FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies

FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...t=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.

On 21/08/2014 2:35 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...t=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.

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/archive...t=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.

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/archive...t=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/retrieve...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.

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/archive...t=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/retrieve...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

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.

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/archive...t=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/retrieve...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.

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