
FAA Grounds ‘Uber for Planes’ - ksherlock
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/faa-grounds-uber-for-planes
======
ubernostrum
This was completely expected: while Uber and Lyft can mostly carry out
arbitrage against the patchwork of local regulations on taxi services across
the country, air travel is federal and there are no conflicting local rules to
take advantage of at different times, just the FAA saying "yes" or "no"
nationwide.

And it also shouldn't be controversial: everybody knows Uber and Lyft are taxi
services, despite their occasional "we're not a taxi, honest" dodges, and
doing the same with aircraft... makes you an airline, and trying to go back
and pull a "we're not an airline, honest" is not going to fly.

~~~
trevyn
I don't care whether or not it's classified as an airline, but if I want to
catch a flight with a private pilot and compensate him, fully understanding
the risks and rewards of general aviation vs commercial aviation, where's the
problem exactly?

~~~
cmurf
Private pilots by regulation cannot be compensated. Only commercial pilots can
be; and even in that case the buyer must separately acquire the pilot for
hire, and plane for hire. If the buyer goes to a single source for pilot and
plane for hire, that is an air carrier, i.e. commercial aviation.

~~~
st2p
That's not correct. See 14 CFR 61.113 (c) A private pilot may not pay less
than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers,
provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental
fees.

edit: the exceptions of the CFR are (b) through (h) but (c) is the most
typical

~~~
0_00_0
Tried to edit my other comment but accidentally deleted it.

So I just skimmed over the ruling here:

[https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/77E3D4B7...](https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/77E3D4B73DFDB22685257F1F005456E8/$file/14-1168-1589331.pdf)

and you're right (if you're getting at what I think you're getting at).

The argument is that expense sharing is compensation, but it is allowed under
the FARs in specific circumstance. Difference here being that the combination
of holding out on a public website and receiving compensation via expense
sharing put it in common carrier land.

Which does seem to make sense under current rules.

~~~
st2p
Np. And right. I hated to be pedantic but outright dismissing the fact that
there are exceptions to the compensation rule is wrong.

edit: wording

------
reustle
Couldn't this technically continue to run "under the radar"? (pun intended)

If this is already legal as they mentioned, but not as a "platform", you could
just work on better facilitating the communication and let payments and
logistics happen offline (or in private like email)

~~~
Wingman4l7
Heck, use a cryptocurrency for extra plausible deniability on payments.

~~~
beeboop
The issue here is that pilots are not going to risk the licenses they've spent
potentially over 100k on to make money this way.

~~~
reustle
I think the FAA was the issue, not the pilots. Those who don't want to give
rides, won't. That's pretty simple. The FAA even said that splitting the cost
of rides with friends is OK, so then it will be down to proving if someone is
your friend or not.

~~~
Wingman4l7
It's possibly a safety concern. With paragliding, which is largely self-
regulated by the USHPA _(FAA airspace use regulations notwithstanding)_ , I
don't believe you can technically take payment for a tandem flight unless the
passenger is a student pilot, at least on paper.[1] IIRC, this is to
discourage pilots with a tandem rating taking undue flight risks to make money
on giving rides.

[1]: [https://www.ushpa.aero/4721.asp](https://www.ushpa.aero/4721.asp)

------
PhasmaFelis
It's depressing to me that the useful idea of a "sharing economy" has been
redefined to mean "Uber and things similar to Uber."

