Uber for private pilots ruled illegal

Champcar

Champcar

Well-Known Member
Not surprising, I'm surprised this company thought they had a shot.

Copy of FAA letter http://www.scribd.com/doc/236884814/FAA-Ruling-Banning-Planesharing

http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/15/pilots-banned-from-acting-like-uber-drivers-in-the-sky/
You're going to Napa in your Cessna? Me too! If you let me hop in, I'll pay my share of the gas!" That arrangement is legal, but the FAA has declared that connecting brave passengers with amateur pilots for a fee is definitely a no-no. The ruling came from a request for clarification by a company called Airpooler, a small plane equivalent of UberX. That service and others like FlyteNow let private pilots post listings for flight dates and destinations, along with a corresponding fee. Thanks to a 1963 decision, such sharing is legal if done by word of mouth or a notice board, provided the pilot only asks for a fair share of the expenses. However, in a rather confusing letter, the regulator told Airpooler that its service violates the spirit of that ruling. Instead of offering a bonafide "joint venture with a common purpose," participating pilots are "holding out to transport passengers for compensation." That means unless you have a commercial ATP or CPL license, using those services is DOA./QUOTE ]
Click to expand...
 
Not a big surprise. I expect the opinion to be posted on the FAA Chief Counsel website within a few business days.

BTW, Rebecca MacPherson, the recipient of the letter, is a former attorney with the FAA Chief Counsel's office.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Yup. The most scared I've ever been in an airplane was while conducting a BFR. There are lots of private pilots who have no business flying with other people in the plane.
Click to expand...
The actual letter itself is here (Scribd, not official from the FAA). In it, the FAA makes the ACTUAL point:
Therefore, the "major enterprise for profit" test in [14 CFR] 1.1 is wholly inapplicable. Accordingly, we conclude that, with regard to pilots using the AirPooler website, all four elements of common carriage are present. By posting specific flights to the AirPooler website, a pilot participating in the AirPooler service would be holding out to transport persons or property from place to place for compensation or hire. Although the pilots participating in the AirPooler website have chosen the destination, they are holding out to the public to transport passengers for compensation in the form of a reduction of the operating expenses they would have paid for the flight.
Click to expand...

This is basic commercial pilot, common-carriage knowledge. I have an ATP, but I'm not allowed to go zip around in my TwinBo on days off carrying John and Jane Q. Public for hire. The issue really is "who can be an air carrier," not "who can get paid to move the airplane."
 
If the individual seeking the ride knows the pilot and aircraft are not operated to air carrier standards and yet accepts the risk anyway (on a flight that was already going to take place, hence no additional risk to the general public), why is the government shutting it down?
 
Imagine a pilot/aircraft owner who can't really afford to maintain it, and barely flies enough to remain VFR proficient (he knocks out three touch & goes every 90 days, but hasn't shot an approach in a year). We all know people like this. The engine in his Cherokee 140 has 3,000 hours since OH, he hasn't changed the oil in 250 hours, the mags are running rough and every time he turns on the heater he gets lightheaded. His charts are only a little bit out of date. That's when someone contacts him who wants to fly 500 miles to Gunnison, CO late tomorrow afternoon. The pilot has KGUC on his bucket list that he might fly to any day, meaning that they'll "share" the costs.

What could possibly go wrong?
 
gotWXdagain said:
If the individual seeking the ride knows the pilot and aircraft are not operated to air carrier standards and yet accepts the risk anyway (on a flight that was already going to take place, hence no additional risk to the general public), why is the government shutting it down?
Click to expand...
That is not what we're talking about here. I am permitted to take whomever I please in my airplane, but I am not permitted to hold air transportation services out to the public.
 
Ok, so this operation isn't as much of a "I'm flying to XYZ on xx day anyone want to ride" as much as it is a "Anyone want to fly me to xyz at xx time?"
 
I would not have expected any other answer than this. Government probably did this company a huge favor anyways as the first fatal crash (it would have happened sooner than later) they would have had an hugely sized lawsuit descend upon them.
 
gotWXdagain said:
Now that actually would be illegal, the flight wasn't planned until the passenger contacted the pilot.
Click to expand...
I'm saying that the pilot could post his intent to fly to several places every day, depending upon how this is administered (I don't know - it's an industry that didn't evolve beyond infancy or into another layer of regulation). And late in the day he changes his mind and decides not to go. Tomorrow he does it all over again.
 
gotWXdagain said:
Ok, so this operation isn't as much of a "I'm flying to XYZ on xx day anyone want to ride" as much as it is a "Anyone want to fly me to xyz at xx time?"
Click to expand...
Either. The point the FAA is making is that once you advertise availability to take passengers on your flights as a way to defray costs, you are "holding out the availability of air transportation for hire." It's less a 61.113 issue than it is a Part 119 operating issue.
For anyone interested, I just posted a short blog post on my website
http://mkolberlaw.com/2014/08/15/faa-no-go-matching-pilots-with-passengers/
 
They've always made this clear. I learned this stuff as a private pilot, and when I saw these things my only thought was "Yeah... no. I'm gonna wait for the FAA to chime in on this."

Now they have. And they've said the same thing they've always said.

Nothing new here, no "Government overreach" (lol), no 'new' opinion ... nothing, in fact, but a patient restatement of the same legal tests they've always used for the legality of an operation and their applicability.

-Fox
 
Acrofox said:
They've always made this clear. I learned this stuff as a private pilot, and when I saw these things my only thought was "Yeah... no. I'm gonna wait for the FAA to chime in on this."

Now they have. And they've said the same thing they've always said.

Nothing new here, no "Government overreach" (lol), no 'new' opinion ... nothing, in fact, but a patient restatement of the same legal tests they've always used for the legality of an operation and their applicability.

-Fox
Click to expand...
tumblr_inline_mj8yxhDjNS1qz4rgp.gif
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Yup. The most scared I've ever been in an airplane was while conducting a BFR. There are lots of private pilots who have no business flying with other people in the plane.
Click to expand...

Oh god. I had a BFR/ICC that was tried to spend 99% of the time watching his GEM, screwed up approaches, attempted partial power takeoffs and couldn't fly his way out of a wet paper bag.

Landed early, passed him off on another CFI because I didn't have time or interest.
 
Derg said:
Oh god. I had a BFR/ICC that was tried to spend 99% of the time watching his GEM, screwed up approaches, attempted partial power takeoffs and couldn't fly his way out of a wet paper bag.

Landed early, passed him off on another CFI because I didn't have time or interest.
Click to expand...
After a couple more years in the business I can totally understand why you and your lady weren't overly interested in going flying last time you were in Jtown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top