Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

faa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 174 posts

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#11

Post by aphextron »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #5

According to TapJets' response, these were unpaid test flights undertaken for friends and family during development of the app to test it. And it's a side of their business they don't engage in anymore, acting more as an Uber/Airbnb matching agent: https://www.tapjets.com/Home/Article/tapjets-answers-recent-...

>According to TapJets' response, these were unpaid test flights undertaken for friends and family during development of the app to test it

That changes nothing, and makes it no less reckless. Airline regulations are written in blood.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#12

Post by revelation »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #5

According to TapJets' response, these were unpaid test flights undertaken for friends and family during development of the app to test it. And it's a side of their business they don't engage in anymore, acting more as an Uber/Airbnb matching agent: https://www.tapjets.com/Home/Article/tapjets-answers-recent-...

So they admit the offence? This is a guilty plea.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#13

Post by dbenjamin »

destitude wrote: post #7
ztratar wrote: post #4

Founders being idiots. We all have a duty to call this abhorrent behavior out, and say that not only is it NOT ok from a consumer standpoint, but also that any business that uses such tactics to get ahead deserves to fail.

The FAA is against any disruption to the commercial airline business. This does not necessarily mean what was done here was in any way unsafe.

This was absolutely unsafe and illegal. Regardless of whether they were conducting a flight for friends or not, they were operating an aircraft that requires two pilots at all times (per the FAA) with just one pilot (and a student pilot).

That's unsafe and illegal, even if the plane was otherwise empty. Even worse with passengers.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#14

Post by pliftkl »

Waterluvian wrote: post #3
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #2

I am completely against any "disruption" in the airline industry via safety arbitrage.

Help a layperson. Do you mean a company that competes by cutting corners with safety?

Not the person you are responding to, but as someone who probably feels the same way, I'm ok with someone disrupting my local taxi monopoly by having someone who is not certified driving the car that is taking me to the airport, because I can largely agree that most humans can drive a car. I'm much less ok with the person flying my airplane not being certified.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#15

Post by pdpi »

destitude wrote: post #7
ztratar wrote: post #4

Founders being idiots. We all have a duty to call this abhorrent behavior out, and say that not only is it NOT ok from a consumer standpoint, but also that any business that uses such tactics to get ahead deserves to fail.

The FAA is against any disruption to the commercial airline business. This does not necessarily mean what was done here was in any way unsafe.

The FAA is the antithesis of "move fast and break things", and their threshold for "unsafe" is justifiably very very tight.

Claiming this has anything to do with "disruption to the commercial airline business" requires some extraordinary evidence to back it up.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#16

Post by matte_black »

Waterluvian wrote: post #3
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #2

I am completely against any "disruption" in the airline industry via safety arbitrage.

Help a layperson. Do you mean a company that competes by cutting corners with safety?

Yes, though in some cases the safety is only marketing fluff and cutting corners actually doesn’t contribute to any reduction in safety.

A safety arbitrage play means a company is attempting to turn a profit by selling a cheaper asset deemed unsafe at the same price as a safe one or a bit less.

If the unsafe asset is actually as 100% safe as the safe one, then they have played a valid arbitrage.

If the unsafe asset however is actually unsafe, then they are running a scam.

It’s a pretty common play in some developing economies.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#17

Post by yuhong »

pliftkl wrote: post #14
Waterluvian wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Help a layperson. Do you mean a company that competes by cutting corners with safety?

Not the person you are responding to, but as someone who probably feels the same way, I'm ok with someone disrupting my local taxi monopoly by having someone who is not certified driving the car that is taking me to the airport, because I can largely agree that most humans can drive a car. I'm much less ok with the person flying my airplane not being certified.

And fortunately commercial pilot licenses are semi-common too.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#18

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

aphextron wrote: post #11
JohnTHaller wrote: post #5

According to TapJets' response, these were unpaid test flights undertaken for friends and family during development of the app to test it. And it's a side of their business they don't engage in anymore, acting more as an Uber/Airbnb matching agent: https://www.tapjets.com/Home/Article/tapjets-answers-recent-...

>According to TapJets' response, these were unpaid test flights undertaken for friends and family during development of the app to test it That changes nothing, and makes it no less reckless. Airline regulations are written in blood.

If TapJets was willing to do illegal and unsafe stuff with their own family and friends, think how much more likely they are to skirt safety regulations when providing services to strangers.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#20

Post by olympus »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #9
yladiz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would take that news release with a grain of salt considering within the first two sentences there are glaringly obvious grammatical mistakes.

Oh I know. I noticed and thought the same. Just thought it would be helpful to have the company's response for context. When I read the FAA release, it sounded like they were forcing TapJets to shut down, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

The FAA can't stop you from being a business, since that's not their charter. They can stop you from conducting air flights in the USA.

As an extreme thought experiment, the FAA could revoke Delta Airlines' authorization to fly, but Delta would continue to be a company- just without any way to make money.

Post reply on HN