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.
FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets
31–40 of 174 posts
Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets
#32Founders 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.
Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets
#33Or in "cool speak", I guess they could say they are disrupting the airline space by democratising flying? /s
Also, how does "using unqualified crew" equal in any way to democratising flying ?
Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets
#34Their app description: “Hire a private plane fast and for good price with the help of Tapjet! Best pilots, best quality, safety . We offer best price for private plane rental!”
If so, it’s interesting that they don’t add a “best” to “safety”.
Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
For example, on a private flight (and on some commercial ones) a co-pilot is not required. The student pilot in the right seat might as well be a passenger.
Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That seems backwards, given planes are 10x safer than cars
Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That seems backwards, given planes are 10x safer than cars
I don’t have a source at hand, but IIRC flying a private plane is one of the better and more reliable ways to get yourself hurt or killed.
Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That seems backwards, given planes are 10x safer than cars
Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's more an argument of whether the flights are considered commercial or private. If the flights in question are judged to be private, they may not have skirted any safety regulations at all. For example, on a private flight (and on some commercial ones) a co-pilot is not required. The student pilot in the right seat might as well be a passenger.
Pilots without the required training will fly shotgun (and then low and behold, be required to assume control in a situation that requires it, exceeding their authority), pilots will scud run, or pilots will make other unsafe decisions due to a lack of training, and people will die.
EDIT: I'm mistaken if their website copy is accurate:
"Our partners require their captains to hold Airline Transport Certification and have thousands of flight hours before joining the flight team. First officers are required to have more initial hours than prescribed by regulation, and they are paired with experienced captains to ensure each of your aircraft is piloted by the best at all times. Pilots also undergo rigorous, airline-quality training conducted by Flight Safety International every six months, and Federal Aviation Administration-approved Check Airmen conduct line checks on each of our captains and first officers on a regular basis."