
Uber-Style Flight-Sharing Service Shot Down by U.S. Court - philip1209
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-18/uber-style-flight-sharing-service-shot-down-by-u-s-court
======
acslater00
I'm of two minds on this one, but the mind that says 'glad it's being shut
down' is winning.

I'm a private pilot / IFR with around 250 hours of pilot-in-command time in
single engine planes (I'm guessing that's square in the middle of this
company's target pilot demographic). I have a full-time job and fly
recreationally. On numerous occasions I've flown friends and relatives e.g.
from Palo Alto to the LA area and asked them to split flight costs. Also,
while I've never done this personally, it's pretty common for pilots to seek
out other pilots on message boards and the like to "split time" on some
flight, where cost is split and both pilots can log some flight time.

So on the one hand, if this app were just an enhancement of that same basic
pattern ... I'm flying to LA who wants to look down at I-5 traffic from 4500
feet ... then I would think it's great.

The problem is that this service is clearly intended to be more than that. And
when you start getting customers who don't understand general aviation and
have expectations that my Flyte(?) will run like an airline (or at least air
taxi) when it _will not be_ , you have a bad situation.

To give one concrete example, once after promising to take someone on a tour
of the golden gate bridge area, dragging her to the airport, doing a pre-
flight inspection, and taxiing all the way to the runway, I made a last minute
decision to cancel after a new weather report freaked me out a bit. She
understood, and we rescheduled. If the person next to me were not a close
friend but in fact a "paying customer", perhaps business person with a meeting
that afternoon in LA, would I have felt pressured to fly into an unsafe
situation? Probably! This is one of several scenarios where the service just
seems like a _bad idea_ , from both a pilot and passenger perspective.

I really hate being on the side of 'regulators' in any dispute, but flying is
meaningfully different from driving a car. General Aviation already has a
reputational problem with sloppy, low-experience pilots putting themselves and
their families in danger, and frankly I don't think adding unwitting customers
to the mix is going to help the situation at all.

~~~
asift
The problems you described seem fairly easy to remedy through means other than
an FAA ban. As a customer, I have zero interest in taking an excessively risky
flight. I would seek companies that provide internal safeguards, such as
weather restrictions, that take this decision out of a pilot's hands.

~~~
dorfsmay
Safeguards are known:

    
    
      - Instrument rated pilots
    
      - special, expensive, instruments (radars, etc...)
    
      - extra pair of skilled eyes (2 pilots)
    
      - n + 1 engines / APU
    
      - bigger planes that have less restrictions (more power which means you can bring more weight (more luggage), take off safely from higher altitude, manoeuvre in higher cross winds etc....)
    

Those companies that fly those airplanes with those pilots already exists,
there are known as air taxi and small air charters.

~~~
acslater00
FWIW none of these things are actual commercial flight regulations. In
particular, it's quite possible (though I'm guessing uncommon) to get a
commercial license without an IFR, and it's definitely very common to run
single-engine, single-pilot operations with plain vanilla instruments
(avionics).

I'm not familiar with air transport regulations, however, and some of these
things may apply there.

~~~
pc86
You are correct.

14 CFR 61.133 (b)(1) states:[0]

    
    
      A person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate
      with an airplane category or powered-lift category rating
      and does not hold an instrument rating in the same 
      category and class will be issued a commercial pilot 
      certificate that contains the limitation, “The 
      carriage of passengers for hire in (airplanes) 
      (powered-lifts) on cross-country flights in excess of 
      50 nautical miles or at night is prohibited.”
    

So you can technically get a commercial license without an instrument rating,
but you won't be able to get a job until you do. My guess is it happens only
in that someone is taking the courses for both and just happens to finish the
commercial part first. In practice though I've never heard anyone who did
that.

[0]
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.133](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.133)

~~~
VLM
Crop dusters, and the guys who inspect power lines / pipelines. Also those
guys who tow banners over the sportsball stadiums. None of them have much to
do when its dark or cloudy.

------
AndrewKemendo
I don't see how this is even a question. If you go through pilot training for
a single engine land license (basic flight license) you go through all of the
different categories and their restrictions.

One of such restrictions is that unless you have a Commercial license, you
can't take compensation for the flight[1]. Even so far as to have a passenger
pay for a "$100 hamburger." [2]

[1]FAR 61.113(a) states that "no person who holds a private pilot certificate
may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or
hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft." The legal definition of
"compensation" is broader than just meaning that money was exchanged. If the
pilot gains any economic advantage, it could be considered compensation--for
example, the acquisition (and thus building) of flight time, or the fostering
of business goodwill, and excessive reimbursement of flight expenses,
including payment for meals or lodging.

[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$100_hamburger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$100_hamburger)

~~~
belleandsebasti
That $100 hamburger reference is completely unrelated.

According to the Wikipedia link you posted, a "$100 hamburger" is an excuse a
pilot will make for the opportunity to fly. It has nothing to do with covertly
charging for a private flight.

~~~
tjohns
The point was that a passenger isn't allowed to buy a hamburger for a private
pilot as "compensation", even though it only costs ~$10 and doesn't even
remotely cover expenses. (In the case of a "$100 hamburger run", going to a
restaurant at a distant airport may be the intended destination -- so offering
to buy someone's meal at said restaurant might otherwise assumed to be a
reasonable thing to do.)

You are, however, allowed to split expenses evenly with passengers -- provided
everyone is sharing the same common purpose (e.g. flying for fun). But the key
part here is that the pilot isn't allowed to receive anything that could be
remotely interpreted as compensation.

------
fencepost
The court case was a question about whether the FAA was correct in requiring
that pilots using the service have commercial licenses and the court said
"Yes, that's within their authority." The FAA stance was that commercial
pilots receive significantly more scrutiny and I believe are required to have
significantly more experience than private pilots without commercial licenses.

I think a comparable car service would be one that allowed teens (including
those 16-18) to advertise for passengers who would help cover fuel costs. I'll
note that Uber requires that drivers be at least 21.

~~~
brulez
The problem with the current FAA rules is that even commercial pilots are
banned from taking part in a service like this.

In fact, even pilots with the highest possible certification (Airline
Transport Pilot) cannot provide transport unless operating under a company
with a Part 119 Commercial Air Carrier license.

~~~
cwyers
I don't have a problem with that, either. Uber drivers put a lot more stress
on their cars than ordinary drivers do, but ordinarily the worst consequence
of that is that someone gets stuck at the side of the road waiting for a tow
truck. If the same holds true for Uber-but-for-planes, the consequences of
that are potentially a lot more severe. Requiring that commercial flights are
held to a different standard as far as aircraft maintenance and such, not just
pilot licensing, makes a lot of sense to me.

~~~
fleitz
There's maintenance standards for a reason if you put X hours on a plane you
have to do the required maintence for X hours. Commercial licenses are much
more about making sure the maintenance is actually done because people might
skip the maintenance.

It doesn't matter whether passengers are paying or not, similar to how in cars
if you put X KMs on it requires the same amount of maintenance.

Have you seen a taxi? They are regular cars. Just like an Uber...

------
TeMPOraL
I wonder how far it has to go for people to realize that regulations aren't
there to make your life miserable. Uber for commercial aviation? Uber for
surgery? Uber for biotech? Uber for nuclear weapons research? Some industries
are heavily regulated for a reason.

~~~
lordnacho
But isn't it quite clear to anyone booking a Cessna without a commercial
licence that it's different? Shouldn't it be okay for someone to say "yeah I
get that you're not the same as a real pilot" and sign off on that risk
themselves?

~~~
brk
I think there is an element of what a "reasonable" person could be expected to
evaluate properly.

The majority of the public (at least in the US) of a legal driving age possess
a drivers license. Even persons without a drivers license are generally
familiar enough with cars/vehicles to make a baseline assumption about the
safety of the vehicle and/or driver. I'm not saying you can 100% accurately
judge this, but that overall _most_ people can make an informed decision about
the risk they are undertaking with a ride-sharing service like Uber.

Conversely, most people do not have pilots licenses, familiarity with small
aircraft, or an ability to properly judge safe vs. unsafe conditions. Couple
that with the fact that you are dealing with a method of travel that succeeds
only if it can defy gravity without incident for the duration of the trip, and
you have (IMO) a much much higher risk than with something like Uber.

~~~
lmm
> The majority of the public (at least in the US) of a legal driving age
> possess a drivers license. Even persons without a drivers license are
> generally familiar enough with cars/vehicles to make a baseline assumption
> about the safety of the vehicle and/or driver. I'm not saying you can 100%
> accurately judge this, but that overall most people can make an informed
> decision about the risk they are undertaking with a ride-sharing service
> like Uber.

And yet people worry a lot about things that are much less dangerous than
driving or getting a lift. I don't know how you're defining "informed", but
the decisions people make about driving certainly aren't reasonable or
rational in an objective sense.

~~~
untog
Sure. But I don't think the fact that people are prone to making irrational
choices means we should open up opportunities for them to make more of those
choices, in potentially deadly situations.

~~~
lmm
If the licensing for a safer activity is much stricter than the licensing for
a more dangerous activity then we're clearly doing _something_ wrong.

------
frik
Some Uber/lyft services where shut down too in various countries by courts.
Sometimes they are in a gray area, sometimes they are against the local law,
sometimes they are fine. The question is, is the current law what the majority
of the public wants? (if not, maybe consider to change it) (The definition of
law from Merriam-Webster: "Law is a binding custom or practice of a community;
...", see:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law#Definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law#Definition)
) At least in the taxi business, Uber/Lyft lowered the price, increased the
convience and the available options for the end user.

There is already a gray market of small airplane sightseeing tours. Many are
neighbours who want to see their house from above. And some want to fly with
exciting loopings in aerobatic monoplane above their home ('Extra' planes are
loud). What is more annoying to the public: Low-altitude flights of Cessna's
around the block? Or higher-altitude flights from airport A to airport B?

~~~
kuschku
Or the 10 cessnas crashing into private houses a day that would happen if the
regulation was that lax?

------
randycupertino
Doesn't that already exist, called NetJets?

~~~
chinathrow
Yes for travelling with a business jet. They also follow the regulations.

------
halkoy
I think, the decision is true because there can be so much security problems

------
kevindeasis
It would be really hilarious if they decide to move their operations in other
countries. Slowly but surely influencing countries one at a time until its
time to go back and try again in US. Would that strategy work?

~~~
neuro_imager
As a frequent international flyer my thoughts are "Jesus, I hope not."

------
chatwinra
Flight-Sharing Service Shot Down.....

<archer>Er...Phrasing?</archer>

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyLWrKh2fB0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyLWrKh2fB0)

------
Kinnard
Wish they could break the rules and get away with it like Uber. I guess the
sky racket, unlike the city-by-city taxi rackets, is still too big for the
Valley to tackle.

~~~
poof131
When do laws actually matter? The commercial requirement to fly people for
money doesn’t seem even remotely unreasonable - 250 hrs. [1] That is not a lot
of flight time. General aviation is also about 20 times more dangerous than
driving a car [2], and I’d argue even more for the pilots with less than
250hrs. Glad to see this ruling. I hope we are beginning to see peak
regulatory disruption.

[1]
[http://www.universalairacademy.com/downloads/COM_Reqirements...](http://www.universalairacademy.com/downloads/COM_Reqirements_updated.pdf)
[2] [http://www.livescience.com/49701-private-planes-
safety.html](http://www.livescience.com/49701-private-planes-safety.html)

~~~
chinathrow
It's not only a simple 250h flight time requirement - you also need further
theoretical tests to pass, another flight check and most importantly, even
then you still need to fly for a company which holds an active airworthyness
certificate.

~~~
pc86
250h is not a lot of time for a CPL. You only need 40 for a PPL. Once you have
a PPL, you're really only talking about another $27,000 or so in rentals, plus
the check ride.

My current instructor had almost 100 hours of solo time before he went for his
PPL check ride, specifically because he understood how dangerous it was, and
he wanted to know he was ready before bringing his friends up in the air.

If you want to make the argument that the FAA should revisit the Part 119 Air
Carrier Certificate requirement for CPLs, I don't see a problem with that, but
I do see a lot of issues with letting a 60-hour PPL fly a family of three
across the country.

~~~
chinathrow
No, I am not making this argument, but I think I should have quoted "simple"
\- as I see some downvotes now.

I just wanted to explain that it's not only flight time regulations but a lot
more you need to complete to get a CPL (oh and we didn't even mention the
medical yet) _and_ to fly commercially.

A CPL is not enough to fly commercially. It's always a CPL/ATPL and an
airworthyness certificate of the operator. But I think you know that :)

~~~
chinathrow
Oh and of course you need an AOC too, forgot about that:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_operator%27s_certificate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_operator%27s_certificate)

