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

41–50 of 174 posts

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#41

Post by matte_black »

nolok wrote: post #27
syshum wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eh, who knows, these planes basically fly themselves these days anyway. /s

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#42

Post by god_bless_texas »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #28
aphextron wrote: post #11

Earlier 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.

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 f…

The problem with your comment is that you are wrong in your interpretation. Your interpretation is that it's black and white on what the FAA can do. There's famous saying among pilots when doing something that isn't explicit in FARs. "That sounds like a grey area". For a conservative pilot, they'll never do it because it could be a license suspension or at minimum dialing a number to talk to an FAA investigator. To a more liberal or adventurous pilot, they might bend the limit and see if it comes up.

I am curious if you're a pilot and if so have your CPL or ATP.

It's not about the PPL vs. CPL (and by definition they need more than a CPL). The difference is in what might be considered "compensation". The FAA's interpretation of this is so incredibly broad, it should scare the pants off anyone considering bending the rules here, and their lawyers should have picked up on this. Did the flights with vendors increase a relationship that might further an interest or negotation later? Did the flights help them improve their app? Did it result in a prospect of a return favor?

It may not be fair or just, but the FAA put those rules out there and a whole lot of people have been inconvenienced by them. I love that Tapjets is doing this, but they moved fast and not particularly wisely. If they thought they could run like Uber and ask for forgiveness later, they never worked with the FAA.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#43

Post by toomuchtodo »

mikestew wrote: post #37
saddlerustle wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems backwards, given planes are 10x safer than cars

Commercial flights, yes, and that’s because we certify and license the crap out of such things. And thus we circle back around to parent’s point. 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.

My life insurance policy specifically denies a claim if I'm flying general aviation (private plane). It is that much more dangerous than commercial (on par with driving in a car).

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opinion/The-Dangers-of-Pr...

"The National Transportation Safety Board found that in 2011, 94 percent of fatal aviation accidents occurred in what’s called general aviation. That category includes private small planes flown by amateurs as well as professionally piloted corporate flights in high-powered aircraft, such as the Gulfstream IV jet that crashed in May in Bedford, Mass., killing all seven people on board. By contrast, commercial aviation had no fatal accidents that year. Statistics from the N.T.S.B. show that general aviation aircraft average nearly seven accidents per 100,000 flight hours, compared with an average of 0.16 accidents per 100,000 hours for commercial airlines."

Emphasis mine.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#44

Post by travisjungroth »

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…

There are commercial operations under Part 91, and they require a commercial license. Air tours and corporate flying where the airplane is owned by the company are in there, for example. I've done them both.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#45

Post by JohnTHaller »

olympus wrote: post #20
JohnTHaller wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except that tapjets seems to work like Uber and Airbnb now, so they don't fly anything.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#46

Post by rlpb »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #40
csbowe wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It seems like TapJats is attempting to use "private flights" to skirt commercial flight regulations (and the safety requirements that tag along). If this turns out to be true, they should be crucified. 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…

> It seems like TapJats is attempting to use "private flights" to skirt commercial flight regulations...

Are you saying that it seems this way for their test flights? Or for their flights for paying customers?

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#47

Post by god_bless_texas »

klodolph wrote: post #29
olympus wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

no..."Compensation" according to the FAA is frighteningly broad.

Example. Compensation can be interpreted as "the prospect of a return favor".

like a stick of gum.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#48

Post by rory096 »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #28
aphextron wrote: post #11

Earlier 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.

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 f…

>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).

Not exactly. Under 14 CFR 61.113(c) carrying a passenger as a PPL requires a bona fide common purpose (c.f. MacPherson-Winton interpretation) — you can't just go on a flight because they need to go there and you owe them a favor. Uber-style ridesharing has already been thoroughly rebuked by the FAA after two companies (Airpooler and Flytenow (YC S14)) attempted it, even if the pilot is only being reimbursed their pro rata share, under the justification that pilots cannot be holding out publicly for passengers on a flight they intend to take. It went all the way up to certiorari being denied by the Supreme Court in Flytenow v. FAA.

The FAA action this week makes it clear that Tapjet's flights were under Part 135, not Part 91. Flying a student pilot as SIC is in gross violation of the FARs.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#49

Post by crankylinuxuser »

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 sure about airplanes, but Uber does similar by arbitraging all the existing taxi regulations on safety and security. They do so in the name of the almighty dollar.

I have a friend who was a driver for Uber, and they got in a wreck. Surprise, since it was a commercial drive (got paid) their personal insurance didn't cover anything. Uber has left them hanging with their promise that they'd fix it up in smoke. The insult to injury was that insurance was legally obligated to report to the state that they were "driving with no insurance". Yeah, fun.

If you drive for Uber/Lyft and use personal insurance, you are in actuality likely running with no insurance if you're being paid for the trip.

Likely, this 'nonprofit' or whatever they're trying to claim was trying to be "Ubercab of the Air". And the FAA is rightly in smacking them down quick. We don't need "$89 trips across the country" that include the fact that 'whoops, we lost 2 airplanes in the Atlantic, and sry, no insurance, too bad so sad'.

Post reply on HN