PILOT SPIN
Pilot Zone => Pilot Zone => Topic started by: Jim Logajan on April 11, 2018, 02:57:37 PM
-
"A personal operator or a flight operated by a personal operator does not constitute a common carrier," reads part of the Aviation Empowerment Act, a bill introduced today by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). The legislation maintains the current prohibition on private pilots making a profit off flights offered via flight-sharing apps, but it would otherwise allow for the creation of digital billboards advertising trips.
Complete article, with link to the proposed "Aviation Empowerment Act" bill:
http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/11/clear-the-runway-the-fight-over-uber-for (http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/11/clear-the-runway-the-fight-over-uber-for)
(I added a comment to the commentary section to correct the author's misread of the regs.)
-
I see these types of services to benefit GA in many ways. Unfortunately it may come with a small uptick in accident rates as pilots take a more mission priority approach.
-
These can be used to spread the knowledge, because I see it as a good content.
-
These can be used to spread the knowledge, because I see it as a good content.
Hi Robot!
-
Hi Robot!
I put the Bot on ignore.
I see this as a step in the right direction.
-
Could be an uphill battle past lots of Nancys in Congress, but I agree. Help pilots share costs, which do nothing but climb.
-
What I see as sad, is that we need a legislative act to create a liberty to have a freakin' BBS advertising ride-share. It is the inverse of the reasoning of our nation that powers not granted to the feds remain the realm of the states, or the people.
Dateline; Circa late 1700s, Concord NH newspaper office: "Good day, editor sir, I shall like to place a public service message in your paper." "Fine sir, how may we help?" "I shall travel on the late morrow from Concord to Montpelier, by private coach, having 2 open seats in my personal carriage. I will offer them to any whom need transport - and will neither accept, nor demand payment. Only good company, and bonhomie." "Very well, sir I shall post it forthwith. However, good sir I shall warn you, the transport of others in your carriage without compensation nor hire places you in grave danger of violating many and various federal rules of carriage!" "What say you, sir!?" "Yes, I'm afraid the non-elected 'crats among our federals have made such rules to share your private carriage seat with strangers to be - unlawful". "Aghast! No one can share my carriage from Concord to Montpelier?" "This sir is my understanding. You must charge a fee, and you must register yourself, your carriage, and define your route, and schedule with the overlords in Philadelphia for approval. Plus, there will be oversight of your carriage, yourself, and your citizenship as well." "Wot! This be a crazy obstruction." "Tis true, my good sir. I recommend against such advertisement, thou we would be well to offer in our public voice. Very sorry."
Who would believe?
-
What I see as sad, is that we need a legislative act to create a liberty to have a freakin' BBS advertising ride-share. It is the inverse of the reasoning of our nation that powers not granted to the feds remain the realm of the states, or the people.
Dateline; Circa late 1700s, Concord NH newspaper office: "Good day, editor sir, I shall like to place a public service message in your paper." "Fine sir, how may we help?" "I shall travel on the late morrow from Concord to Montpelier, by private coach, having 2 open seats in my personal carriage. I will offer them to any whom need transport - and will neither accept, nor demand payment. Only good company, and bonhomie." "Very well, sir I shall post it forthwith. However, good sir I shall warn you, the transport of others in your carriage without compensation nor hire places you in grave danger of violating many and various federal rules of carriage!" "What say you, sir!?" "Yes, I'm afraid the non-elected 'crats among our federals have made such rules to share your private carriage seat with strangers to be - unlawful". "Aghast! No one can share my carriage from Concord to Montpelier?" "This sir is my understanding. You must charge a fee, and you must register yourself, your carriage, and define your route, and schedule with the overlords in Philadelphia for approval. Plus, there will be oversight of your carriage, yourself, and your citizenship as well." "Wot! This be a crazy obstruction." "Tis true, my good sir. I recommend against such advertisement, thou we would be well to offer in our public voice. Very sorry."
Who would believe?
This is not about an electronic bulletin board for ride shares. The reality of this is it's about an "uber" style charter service. Sure, there will be some people who will use it for legitimate ride sharing, but it will be overwhelmingly used for uber style charters. And that's a disaster in the making.
-
The Empowerment act:
Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment
5 of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue or
6 revise regulations to comply with this Act and to ensure
7 the following:
8
(1) That a person who holds a pilot certificate
9
may communicate with the public, in any manner
10
the person determines appropriate, to facilitate an
11
aircraft flight for which the pilot and passengers
12
share aircraft operating expenses in accordance with
13
section 61.113(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regu-
14
lations (or any successor regulation) and that such
15
flight-sharing operations under section 61.113(c) of
16
title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (or any suc-
17
cessor regulation ) shall not be deemed a common
18
carrier, as defined in paragraph (48) of section
19
40102(a) of title 49, United States Code, or a com-
20
mercial operation requiring a certificate under part
21
119 or 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
22
(or any successor regulation).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sounds like an electronic BBS to me. Uber is a profit mechanism for both the advertiser BBS, AND the operator(pilot). "share aircraft operating expense" is a long, long, long, long way from 'charter' which is a profit motivation. This will move the gray area from common carrier to distinctly holding out for more than a share of expense, into the realm of exceeding direct expenses to profit motive. Any Uber driver will make more than their fuel, oil, depr, ins for the rides provided.
-
The "uber" type charter guys (part 134 1/2) will exploit the crap out of this, all why creatively saying "but we're sharing cost".
And on the other side, you'll have Billy Joe Ray Bob and his shade tree maintained 1965 Cessna 172 offering to "share" his ride to the unsuspecting public. Splatter a few of those across the country side when Bubba decides that weight and balance is just a bunch of malarky and his yoke mounted GPS is all he needs to scud run to Wilkes Barre at night and watch how fast the PI Attorneys descend on this.
Bad idea all the way around.
-
I still maintain that pre-emptive administrative regulation is anathema to the way this country should work. We should use only those regulations where there has been a clear example of harm.
Will this result in a plethora of failing tin and dead ride share? I don't know, but I'm not willing to restrict the liberty just in case it 'might' happen.
N Korea has a perfect record of gen aviation safety. Not where I want the US to head.
-
We are reviewing this information, and happily to decide the further, purported measures, and questions.
-
The potential repercussions will depend on how much the behavior of pilots will be influenced by their "fares". There is more get-there-itis when you have someone with you, especially if that someone is giving you coin. Also, if you have to stop for the night its just you, but it is different if you've someone in tow. That said, if pilots don' succumb to the pressure to trying fly into hostile conditions this will work fine. History would suggest otherwise, however.
-
The potential repercussions will depend on how much the behavior of pilots will be influenced by their "fares". There is more get-there-itis when you have someone with you, especially if that someone is giving you coin. Also, if you have to stop for the night its just you, but it is different if you've someone in tow. That said, if pilots don' succumb to the pressure to trying fly into hostile conditions this will work fine. History would suggest otherwise, however.
Can you give equivalent examples of that history? Using that logic, its amazing that we are allowed to fly airplanes at all, or drive those dangerous cars, or own kitchen knives, . . .
-
The day the music died.
Patsy Cline.
There are plenty others, but these are the clearest example of get-there-itis that was related to semi-comm flights in GA.
-
Can you give equivalent examples of that history? Using that logic, its amazing that we are allowed to fly airplanes at all, or drive those dangerous cars, or own kitchen knives, . . .
Not to mention running with scissors, which is the most fun of all!
-
Can you give equivalent examples of that history? Using that logic, its amazing that we are allowed to fly airplanes at all, or drive those dangerous cars, or own kitchen knives, . . .
NTSB.GOV is full of them. Just look for the idiots pilots who run out of gas or get caught blatantly flying VFR > IMC.
-
NTSB.GOV is full of them. Just look for the idiots pilots who run out of gas or get caught blatantly flying VFR > IMC.
Joe's logical question still applies. Those pilot/idiots who run out of gas, crash in IMC are not sufficient reason(to me, and some others) toproactively prohibit the operation considered in this thread. Will crashes go up if cost sharing is allowed? If so, is that then justification to go back to no cost sharing? How about we make every pilot get his IR, so no more VFR into IMC? Maybe we should require pilots have their fuel status checked by the FAA before and after each flight operation? How about we increase the standards so that all pilots are comm trained? How about we restrict single engine to gliding distance to a runway? How about we require all planes to have chutes? Hell, lets just go all the way to the NK standard. No GA period, end of story. That will produce the perfect GA safety record. Zero flights = zero accidents.
QED
-
How about requiring pilots who participate in ride share to flight check once a year to the level of license they hold?
Since part 91 GA doesn’t require any training or any real sort of annual check, would the ride share crowd do this to have the privilege?
-
BFR but annually if you use ride-share?
Has anyone ever busted a BFR? Bueller?
I have twin, IR, glider, and gyroplane(that was a joke rating back in the 80s) plus HP/complex/TW. Does that mean I have to get flight checked on all that spit every year?
More papers. Oye.
-
BFR but annually if you use ride-share?
Has anyone ever busted a BFR? Bueller?
I have twin, IR, glider, and gyroplane(that was a joke rating back in the 80s) plus HP/complex/TW. Does that mean I have to get flight checked on all that spit every year?
More papers. Oye.
BFR is hardly a check ride. There is no set standard and most are accomplished by weekend "hamburger runs".
If you are ride sharing in a single engine, and a private pilot, then take an annual checkride to the ACS standards, with either a DPE or FAA. At least at that point there is a baseline and that would weed out the weekend warriors with poor skills who would be a potential danger to the public.
-
BFR is hardly a check ride. There is no set standard and most are accomplished by weekend "hamburger runs".
If you are ride sharing in a single engine, and a private pilot, then take an annual checkride to the ACS standards, with either a DPE or FAA. At least at that point there is a baseline and that would weed out the weekend warriors with poor skills who would be a potential danger to the public.
A check ride with a DPE I presume. To PTS standards?
Why stop there? Newly minted PPL holders are some of the most egregious crashers of tin. Why not 250 hours? Or 500 and no check ride to PTS? Why not use the new FITS stuff, geared more to the experienced pilot? We can do this all - day - long. Where does it end.(rhetoric)
-
A check ride with a DPE I presume. To PTS standards?
Why stop there? Newly minted PPL holders are some of the most egregious crashers of tin. Why not 250 hours? Or 500 and no check ride to PTS? Why not use the new FITS stuff, geared more to the experienced pilot? We can do this all - day - long. Where does it end.(rhetoric)
Why should the average PP be granted the same privilege as a commercial pilot with an air carrier certificate, without having to follow the same rules?
This whole "ride share" scheme is just another "Uber" or "Lyft", and is a way to circumvent air charter.
-
Why should the average PP be granted the same privilege as a commercial pilot with an air carrier certificate, without having to follow the same rules?
This whole "ride share" scheme is just another "Uber" or "Lyft", and is a way to circumvent air charter.
Limited to aircraft of 8 or fewer seats.
Training difference between a private pilot and commercial is about 210 hours for flight time. Do a commercial pilot and an ATP, who must have 1500 hours, both have the same privileges? Seems they can cause equivalent damage.
Private pilots routinely fly people near and dear to them. Self-preservation at a minimum keeps most of us alive even when flying with common riff-raff.
Airplanes are more dangerous than ground craft, but hundreds of millions share the roads and the only differences in licenses have more to do with sheer size of the vehicles allowed than any other "new" privileges granted.
-
Limited to aircraft of 8 or fewer seats.
Training difference between a private pilot and commercial is about 210 hours for flight time. Do a commercial pilot and an ATP, who must have 1500 hours, both have the same privileges? Seems they can cause equivalent damage.
Private pilots routinely fly people near and dear to them. Self-preservation at a minimum keeps most of us alive even when flying with common riff-raff.
Airplanes are more dangerous than ground craft, but hundreds of millions share the roads and the only differences in licenses have more to do with sheer size of the vehicles allowed than any other "new" privileges granted.
What you and others keep failing to recognize (admit?) is that Flytenow is an Uber type of operation designed to circumvent air taxi regulations.
-
What you and others keep failing to recognize (admit?) is that Flytenow is an Uber type of operation designed to circumvent air taxi regulations.
But under CURRENT regulations, absent the "holding out" issue, a private pilot does not have any profit motive. The best they can do is reduce the cost of their flying by sharing said costs. That is quite different from an Uber or Lyft driver, who can actually make a living. The bill does not propose to eliminate the requirement that a private pilot cost-share.
The irony here is that UK and the Europeans regulations already allow cost-sharing AND advertising by private pilots - we're the ones who seem to be more nanny state with respect to "holding out":
https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/Aircraft-ownership-and-maintenance/Cost-sharing-flights/ (https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/Aircraft-ownership-and-maintenance/Cost-sharing-flights/)
By the way - as I see it, the pilots who would most benefit would be those desiring to go full commercial and ATP - this would reduce the cost of building time.
-
But under CURRENT regulations, absent the "holding out" issue, a private pilot does not have any profit motive. The best they can do is reduce the cost of their flying by sharing said costs. That is quite different from an Uber or Lyft driver, who can actually make a living. The bill does not propose to eliminate the requirement that a private pilot cost-share.
The irony here is that UK and the Europeans regulations already allow cost-sharing AND advertising by private pilots - we're the ones who seem to be more nanny state with respect to "holding out":
https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/Aircraft-ownership-and-maintenance/Cost-sharing-flights/ (https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviation/Aircraft-ownership-and-maintenance/Cost-sharing-flights/)
By the way - as I see it, the pilots who would most benefit would be those desiring to go full commercial and ATP - this would reduce the cost of building time.
Again, while a few pilots will try to use the system correctly, many of the shade tree charter guys will exploit the crap out of this as a work around of an Air Carrier certificate.
Uber and Lyft are also advertised as "ride share".
-
Uber right from the start was not a ride share. It was started by some guys who couldn't get a cab on a busy night. They started it so they could pay a driver and premium car to come pick them up with only one call and it was a paid service from the start. It's never been about ride-share.
I don't know the origins of Lyft.
No matter. Arguing this from the position of govt control or authority rather than the liberty POV is strange. Regulation should follow from utility, and regulation should always be the minimum necessary to accomplish the job without undue restrictions on personal freedom.
Look at the internet. It has been mostly govt free since its inception. Nothing on the planet has ever been so successful as the internet. Net Neutrality was a huge mistake. The PATRIOT act was a huge mistake. Taking liberty from the people and investing more power in 'crats who were never elected is always a mistake. Proven time and again in a republic.
which is what bugs me so much from the subject of this thread. 'Bill to ALLOW....' There should be no 'allow' about it. The govt isn't in the allow people to enjoy their liberty. That's totalitarian thinking any way it's sliced.
-
Uber right from the start was not a ride share. It was started by some guys who couldn't get a cab on a busy night. They started it so they could pay a driver and premium car to come pick them up with only one call and it was a paid service from the start. It's never been about ride-share.
I don't know the origins of Lyft.
No matter. Arguing this from the position of govt control or authority rather than the liberty POV is strange. Regulation should follow from utility, and regulation should always be the minimum necessary to accomplish the job without undue restrictions on personal freedom.
Look at the internet. It has been mostly govt free since its inception. Nothing on the planet has ever been so successful as the internet. Net Neutrality was a huge mistake. The PATRIOT act was a huge mistake. Taking liberty from the people and investing more power in 'crats who were never elected is always a mistake. Proven time and again in a republic.
which is what bugs me so much from the subject of this thread. 'Bill to ALLOW....' There should be no 'allow' about it. The govt isn't in the allow people to enjoy their liberty. That's totalitarian thinking any way it's sliced.
Oh boo hoo.......
These regulations were in existence way before you even knew what an airplane was. And now a bunch of private pilots want the rules changed so they can play airline pilot on the weekend.
Fine. Let them go through the process and see if they can. But watch the butt hurt if congress shoots it down, and they'll be crying "liberty!"
LOL ::)
-
What you and others keep failing to recognize (admit?) is that Flytenow is an Uber type of operation designed to circumvent air taxi regulations.
I recognize that. But why is that important to you?
Anti-Uber people complain because Uber doesn't have to follow all the rules that taxi drivers do. I say we fix that by dropping a bunch of the rules on taxi drivers (not all, but most of them).
-
Prohibition was around way before I was too.
How'd that work out?
-
I recognize that. But why is that important to you?
Anti-Uber people complain because Uber doesn't have to follow all the rules that taxi drivers do. I say we fix that by dropping a bunch of the rules on taxi drivers (not all, but most of them).
Most federal aviation regulations are written in blood.
GA has a crappy safety record, an aging and often not well maintained fleet flown by owners with questionable experience, who balk at the idea of meaningful recurrency training (too expensive).
I just view FlyteNow as what it really is.
-
Prohibition was around way before I was too.
How'd that work out?
Not even close Skippy.
Try to stay on subject.
-
Not even close Skippy.
Try to stay on subject.
Oh - come - on. It is the prototype for preemptive legislative attack on liberty! This is what it's ALL about. Crats say; 'no, no you are not allowed to do that because someone might get hurt!'
The subject is liberty, and the taking of such from people for their own good. That's how this whole FAA interpretation of 'holding out' expanded to ride share got to be out of hand, and why the legislature is stepping in to back the FAA crats off.
Just like the outrageous preemptive expansion of the 3rd class medical rules. You're just being obtuse now, I get your LOVE regulations, and restrictions on people. Maybe we should apply the same philosophy to gun debate?
-
Oh - come - on. It is the prototype for preemptive legislative attack on liberty! This is what it's ALL about. Crats say; 'no, no you are not allowed to do that because someone might get hurt!'
The subject is liberty, and the taking of such from people for their own good. That's how this whole FAA interpretation of 'holding out' expanded to ride share got to be out of hand, and why the legislature is stepping in to back the FAA crats off.
Just like the outrageous preemptive expansion of the 3rd class medical rules. You're just being obtuse now, I get your LOVE regulations, and restrictions on people. Maybe we should apply the same philosophy to gun debate?
So when you were playing sports and your team was losing, did you ask to stop the game so you could rewrite the rules to your favor?
-
So when you were playing sports and your team was losing, did you ask to stop the game so you could rewrite the rules to your favor?
I -- thought you wanted to stay on topic.
No matter. I'll take this up in the snarky way it was meant.
The 'game' is ongoing. We have had a semblance of GA since about 1911, with the first 'rules' were published. The team that is 'losing' in this case would be the FAA or pilots. I will take the pilots as losers. In your stilted and poorly related simile, the pilots are the ones losing because the other team is CHEATING. There is no basis in federal law that allows the FAA to make a ruling on holding out except their unrestrained power over the 'game', the 'teams', the 'umps', and the 'fans'. The other 'team'(pilots) have decided to strike back at the other 'team'(FAA) who has been changing the 'rules' during the 'game' for decades.
And, this will be the end of my participation. If you like more rules, maybe consider N Korea. As I said, they have a perfect, perfect safety record in the GA 'game'.
-
I -- thought you wanted to stay on topic.
No matter. I'll take this up in the snarky way it was meant.
The 'game' is ongoing. We have had a semblance of GA since about 1911, with the first 'rules' were published. The team that is 'losing' in this case would be the FAA or pilots. I will take the pilots as losers. In your stilted and poorly related simile, the pilots are the ones losing because the other team is CHEATING. There is no basis in federal law that allows the FAA to make a ruling on holding out except their unrestrained power over the 'game', the 'teams', the 'umps', and the 'fans'. The other 'team'(pilots) have decided to strike back at the other 'team'(FAA) who has been changing the 'rules' during the 'game' for decades.
And, this will be the end of my participation. If you like more rules, maybe consider N Korea. As I said, they have a perfect, perfect safety record in the GA 'game'.
Apparently you skipped civics classes in school. Your diatribe is inane at best.
Congress passed the laws that the FAA operates under (USC 49). The FAA is charged with developing regulations that will comply with those laws (CFR 14).
USC 49 gives the administrator the authority (by law) to prescribe standards in the interest of safety. Now congress may (and they have) from time to time rewrote parts of USC 49 which required the administrator to eliminate or rewrite regulations.
From my perspective, the FAA is correct on FlyteNow as it's merely a work around to avoid complying with air charter regulations. If FlyteNow wants to be legitimate in "ride sharing" of private pilots, the the proposed regulation needs to be very specific in that, so the "part 134 1/2" guys don't exploite it.
At the end of the day, FlyteNow is just an Uber clone.
-
This will be fine until the first crash with someone riding along.
-
This will be fine until the first crash with someone riding along.
Maybe, as the Media loves to emotionalize GA, but Uber does it, and the roads are a much more dangerous place than the air. I see less regs as a positive for GA which is dying under the weight of over regulation, and cost.
The harsh reality is our little airplanes typically fly way less than they should to make any kind of sense. If these get planes a few more hours, that's a good thing.
-
This will be fine until the first crash with someone riding along.
Not if its codified into federal law. Where it will really hit home is in insurance rates. Right now if you crash and its just you the aviation insurer may not have to pay into your estate. If you have an unrelated passenger (especially a fare) the insurer will certainly have to pay.
We may limit this ourselves. If we crash with our fare, the family of the fare can ruin our own estate, beggaring our families. I for one would not risk that, not even to reduce my expenses by half.
-
I recognize that. But why is that important to you?
Anti-Uber people complain because Uber doesn't have to follow all the rules that taxi drivers do. I say we fix that by dropping a bunch of the rules on taxi drivers (not all, but most of them).
The vast majority of Taxi rules are to protect the monopoly that is the city issuing the medallion. As always, with government, it is about MONEY and POWER, not safety, or personal choice.