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

21–30 of 174 posts

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#21

Post by Lev1a »

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 does not necessarily mean what was done here was in any way unsafe

> unlicensed pilots

> unauthorized/unregistered aircraft

> cavalier attitude toward regulatory compliance

Yeah, that sounds in no way unsafe. There are rules and certification/regulation processes for a reason.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#22

Post by [deleted] »

revelation wrote: post #12
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.

[deleted]

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#23

Post by olympus »

revelation wrote: post #12
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.

No, they claim they were operating under Part 91 (non-commercial) rules since they didn't take money for the flights. Part 91 rules are less strict, in particular they don't require a commercial license.

I'm not sure which jets they were flying, but most business jets have a two person crew requirement, and a student pilot would not meet the crew requirements. It doesn't sound like their short response completely covers the FAA's allegations, but getting the flights to be considered Part 91 would be a big piece of it.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#25

Post by syshum »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #2

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

That depends on if actual safety is in jeopardy or "safety" regulations that are often written for the expressed purpose to increase costs in order to be anti-competitive with no real safety impact

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#27

Post by nolok »

syshum wrote: post #25
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #2

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

That depends on if actual safety is in jeopardy or "safety" regulations that are often written for the expressed purpose to increase costs in order to be anti-competitive with no real safety impact

No matter how misguided I may think your comment is, I think we can both agree that even in your view of it having registered aircrafts and especially having properly trained crew is in the "actual safety" category.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#28

Post by IIAOPSW »

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.

It actually does make a difference. The main difference between a Private Pilots License (PPL) and a Commercial Pilots License (CPL) is that you cannot fly customers for profit on a PPL (but you can fly people as favors and be reimbursed for expenses).

Its hard to tell just how serious these accusations are. For instance

>the airman who served as second-in-command only had a student pilot certificate

Presumably the first in command did have a full certificate (otherwise why wouldn't they mention it). The reality of this could be as mundane as "the guy sitting shotgun in the Cessna is only half way to his PPL and we bought a friend along".

Legally Tapjet may squeak by if their counterarguments are legitimate. At the very least fully rescinding their license may be overkill. This decision might be politically targeted at anyone trying to be Uber of the skies. I'd want to see more than this one off press release before calling them reckless.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#29

Post by klodolph »

olympus wrote: post #23
revelation wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, they claim they were operating under Part 91 (non-commercial) rules since they didn't take money for the flights. Part 91 rules are less strict, in particular they don't require a commercial license. I'm not sure which jets they were flying, but most business jets have a two person crew requirement, and a student pilot would not meet the crew requirements. It doesn't sound like their short response completely cov…

Is “not taking money” good enough for part 91?
Post reply on HN