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

71–80 of 174 posts

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#71

Post by eblanshey »

na85 wrote: post #55
qwerty456127 wrote: post #50

> with aircraft that it was not authorized to use because they were not listed on its air carrier certificate. So much bureaucracy...

What that certificate attests is that the airline has appropriate infrastructure in place to operate the specific aircraft type(s) safely. That means appropriately trained and qualified technicians to maintain the aircraft, a proper supply chain to procurement airworthy spare parts, properly trained aircrew, etc. Operating aircraft isn't like web development where you can just push a buggy pile of JavaScript and fix…

It's the distinction between private and commercial that doesn't make sense to me. If I want to fly from A to B, whether I get paid or not doesn't make a difference to the safety of the passengers. If I have a private pilot cert, I am qualified to fly the aircraft safely.

Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#72

Post by zaroth »

rory096 wrote: post #48
IIAOPSW wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Part 135 vs Part 91 is exactly the issue. They thought they were complying with Part 91, those are reasonable rules to run your test flights under I think?

Was TapJet reckless?

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#73

Post by unethical_ban »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #43
mikestew wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your insurance company sounds like a bag of dicks. Do they also deny a claim if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, which is legal? What about skydiving, or skiing a black diamond course, or attempting Longs Peak in the winter without three layers on?

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#74

Post by [deleted] »

unethical_ban wrote: post #73
toomuchtodo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your insurance company sounds like a bag of dicks. Do they also deny a claim if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, which is legal? What about skydiving, or skiing a black diamond course, or attempting Longs Peak in the winter without three layers on?

[deleted]

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#75

Post by ridgeguy »

pdpi wrote: post #15
destitude wrote: post #7

Earlier 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.

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.

Agreed.

"Move fast and break things" is a bad strategy if you're operating in the sky. We've been accumulating data that support this view since Wilbur and Orville in 1903.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#76

Post by rory096 »

zaroth wrote: post #72
rory096 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Part 135 vs Part 91 is exactly the issue. They thought they were complying with Part 91, those are reasonable rules to run your test flights under I think? Was TapJet reckless?

If they were flying their 'friends and family' all about in 2016-17 in response to bookings on their app without bona fide reasons to go to those places (not least with a student pilot as SIC on business jets), then that's an emphatic yes. The FAA made it quite clear well before then that such flights cannot qualify under Part 91.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#77

Post by openasocket »

eblanshey wrote: post #71
na85 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What that certificate attests is that the airline has appropriate infrastructure in place to operate the specific aircraft type(s) safely. That means appropriately trained and qualified technicians to maintain the aircraft, a proper supply chain to procurement airworthy spare parts, properly trained aircrew, etc. Operating aircraft isn't like web development where you can just push a buggy pile of JavaScript and fix…

It's the distinction between private and commercial that doesn't make sense to me. If I want to fly from A to B, whether I get paid or not doesn't make a difference to the safety of the passengers. If I have a private pilot cert, I am qualified to fly the aircraft safely. Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Commercial aviation has more regulations and procedures around it, and stricter standards. As a consequence, flying on a commercial plane is orders of magnitude safer than flying on private plane.

Here's some statistics on that: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/aviation_stat... . Basically, you are 10x more likely to be in a fatal accident on a private plane than to be in any kind of accident at all on a commercial airline.

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#78

Post by doodles526 »

eblanshey wrote: post #71
na85 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What that certificate attests is that the airline has appropriate infrastructure in place to operate the specific aircraft type(s) safely. That means appropriately trained and qualified technicians to maintain the aircraft, a proper supply chain to procurement airworthy spare parts, properly trained aircrew, etc. Operating aircraft isn't like web development where you can just push a buggy pile of JavaScript and fix…

It's the distinction between private and commercial that doesn't make sense to me. If I want to fly from A to B, whether I get paid or not doesn't make a difference to the safety of the passengers. If I have a private pilot cert, I am qualified to fly the aircraft safely. Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

There is an extreme difference in the number of hours and required training between your SPL/PPL/CPL/ATPL. Eg: For fixed wing, you can get your PPL within 35 flight hours at a Part 141 School. Your ATP comes at a minimum of 1500 hours, and you are required to know much more about emergency recovery. The regs in place regarding minimum requirements for carrying passengers and performing commercial ops are there for very good reason. Even when having your PPL(or other license for that fact), there are currency requirements on when you are allowed to carry passengers on Part 91 non-commercial flights.

In the aviation world, even having your commercial is considered a "license to learn". Having your PPL simply implies that you can fly an aircraft in good weather conditions, should have the better judgement not to fly beyond your weather minimums, and have the ability not to kill anyone outside of your aircraft should conditions deteriorate while in the air. Even with my fixed wing PPL, I am extremely cautious with passengers knowing that I don't have nearly as much knowledge and experience as someone with their CPL/ATPL.

Source: PPL w/ instrument Fixed Wing & CPL-H

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#79

Post by NikolaNovak »

unethical_ban wrote: post #73
toomuchtodo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your insurance company sounds like a bag of dicks. Do they also deny a claim if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, which is legal? What about skydiving, or skiing a black diamond course, or attempting Longs Peak in the winter without three layers on?

Sometimes I forget the USA centric nature of forum until I read riding without helmet is legal... :0

I've see motorcycles without helmet last time I was down south in the fall and it scares the absolute beejesus bonkers out of me :/

(I've been riding for a decade, do occasional dirt trails, and have doing motorsport rallying a while back, but never enough of a daredevil to mount a bike without helmet and armour)

Re: FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets

#80

Post by sidlls »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #45
olympus wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This seems like the kind of defense a guy caught at a massage parlor would use. "That tip is for the massage, not the sex."
Post reply on HN