FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies

[Larry Dighera]

FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2884-full.html?ET=avweb:e2884:218609a:&st=email#222609
In a legal interpretation
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/236884814/FAA-Ruling-Banning-Planesharing> released
Aug. 13, the FAA's Chief Counsel for Regulations has prohibited "peer-to-peer
general aviation flight sharing" Internet-based operations that allow private
pilots to offer available space on flights they intend to take. AirPooler Inc.
had asked the FAA for an interpretation of the regulations—seeking to confirm
that a pilot participating in the AirPooler service would not be receiving
compensation as prohibited by FAR 61.113 and whether pilots participating in
AirPooler are commercial operators and thus required to hold a certificate
under Part 119.

The interpretation issued by the FAA disagreed with AirPooler's position and
stated that arranging for flights and passengers through the AirPooler website
met all elements of common carriage and are not legal under Part 91 because
pilots would be "holding out" to transport persons for compensation or hire.
The FAA noted that its position forbidding website-based ride sharing
operations is consistent with rulings it had made previously on nationwide
initiatives involving expense-sharing flights.

[Sylvia Else]

On 21/08/2014 2:35 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
> FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2884-full.html?ET=avweb:e2884:218609a:&st=email#222609
> In a legal interpretation
> <http://www.scribd.com/doc/236884814/FAA-Ruling-Banning-Planesharing> released
> Aug. 13, the FAA's Chief Counsel for Regulations has prohibited "peer-to-peer
> general aviation flight sharing" Internet-based operations that allow private
> pilots to offer available space on flights they intend to take. AirPooler Inc.
> had asked the FAA for an interpretation of the regulations—seeking to confirm
> that a pilot participating in the AirPooler service would not be receiving
> compensation as prohibited by FAR 61.113 and whether pilots participating in
> AirPooler are commercial operators and thus required to hold a certificate
> under Part 119.
>
> The interpretation issued by the FAA disagreed with AirPooler's position and
> stated that arranging for flights and passengers through the AirPooler website
> met all elements of common carriage and are not legal under Part 91 because
> pilots would be "holding out" to transport persons for compensation or hire.
> The FAA noted that its position forbidding website-based ride sharing
> operations is consistent with rulings it had made previously on nationwide
> initiatives involving expense-sharing flights.
>

That's the FAA's interpretation. The courts might take a different view.

Sylvia.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:24:50 +1000, Sylvia Else >
wrote:

>On 21/08/2014 2:35 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
>> FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies
>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2884-full.html?ET=avweb:e2884:218609a:&st=email#222609
>> In a legal interpretation
>> <http://www.scribd.com/doc/236884814/FAA-Ruling-Banning-Planesharing> released
>> Aug. 13, the FAA's Chief Counsel for Regulations has prohibited "peer-to-peer
>> general aviation flight sharing" Internet-based operations that allow private
>> pilots to offer available space on flights they intend to take. AirPooler Inc.
>> had asked the FAA for an interpretation of the regulations—seeking to confirm
>> that a pilot participating in the AirPooler service would not be receiving
>> compensation as prohibited by FAR 61.113 and whether pilots participating in
>> AirPooler are commercial operators and thus required to hold a certificate
>> under Part 119.
>>
>> The interpretation issued by the FAA disagreed with AirPooler's position and
>> stated that arranging for flights and passengers through the AirPooler website
>> met all elements of common carriage and are not legal under Part 91 because
>> pilots would be "holding out" to transport persons for compensation or hire.
>> The FAA noted that its position forbidding website-based ride sharing
>> operations is consistent with rulings it had made previously on nationwide
>> initiatives involving expense-sharing flights.
>>
>
>That's the FAA's interpretation. The courts might take a different view.
>
>Sylvia.


Perhaps. But it's difficult to get a case before a court who is not a law
judge. I suppose the operators of ride-sharing web sites could always try to
sue the FAA, and get the case into the "real" court system that way.

[Sylvia Else]

On 24/08/2014 10:41 PM, Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:24:50 +1000, Sylvia Else >
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/08/2014 2:35 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies
>>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2884-full.html?ET=avweb:e2884:218609a:&st=email#222609
>>> In a legal interpretation
>>> <http://www.scribd.com/doc/236884814/FAA-Ruling-Banning-Planesharing> released
>>> Aug. 13, the FAA's Chief Counsel for Regulations has prohibited "peer-to-peer
>>> general aviation flight sharing" Internet-based operations that allow private
>>> pilots to offer available space on flights they intend to take. AirPooler Inc.
>>> had asked the FAA for an interpretation of the regulations—seeking to confirm
>>> that a pilot participating in the AirPooler service would not be receiving
>>> compensation as prohibited by FAR 61.113 and whether pilots participating in
>>> AirPooler are commercial operators and thus required to hold a certificate
>>> under Part 119.
>>>
>>> The interpretation issued by the FAA disagreed with AirPooler's position and
>>> stated that arranging for flights and passengers through the AirPooler website
>>> met all elements of common carriage and are not legal under Part 91 because
>>> pilots would be "holding out" to transport persons for compensation or hire.
>>> The FAA noted that its position forbidding website-based ride sharing
>>> operations is consistent with rulings it had made previously on nationwide
>>> initiatives involving expense-sharing flights.
>>>
>>
>> That's the FAA's interpretation. The courts might take a different view.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
>
> Perhaps. But it's difficult to get a case before a court who is not a law
> judge. I suppose the operators of ride-sharing web sites could always try to
> sue the FAA, and get the case into the "real" court system that way.
>

Or just appeal any adverse decision by the administrative law judge.
Eventually you reach a real court.

Even the ALJ might find against the FAA.

The FAA's position is dependent on the claim that

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=7329bfe9e88151dceaadc300b6d91eec&n=sp14.2.61.e&r=SUBPART&ty=HTML#se14.2.61_1113

implies that pro-rata sharing with passengers constitutes compensation.
That doesn't sit so well with the wording which says the the pilot must
not pay less than the pro-rata share.

It doesn't say that the pilot must not receive more than the pro-rata
share of the passengers, which would be the more natural way of
expressing it if it were trying to limit the amount of compensation.

A different way of viewing it is that §61.113(c) is just saying that
such an arrangement doesn't constitute compensation.

Of course that view doesn't sit well, either, but legislation is
frequently not that well written.

All that said, I think one would have to be mad to fly with a private
pilot whom one doesn't know. There are some lunatics out there, and some
of them won't live to build up many hours.

Sylvia.

[george152]

On 25/08/14 01:27, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 24/08/2014 10:41 PM, Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:24:50 +1000, Sylvia Else
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/08/2014 2:35 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>> FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies
>>>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2884-full.html?ET=avweb:e2884:218609a:&st=email#222609
>>>>
>>>> In a legal interpretation
>>>> <http://www.scribd.com/doc/236884814/FAA-Ruling-Banning-Planesharing> released
>>>>
>>>> Aug. 13, the FAA's Chief Counsel for Regulations has prohibited
>>>> "peer-to-peer
>>>> general aviation flight sharing" Internet-based operations that
>>>> allow private
>>>> pilots to offer available space on flights they intend to take.
>>>> AirPooler Inc.
>>>> had asked the FAA for an interpretation of the regulations—seeking
>>>> to confirm
>>>> that a pilot participating in the AirPooler service would not be
>>>> receiving
>>>> compensation as prohibited by FAR 61.113 and whether pilots
>>>> participating in
>>>> AirPooler are commercial operators and thus required to hold a
>>>> certificate
>>>> under Part 119.
>>>>
>>>> The interpretation issued by the FAA disagreed with AirPooler's
>>>> position and
>>>> stated that arranging for flights and passengers through the
>>>> AirPooler website
>>>> met all elements of common carriage and are not legal under Part 91
>>>> because
>>>> pilots would be "holding out" to transport persons for compensation
>>>> or hire.
>>>> The FAA noted that its position forbidding website-based ride sharing
>>>> operations is consistent with rulings it had made previously on
>>>> nationwide
>>>> initiatives involving expense-sharing flights.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's the FAA's interpretation. The courts might take a different view.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps. But it's difficult to get a case before a court who is not a
>> law
>> judge. I suppose the operators of ride-sharing web sites could always
>> try to
>> sue the FAA, and get the case into the "real" court system that way.
>>
>
> Or just appeal any adverse decision by the administrative law judge.
> Eventually you reach a real court.
>
> Even the ALJ might find against the FAA.
>
> The FAA's position is dependent on the claim that
>
> http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=7329bfe9e88151dceaadc300b6d91eec&n=sp14.2.61.e&r=SUBPART&ty=HTML#se14.2.61_1113
>
>
> implies that pro-rata sharing with passengers constitutes compensation.
> That doesn't sit so well with the wording which says the the pilot must
> not pay less than the pro-rata share.
>
> It doesn't say that the pilot must not receive more than the pro-rata
> share of the passengers, which would be the more natural way of
> expressing it if it were trying to limit the amount of compensation.
>
> A different way of viewing it is that §61.113(c) is just saying that
> such an arrangement doesn't constitute compensation.
>
> Of course that view doesn't sit well, either, but legislation is
> frequently not that well written.
>
> All that said, I think one would have to be mad to fly with a private
> pilot whom one doesn't know. There are some lunatics out there, and some
> of them won't live to build up many hours.

That also holds for many new Commercials.
We had one basic rule.
To fly for hire or reward we had to have a Commercial Pilot License, as
Private Pilots we would share the flight time and cost

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 08:28:27 +1200, george152 > wrote:

>To fly for hire or reward we had to have a Commercial Pilot License

A private certificate permits 25 mile maximum from departure point sight seeing
flights, IIRC. Commercial permits flying for heir (crop dusting, photo, banner
tow, ...), but not pax.

[george152]

On 26/08/14 01:17, Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 08:28:27 +1200, george152 > wrote:
>
>> To fly for hire or reward we had to have a Commercial Pilot License
>
> A private certificate permits 25 mile maximum from departure point sight seeing
> flights, IIRC. Commercial permits flying for heir (crop dusting, photo, banner
> tow, ...), but not pax.
>
Different here and I rather suspect there.
A Commercial permits you to fly for hire or reward. Carrying cargo, ag
chemicals or pax.
A Private Pilots License permits you to fly and do all the above but not
receive remuneration.
That limit I seem to recall we had for night flying.
And there was a limited PPL but as far as I know that died. I'll have to
check.

[Sylvia Else]

On 25/08/2014 6:28 AM, george152 wrote:
> On 25/08/14 01:27, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 24/08/2014 10:41 PM, Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:24:50 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/08/2014 2:35 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>> FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies
>>>>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2884-full.html?ET=avweb:e2884:218609a:&st=email#222609
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In a legal interpretation
>>>>> <http://www.scribd.com/doc/236884814/FAA-Ruling-Banning-Planesharing>
>>>>> released
>>>>>
>>>>> Aug. 13, the FAA's Chief Counsel for Regulations has prohibited
>>>>> "peer-to-peer
>>>>> general aviation flight sharing" Internet-based operations that
>>>>> allow private
>>>>> pilots to offer available space on flights they intend to take.
>>>>> AirPooler Inc.
>>>>> had asked the FAA for an interpretation of the regulations—seeking
>>>>> to confirm
>>>>> that a pilot participating in the AirPooler service would not be
>>>>> receiving
>>>>> compensation as prohibited by FAR 61.113 and whether pilots
>>>>> participating in
>>>>> AirPooler are commercial operators and thus required to hold a
>>>>> certificate
>>>>> under Part 119.
>>>>>
>>>>> The interpretation issued by the FAA disagreed with AirPooler's
>>>>> position and
>>>>> stated that arranging for flights and passengers through the
>>>>> AirPooler website
>>>>> met all elements of common carriage and are not legal under Part 91
>>>>> because
>>>>> pilots would be "holding out" to transport persons for compensation
>>>>> or hire.
>>>>> The FAA noted that its position forbidding website-based ride sharing
>>>>> operations is consistent with rulings it had made previously on
>>>>> nationwide
>>>>> initiatives involving expense-sharing flights.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's the FAA's interpretation. The courts might take a different
>>>> view.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps. But it's difficult to get a case before a court who is not a
>>> law
>>> judge. I suppose the operators of ride-sharing web sites could always
>>> try to
>>> sue the FAA, and get the case into the "real" court system that way.
>>>
>>
>> Or just appeal any adverse decision by the administrative law judge.
>> Eventually you reach a real court.
>>
>> Even the ALJ might find against the FAA.
>>
>> The FAA's position is dependent on the claim that
>>
>> http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=7329bfe9e88151dceaadc300b6d91eec&n=sp14.2.61.e&r=SUBPART&ty=HTML#se14.2.61_1113
>>
>>
>>
>> implies that pro-rata sharing with passengers constitutes compensation.
>> That doesn't sit so well with the wording which says the the pilot must
>> not pay less than the pro-rata share.
>>
>> It doesn't say that the pilot must not receive more than the pro-rata
>> share of the passengers, which would be the more natural way of
>> expressing it if it were trying to limit the amount of compensation.
>>
>> A different way of viewing it is that §61.113(c) is just saying that
>> such an arrangement doesn't constitute compensation.
>>
>> Of course that view doesn't sit well, either, but legislation is
>> frequently not that well written.
>>
>> All that said, I think one would have to be mad to fly with a private
>> pilot whom one doesn't know. There are some lunatics out there, and some
>> of them won't live to build up many hours.
>
> That also holds for many new Commercials.

I suppose that can be true.

Though some of the PPL lunatics won't even reach the number of hours you
need to get a CPL.

Sylvia.

[george152]

On 26/08/14 23:50, Sylvia Else wrote:

> I suppose that can be true.
>
> Though some of the PPL lunatics won't even reach the number of hours you
> need to get a CPL.

And then there was all that BS about eyesight having to be 8/8 in order
to get a CPL..
And thats why I didn't pursue a career in aviation
Didn't want to be a 1000 hour PPL
Nowadays in nearly every aircrew some-ones wearing corrective lenses.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:46:23 +1200, george152 > wrote:

>On 26/08/14 01:17, Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 08:28:27 +1200, george152 > wrote:
>>
>>> To fly for hire or reward we had to have a Commercial Pilot License
>>
>> A private certificate permits 25 mile maximum from departure point sight seeing
>> flights, IIRC. Commercial permits flying for heir (crop dusting, photo, banner
>> tow, ...), but not pax.
>>
>Different here and I rather suspect there.

I'm surprised to hear it's different in NZ.

>A Commercial permits you to fly for hire or reward. Carrying cargo, ag
>chemicals or pax.

Flying pax beyond 25 miles from point of departure is Part 135 or Part 121
here.

[george152]

On 28/08/14 11:36, Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:46:23 +1200, george152 > wrote:
>
>> On 26/08/14 01:17, Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 08:28:27 +1200, george152 > wrote:
>>>
>>>> To fly for hire or reward we had to have a Commercial Pilot License
>>>
>>> A private certificate permits 25 mile maximum from departure point sight seeing
>>> flights, IIRC. Commercial permits flying for heir (crop dusting, photo, banner
>>> tow, ...), but not pax.
>>>
>> Different here and I rather suspect there.
>
> I'm surprised to hear it's different in NZ.
>
>> A Commercial permits you to fly for hire or reward. Carrying cargo, ag
>> chemicals or pax.
>
> Flying pax beyond 25 miles from point of departure is Part 135 or Part 121
> here.
>
Okay these are the Regs as they pertain to PPL's here.
Going to the Advisory circulars will lead you to the Regs as they
pertain to CPLs
http://www.caa.govt.nz/Advisory_Circulars/AC061_3.pdf

[Bug Dout]

Sylvia Else > writes:

> All that said, I think one would have to be mad to fly with a private
> pilot whom one doesn't know. There are some lunatics out there, and
> some of them won't live to build up many hours.

Exactly so, which is why I hope the FAA prevails on this issue. The last
thing GA needs is some idiot private pilot killing a "paying" passenger
and another outcry against dangerous, reckless pilots and their little
planes.

--
The most amazing achievement of the computer software industry is its
continuing cancellation of the steady and staggering gains made by the
computer hardware industry.
Henry Petroski

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Sylvia Else]

On 27/08/2014 6:17 AM, george152 wrote:
> On 26/08/14 23:50, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> I suppose that can be true.
>>
>> Though some of the PPL lunatics won't even reach the number of hours you
>> need to get a CPL.
>
> And then there was all that BS about eyesight having to be 8/8 in order
> to get a CPL..
> And thats why I didn't pursue a career in aviation
> Didn't want to be a 1000 hour PPL
> Nowadays in nearly every aircrew some-ones wearing corrective lenses.
>

It seems almost inevitable, unless you want to force most aircrew to
retire in their early forties. The human eye just hasn't evolved to be
long lasting, and its ability to adjust from near field to far field
focus deteriorates in a way that can almost be calibrated in years of age.

Sylvia.