycle safety including mandatory
helmets for any vehicle classed as a motorcycle.

~~~
wallace_f
Republican has come to mean more "anti-authority" with respect to regulations,
and not even necessarily less, but just less ones which hurt private profits.
It does not really any longer mean 'against ones which hurt individual
liberties.'

------
Zhenya
If I were tapjets, I would probably not want my legal counsel saying that
tapjets is like airbnb and uber. 2 companies which continue to operate in
sometimes murky legal areas.

" Just like Uber, Airbnb, and other successful companies that changed the
status-quo, TapJets Inc. is now facing push-back by government regulators,"
said Debra Fein, Corporate Counsel for TapJets, " TapJets denies any
wrongdoing, denies all allegations that FAA has made, and is prepared to
vigorously defend itself against allegations despite it no longer being the
need for TapJets to be a certified airline."

~~~
TeMPOraL
Yup.

I find this to be a good litmus test. If someone takes pride in calling
themselves "like Uber, AirBnB", then I personally will not do business with
them. Both companies are primarily known for exploiting and breaking laws for
a quick buck, and Uber in particular is also widely recognized as run by a
bunch of antisocial assholes.

It's _doubly stupid_ to call yourself that when you're responsible for the
very lives of your customers, like in this case...

------
code4tee
TapJets was just being incredibly stupid here. Pilots and airlines know the
regulations and know if they mess with them they’ll get hit hard.

Anyone that knows anything about aviation is just rolling their eyes at TapJet
and saying good riddence. The “Uber” model of just blatantly ignoring
regulations to get a leg up doesn’t work in aviation. While pilots and
airlines aren’t exactly fans of the FAA, most would say that on the whole the
system works well—and in both general aviation and our ATC system the US is
the envy of the aviation world.

TapJet isn’t the first, but hopefully the last, startup to try such
shenanigans.

------
JohnTHaller
According to TapJets' response, these were unpaid test flights undertaken for
friends and family during development of the app to test it. And it's a side
of their business they don't engage in anymore, acting more as an Uber/Airbnb
matching agent: [https://www.tapjets.com/Home/Article/tapjets-answers-
recent-...](https://www.tapjets.com/Home/Article/tapjets-answers-recent-faa-
inquiry)

~~~
aphextron
>According to TapJets' response, these were unpaid test flights undertaken for
friends and family during development of the app to test it

That changes nothing, and makes it no less reckless. Airline regulations are
written in blood.

~~~
IIAOPSW
It actually does make a difference. The main difference between a Private
Pilots License (PPL) and a Commercial Pilots License (CPL) is that you cannot
fly customers for profit on a PPL (but you can fly people as favors and be
reimbursed for expenses).

Its hard to tell just how serious these accusations are. For instance

>the airman who served as second-in-command only had a student pilot
certificate

Presumably the first in command did have a full certificate (otherwise why
wouldn't they mention it). The reality of this could be as mundane as "the guy
sitting shotgun in the Cessna is only half way to his PPL and we bought a
friend along".

Legally Tapjet may squeak by if their counterarguments are legitimate. At the
very least fully rescinding their license may be overkill. This decision might
be politically targeted at anyone trying to be Uber of the skies. I'd want to
see more than this one off press release before calling them reckless.

~~~
god_bless_texas
The problem with your comment is that you are wrong in your interpretation.
Your interpretation is that it's black and white on what the FAA can do.
There's famous saying among pilots when doing something that isn't explicit in
FARs. "That sounds like a grey area". For a conservative pilot, they'll never
do it because it could be a license suspension or at minimum dialing a number
to talk to an FAA investigator. To a more liberal or adventurous pilot, they
might bend the limit and see if it comes up.

I am curious if you're a pilot and if so have your CPL or ATP.

It's not about the PPL vs. CPL (and by definition they need more than a CPL).
The difference is in what might be considered "compensation". The FAA's
interpretation of this is so incredibly broad, it should scare the pants off
anyone considering bending the rules here, and their lawyers should have
picked up on this. Did the flights with vendors increase a relationship that
might further an interest or negotation later? Did the flights help them
improve their app? Did it result in a prospect of a return favor?

It may not be fair or just, but the FAA put those rules out there and a whole
lot of people have been inconvenienced by them. I love that Tapjets is doing
this, but they moved fast and not particularly wisely. If they thought they
could run like Uber and ask for forgiveness later, they never worked with the
FAA.

~~~
IIAOPSW
>I am curious if you're a pilot and if so have your CPL or ATP.

I got nothin. I'm just a slightly knowledgeable person.

Flying is on my bucket list. I've researched the topic a bit more than the
average lay person. That's about it.

~~~
god_bless_texas
10-4

pursue flying now, you won't regret the freedom it brings.

------
ztratar
Founders being idiots. We all have a duty to call this abhorrent behavior out,
and say that not only is it NOT ok from a consumer standpoint, but also that
any business that uses such tactics to get ahead deserves to fail.

~~~
destitude
The FAA is against any disruption to the commercial airline business. This
does not necessarily mean what was done here was in any way unsafe.

~~~
pdpi
The FAA is the antithesis of "move fast and break things", and their threshold
for "unsafe" is justifiably very very tight.

Claiming this has anything to do with "disruption to the commercial airline
business" requires some extraordinary evidence to back it up.

~~~
soneil
We're a little too proud of "break things" sometimes. "Break things" should
not extend to human beings, or fragile aluminium tubes containing human
beings.

You wouldn't accept "move fast and break things" from your surgeon, and he can
only kill one customer at a time.

------
kj65557
There is no safety concern here, it's purely bureaucratic and political. Many
GA planes are 100% legal and safe to be flown with one pilot. The question
here is whether or not this was a commercial (part 91) operation or a charter
(part 135) operation. If passengers (friends and family) were not paying, it
seems sensible to treat this like any other general aviation (private) flight,
but the FAA is notorious for not being particularly sensible. If there's even
a remote opportunity to pursue legal action, the FAA will do so.

What's problematic here (and with many FAA cases) is the total lack of due
process. The TapJets case hasn't even gone to court and the FAA has already
punished them and issued a public statement before TapJets was even able to
argue their case. They are guilty until proven innocent.

The "emergency order" used here is intended for actual emergencies, such as if
a carrier was flying planes that weren't physically safe. A dispute over
whether compensation occurred over a year ago is not an emergency and the use
of such an order seems like an abuse of power.

Note: for all flights with paying customers (not friends and family) TapJets
states that they operate according to the rules of any other air charter under
part 135.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Pilot here. The FAA is overly bureaucratic in some ways, but the safety record
of modern commercial air travel is incredible, and that bureaucracy is partly
responsible.

More to the point, there’s not enough information here to assess whether the
FAA is overreacting, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt over an
anonymous, newly-registered probable-sockpuppet account any day.

~~~
kj65557
> newly-registered probable-sockpuppet account any day.

Thanks for your response but my tenure on hn is probably the least relevant
part of the discussion.

~~~
biocomputation
> Thanks for your response but my tenure on hn is probably the least relevant
> part of the discussion.

Using the word 'sock puppet' implies that you are speaking for someone else
and that you might have a hidden agenda. Thus, your tenure on HN is indeed
relevant in this case.

~~~
dang
People have a right to create accounts to join in on discussion here without
being accused of sinister shillage—the tiredest internet trope of them all.
Pulling such accusations out of thin air (let alone some more internal place)
is absolutely not ok here.

------
alanh
> between Sept. 28, 2016 and Jan. 22, 2017

So, a full year ago? Not a typo, but an emergency from 374 days ago?

------
marcosdumay
I think somebody is going to discover that the aviation regulation is of a
completely different kind from the taxi regulation.

The FAA is rather sanguine in making their regulation cheap to follow, and in
cutting unnecessary rules.

~~~
perl4ever
I'm not sure what you intend to convey by "sanguine". To mean, the word means
optimistic or confident. Do you mean they do it, or they don't do it?

~~~
marcosdumay
They do it. A lot. Much earlier than the regulators on any other part of the
world.

------
aphextron
Their app description:

“Hire a private plane fast and for good price with the help of Tapjet! Best
pilots, best quality, safety . We offer best price for private plane rental!”

~~~
koolba
Is that really the word for word description of the app?

If so, it’s interesting that they don’t add a “best” to “safety”.

------
chx
So is TapJets finished like Flytenow was?

------
apapli
Or in "cool speak", I guess they could say they are disrupting the airline
space by democratising flying? /s

~~~
nolok
Flying is already very cheap.

Also, how does "using unqualified crew" equal in any way to democratising
flying ?

~~~
apapli
I was being sarcastic. Democratisation = making flying available to everyone -
in this case, by enabling unqualified crew to pilot a plane.

Obviously pretty poor behaviour.

------
qwerty456127
> with aircraft that it was not authorized to use because they were not listed
> on its air carrier certificate.

So much bureaucracy...

~~~
na85
What that certificate attests is that the airline has appropriate
infrastructure in place to operate the specific aircraft type(s) safely. That
means appropriately trained and qualified technicians to maintain the
aircraft, a proper supply chain to procurement airworthy spare parts, properly
trained aircrew, etc.

Operating aircraft isn't like web development where you can just push a buggy
pile of JavaScript and fix it a few weeks later. We're talking about people's
lives. This stuff has to work.

~~~
eblanshey
It's the distinction between private and commercial that doesn't make sense to
me. If I want to fly from A to B, whether I get paid or not doesn't make a
difference to the safety of the passengers. If I have a private pilot cert, I
am qualified to fly the aircraft safely.

Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

~~~
doodles526
There is an extreme difference in the number of hours and required training
between your SPL/PPL/CPL/ATPL. Eg: For fixed wing, you can get your PPL within
35 flight hours at a Part 141 School. Your ATP comes at a minimum of 1500
hours, and you are required to know much more about emergency recovery. The
regs in place regarding minimum requirements for carrying passengers and
performing commercial ops are there for very good reason. Even when having
your PPL(or other license for that fact), there are currency requirements on
when you are allowed to carry passengers on Part 91 non-commercial flights.

In the aviation world, even having your commercial is considered a "license to
learn". Having your PPL simply implies that you can fly an aircraft in good
weather conditions, should have the better judgement not to fly beyond your
weather minimums, and have the ability not to kill anyone outside of your
aircraft should conditions deteriorate while in the air. Even with my fixed
wing PPL, I am extremely cautious with passengers knowing that I don't have
nearly as much knowledge and experience as someone with their CPL/ATPL.

Source: PPL w/ instrument Fixed Wing & CPL-H

~~~
Dylan16807
That's very informative, but it doesn't quite answer the question.

Why are you allowed to have passengers with a PPL if it's so dangerous?

And why does that reason stop applying when the passengers pay?

~~~
doodles526
While I can't claim to be an expert in _why_ the FAA chose to structure the
regs the way they do, I have some personal thoughts on the matter. dweekly has
a great comment explaining Part 91, 135, and 121 operation rules that I'll
reference here.

A Part 91 flight conducted by a PPL with passengers certainly isn't the safest
activity the pilot or passengers could partake in. But its certainly
enjoyable. Let's take a similar example. A hobbyist motorcycle racer owns a
private track, and a friend wants a joy-ride. Similarly to a passenger on a
Part 91 flight, a passenger on a high speed sports bike is at higher risk of
fatality than a person who decided to spend the day relaxing at the beach. But
doing so on private property with little/no risk to non-participants is not
illegal. Many/Most high-risk activities are not illegal provided that the risk
is only to the willing participants. While I can't be sure that's the reason
the FAA allows low-hour non-CPL pilots to carry passengers, I would imagine it
is a large contributing factor considering the statistical probability of
fatality is with the pilot and passengers, not people in other planes or on
the ground (to the best of my knowledge).

Part 135 and 121 operations have the license requirements such that people
purchasing services have a reasonable expectation that the pilots involved
have been properly trained, and are VERY safe.

Now to the kicker. Why are private pilots not allowed to accept ANY
compensation? Really, NO COMPENSATION. Although I haven't personally heard of
anyone getting their license revoked for something as little as paying the
full cost of expenses, it is against the regulations for your passengers to
pay more than half the pro-rata share of expenses (rent, fuel, etc...). This
is a hotly debated item, that no one seems to have a good answer for. The most
convinving argument I've heard is that it goes back to the late '20s when the
regs for commercial pilots started going into place. The history around this
is shaky, but supposedly the commercial license came about as a way to track
interstate and foreign commerce. Supposedly the government at the time was
scared of the ability to circumvent taxes since they couldn't as easily stop
and check trucks or trains crossing borders. So they created the commercial
license as a way of regulating inter-border trade to trusted pilots. I don't
have a source on that unfortunately - more of an oral tradition story. But it
makes the most sense to me of everything I've heard.

Another rabbit-hole I won't go too deep into is the issue of insurance.
Getting insurance on an aircraft is much more expensive if it will be used for
compensation purposes (Part 135 or 121). Even if a private pilot were able to
get compensation from passengers or for cargo, the insurance rate would be
astronomical(as a commercial rotor wing pilot, I can't find a job doing
anything but instructing until I hit ~1000 hours due to insurance rates, if an
insurance company would even let me fly on a commercial bird before then). And
if you got in an accident while providing paid-for services without proper
(for comp)insurance, it would not pay-out anything.

tl;dr You can have PPL w/ passengers because you're mostly only endangering
yourself and willing passengers. Commercial operations are limited to using
CPL/ATPL pilots such that consumers have a reasonable guarantee of safety. And
nobody knows why private pilots can't be compensated (although if someone has
a source with concrete answer I would love to hear it). Even if they could
legally, they financially couldn't due to insurance costs.

