The Legality of Ride Sharing in Aviation • Hacker News Board

Re: The Legality of Ride Sharing in Aviation

#21

Post by smackfu » Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 4:52 PM UTC

bake wrote: post #11

smackfu wrote: post #9

It's interesting to read the linked letter from FAA counsel. The interpretation is that if the pilot was going to fly from A to B anyway, they can take passengers from A to B because the passengers and the pilot have a common purpose of getting from A to B. But if the pilot is only flying from A to B because the passengers want to do it, then the pilot has a different purpose than the passengers, and it's illegal. Th…

And if other pilots are like me, destination is often irrelevant -- I have a general intention/desire to fly (log hours, stay current, etc.), and I'll go wherever weather, time and budget permit. If I want to log two hours of cross-country flight time on a given day, which I will do regardless of having a passenger, is it against regulation to let that ride-sharing passenger pick the destination and split the bill?

My reading is that would not be allowed, since your purpose of the flight (flying) is different from your passengers (getting from A to B).

Re: The Legality of Ride Sharing in Aviation

#22

Post by voska » Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 4:52 PM UTC

lake_rogue wrote: post #13

maxcan wrote: post #2

It may be FAR compliant, it may not be. But, like Lyft drivers getting tickets, if shit goes down, you're going to pay the price, not Flytenow. I'm not gonna sacrifice my certificate to find out. I'd rather spend those legal fees on a CPL.

Pilot, not attorney. I'll be shocked if FAA permits this -- though happy to see anything that helps make more general aviation enthusiasts. What I infer through having read various FAA letters in the past is that there needs to be a personal relationship between the parties (preferably established in-person) in a context outside of "share airplane ride". Of relevance is the FAA's 1985 Chero letter [1] about a similar…

There is no regulation requiring a "prior personal relationship" to share costs.

Re: The Legality of Ride Sharing in Aviation

#23

Post by sokoloff » Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 4:57 PM UTC

bake wrote: post #11

smackfu wrote: post #9

It's interesting to read the linked letter from FAA counsel. The interpretation is that if the pilot was going to fly from A to B anyway, they can take passengers from A to B because the passengers and the pilot have a common purpose of getting from A to B. But if the pilot is only flying from A to B because the passengers want to do it, then the pilot has a different purpose than the passengers, and it's illegal. Th…

And if other pilots are like me, destination is often irrelevant -- I have a general intention/desire to fly (log hours, stay current, etc.), and I'll go wherever weather, time and budget permit. If I want to log two hours of cross-country flight time on a given day, which I will do regardless of having a passenger, is it against regulation to let that ride-sharing passenger pick the destination and split the bill?

Under those facts as presented, the FAA counsel has ruled that fails the common-purpose test.

A different set of facts might be able to be judged as legal.

You: The weather is great this Saturday for 200 miles in every direction. I'm going flying for currency purposes. Anyone want to come along? Other: I want to go to Martha's Vineyard this weekend. You: I've heard there's a great restaurant on the airport there and I've always wanted to go. I've decided (just now) that I'm flying specifically to MVY this weekend. Would you like to come? Other: Yes. Can I pay for gas? You: Only half of it, because as a private pilot, I must pay my pro-rata share.

If you did that, you're skirting right on the line, but I think you're legal.

If the conversation goes like: You: The weather is great this Saturday for 200 miles in every direction. I'm going flying for currency purposes. Anyone want to come along? Other: I want to go to Martha's Vineyard this weekend. Could you take me? You: Sure; I'd love to do you the favor of taking you to someplace that I hadn't already decided to go! Other: Great. Can I pay for gas? You: Only half of it, because as a private pilot, I must pay my pro-rata share.

That would be clearly illegal, per the FAA counsel interpretation and the demand for a "common purpose" to the trip which isn't met. (Oh, and by the way, isn't required by the FARs either, but it's been a consistent [and reasonable, IMO] policy interpretation.)

Re: The Legality of Ride Sharing in Aviation

#24

Post by dchichkov » Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 5:01 PM UTC

lake_rogue wrote: post #13

maxcan wrote: post #2

It may be FAR compliant, it may not be. But, like Lyft drivers getting tickets, if shit goes down, you're going to pay the price, not Flytenow. I'm not gonna sacrifice my certificate to find out. I'd rather spend those legal fees on a CPL.

Pilot, not attorney. I'll be shocked if FAA permits this -- though happy to see anything that helps make more general aviation enthusiasts. What I infer through having read various FAA letters in the past is that there needs to be a personal relationship between the parties (preferably established in-person) in a context outside of "share airplane ride". Of relevance is the FAA's 1985 Chero letter [1] about a similar…

Another pilot here. I also believe that FAA wouldn't recommend any pilot without at least a commercial pilot certificate to give rides to members of general public.

Personally, I do not hold CPL. Also, for many reasons, I would not be comfortable to fly with a random person from internet. edit: On the other hand, I might consider flying with someone who had passed some mild background checks and has shared rides before. For example, any of the following would probably do: student pilot or someone affiliated with a local flight school, house/business owner, graduate of ivy league, employee of a large company, etc.

Re: The Legality of Ride Sharing in Aviation

#25

Post by forgotketchup » Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 5:03 PM UTC

smackfu wrote: post #9

It's interesting to read the linked letter from FAA counsel. The interpretation is that if the pilot was going to fly from A to B anyway, they can take passengers from A to B because the passengers and the pilot have a common purpose of getting from A to B. But if the pilot is only flying from A to B because the passengers want to do it, then the pilot has a different purpose than the passengers, and it's illegal. Th…

It's worth mentioning that the definition of common purpose in this letter is considerably looser that what the FAA has used in the past. I'm having trouble finding the link at the moment, but I seem to remember private pilots getting in trouble when they carried passengers (on the pilot's schedule, not the passengers', as in this case) who had a different purpose for the flight--in other words, both pilot and passengers had a purpose for the flight, but it wasn't a "common purpose."

The FAA letter also calls into question the legality of the entire purpose of Flytenow: The letter explicitly states that publically posting the particulars of the flight (destination, date, and time) is probably illegal.

Re: The Legality of Ride Sharing in Aviation

#26

Post by forgotketchup » Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 5:11 PM UTC

voska wrote: post #22

lake_rogue wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pilot, not attorney. I'll be shocked if FAA permits this -- though happy to see anything that helps make more general aviation enthusiasts. What I infer through having read various FAA letters in the past is that there needs to be a personal relationship between the parties (preferably established in-person) in a context outside of "share airplane ride". Of relevance is the FAA's 1985 Chero letter [1] about a similar…

There is no regulation requiring a "prior personal relationship" to share costs.

You're correct that the text of FARs does not explicitly require a prior personal relationship. However, as they are applied and interpreted in practice, you're almost guaranteed to get in hot water if you fly-share as a private pilot on a regular basis with people you don't know. And that's really not news to anyone with a private pilot certificate or anyone who has spent time looking into getting one.

Re: The Legality of Ride Sharing in Aviation

#27

Post by lake_rogue » Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 5:23 PM UTC

voska wrote: post #22

lake_rogue wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pilot, not attorney. I'll be shocked if FAA permits this -- though happy to see anything that helps make more general aviation enthusiasts. What I infer through having read various FAA letters in the past is that there needs to be a personal relationship between the parties (preferably established in-person) in a context outside of "share airplane ride". Of relevance is the FAA's 1985 Chero letter [1] about a similar…

There is no regulation requiring a "prior personal relationship" to share costs.

Agreed, there is no 14 CFR (part 61 or other) regulation that I'm aware of. But the regulations are very concise, and not thorough enough to evaluate every possible scenario.

The point of the FAA's letters is to address the many variations and nuances with real world application of the regulations. And they do so in very readable language (in contrast to regulations). I've found them to be the best guidance on the FAA's opinions & likely actions when the regulations are vague and/or unclear.

I personally use prior personal relationship as a strong guide. One personal exception: I believe I'd be ok sharing costs on a flight with members of my flying club (all pilots or student pilots) who I do not currently know, so long as the means of establishing the flight is more private (club newsletter) than public.

Re: The Legality of Ride Sharing in Aviation

#28

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 5:24 PM UTC

bake wrote: post #11

smackfu wrote: post #9

It's interesting to read the linked letter from FAA counsel. The interpretation is that if the pilot was going to fly from A to B anyway, they can take passengers from A to B because the passengers and the pilot have a common purpose of getting from A to B. But if the pilot is only flying from A to B because the passengers want to do it, then the pilot has a different purpose than the passengers, and it's illegal. Th…

And if other pilots are like me, destination is often irrelevant -- I have a general intention/desire to fly (log hours, stay current, etc.), and I'll go wherever weather, time and budget permit. If I want to log two hours of cross-country flight time on a given day, which I will do regardless of having a passenger, is it against regulation to let that ride-sharing passenger pick the destination and split the bill?

[deleted]

Re: The Legality of Ride Sharing in Aviation

#29

Post by rdl » Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 5:37 PM UTC

declan wrote: post #15

pubman wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ditto

Same here. Flytenow would make this a more attractive proposition by agreeing to pay my attorney fees if the FAA takes action against me because of a Flytenow flight. That would include representing me before the FAA in administrative proceedings and in federal court as far as I choose. (I'm a private pilot, not a commercial pilot.) Better yet, because I'm not aware of the funding behind Flytenow, put the estimated m…

I wonder how much an insurance policy to cover this risk for Flytenow would cost them.

Re: The Legality of Ride Sharing in Aviation

#30

Post by mortenjorck » Fri, Jul 11, 2014, 5:47 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #12

smackfu wrote: post #9

It's interesting to read the linked letter from FAA counsel. The interpretation is that if the pilot was going to fly from A to B anyway, they can take passengers from A to B because the passengers and the pilot have a common purpose of getting from A to B. But if the pilot is only flying from A to B because the passengers want to do it, then the pilot has a different purpose than the passengers, and it's illegal. Th…

I believe it is supposed to be messy. My understanding of those regulations is that they are intended to prevent unqualified pilots from engaging in commercial flights for passengers that may not be able to give informed consent about the dangers involved, while still allowing a private pilot to take Aunt Mildred up so she can see her house[1]. It's a messy problem. [1] And the family on vacation, etc., etc.

I think you've cut straight to the core of the FAA's reasoning in this matter. And sound reasoning it is: According to a 2007 article in the Journal of the American Medical association, general aviation accounts for 94% of all aviation fatalities. [1] You are literally 82 times more likely to die in a private aircraft than in a commercial airliner.

But as you say, it's an issue of informed consent – perhaps the FAA can draft rules around making users of flight sharing services aware of the risks, while promoting safe practices by pilots (though one might argue that is exactly what commercial licensure is for).

[1] http://doctorgrayson.com/Aircraft.pdf