61–70 of 174 posts
Or in "cool speak", I guess they could say they are disrupting the airline space by democratising flying? /s
Flying is already very cheap. Also, how does "using unqualified crew" equal in any way to democratising flying ?
Obviously pretty poor behaviour.
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 long standing (~30 years) rule is the pilot's share can't be less than their proportionally equal share, based on the total number of people in the aircraft. The pilot can't walk away from a private flight with a net $0 cost or it isn't really a private flight, the pilot is being compensated. And the passengers and the pilot need to be engaged in a common purpose activity, ergo it cannot just be about transporting people from A to B if the pilot has no need himself to go from point A to point B.
If the purpose of the flight is to test an app for the company, it is unquestionably a commercial flight and the pilots are employees for the app company. Depending on myriad other factors, the size of the aircraft and how many passengers are on board, a two pilot crew rule might apply and if so absolutely a student pilot does not qualify.
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…
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.
" Just like Uber, Airbnb, and other successful companies that changed the status-quo, TapJets Inc. is now facing push-back by government regulators," said Debra Fein, Corporate Counsel for TapJets, " TapJets denies any wrongdoing, denies all allegations that FAA has made, and is prepared to vigorously defend itself against allegations despite it no longer being the need for TapJets to be a certified airline."
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You're right that there are commercial flights that fall under part 91 rules. However in this case I think TapJets response was trying to say that their pilot didn't require a commercial rating, which would answer the FAA's claim of "a commercial pilot certificate was required."
You seem to be both speaking with authority and saying the opposite of what I’d expect here. What’s your background in aviation law?
The FAA is rather sanguine in making their regulation cheap to follow, and in cutting unnecessary rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is “not taking money” good enough for part 91?
Not exactly, and the TapJets response doesn't fully lay out that they met all the requirements for Part 91 flying, but they mentioned non-paying passengers. You can fly under part 91 rules commercially but there are restrictions on how you can operate. You can operate under part 91 rules non-commercially, like I do, and that basically means that my passengers can only pay for their fair share of the gas burned. I can…
The carriers commonly make use of Part 91 for reposition flights to move equipment into place to resume original schedules following weather diversions or whatnot.
(me: Licensed Aircraft Dispatcher)
If I were tapjets, I would probably not want my legal counsel saying that tapjets is like airbnb and uber. 2 companies which continue to operate in sometimes murky legal areas. " Just like Uber, Airbnb, and other successful companies that changed the status-quo, TapJets Inc. is now facing push-back by government regulators," said Debra Fein, Corporate Counsel for TapJets, " TapJets denies any wrongdoing, denies all a…
Sounds like they have more work to do on the whole "changed the status quo" thing; "are changing" or "trying to change" seems more accurate.