← Back to Squawk list

39

Pilots banned from acting like Uber drivers in the sky

送信時刻：7 年前

"You're going to Napa in your Cessna? Me too! If you let me hop in, I'll pay my share of the gas!" That arrangement is legal, but the FAA has declared that connecting brave passengers with amateur pilots for a fee is definitely a no-no. (techcrunch.com) さらに...

Torsten Hoff

38 人のメンバーからのコメント

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Ric Wernicke 7 年前 4

Just like the entrenched taxi monopolies that are fighting tooth and nail against Uber, the certificated air carriers are rebelling against the ease of communications brought about by the internet. It is one thing for the FAA to have a second-rate lawyer stretch 800 year old common law to stifle modern communications as that would be laughed at by a right thinking judge, but what is missing from the AirPooler scheme is commonality of purpose. If a Piper full of Passengers was headed to the same convention at the Las Vegas Sands, I think that would meet the test, and be acceptable under the current rules.

I was always uncomfortable with the 3 x 5" cards that said "Flying to San Diego Saturday, seeking one to share expenses," but not with those that said "Going Antiquing in Phoenix. If you'd like to join me, lets split the costs."

The solution lies in legislation because the FAA has proved hidebound and unable to even name control towers in an expeditious manner. My representative in Congress is a real mover and shaker, she managed to get three (count 'em 3) Post Offices named during this session.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

mcurvin 7 年前 3

A simple solution to the problem: instead of advertising flights on airtaxi.com, take the website down and request that potential passengers send an email to whatever@airtaxi.com - auto reply to passenger would include a list of available flights. Result - no advertising since the passenger is directly requesting a schedule. Done.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Gordon Reynolds 7 年前 2

Good MC but beware. .....don't use the word "schedule" it's a government trigger word.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Scott Campbell 7 年前 2

I was thinking of flying to Vegas this weekend - but only if I have a few "friends"
who want to share the "time" together - Thinking of leaving tommorow at 8 am planning on
returning in 2 days. Call me if you "think" youd like to ride along. 909-123-4567 :)

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

guy lever 7 年前 6

why is this something the government should make decisions about? Surely I choose the risk I want to take?

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Torsten Hoff 7 年前 3

Quoted from the linked article:

The core part of the ruling from the FAA states “We conclude that, with regard to pilots using the AirPooler website, all four elements of common carriage are present. By posting specific flights to the AirPooler website, a pilot participating in the AirPooler service would be holding out to transport persons or property from place to place for compensation or hire. Although the pilots participating in the AirPooler website have chosen the destination, they are holding out to the public to transport passengers for compensation in the form of a reduction of the operating expenses, they would have paid for the flight.”

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

[This poster has been suspended.]

[This comment was deleted.]

Chris Trott 7 年前 9

The FAA clearly stated that the idea of "ride sharing" an airplane is not illegal. Advertising it on a website that charges a fee and that "match makes" is.

Instead of telling people to understand the regs, maybe try reading the ruling first and even moreso, read the posts above the one you're responding to since it directly quotes exactly what the FAA has a problem with in regards to AirPooler and other similar sites.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

preacher1 7 年前 0

yep and well said.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

preacher1 7 年前 1

No, it's just like Chris says below, YOU need to understand the regs. The issue is not ride sharing but the advertising and match making of a website. Nothing wrong going from LIT to DAL, you knowing the pilot, and kicking in for some gas. Different scenario when you get matched up on a website, not knowing the pilot, whether he is a freshly certificated VFR guy or an IFR several hour pilot. Just like riding in a car with somebody with somebody you don't know; you don't know if they just got their license or have a few years of driving behind them. This is the crux of the problem right now that the FAA has in going commercial with this.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

terry gersdorf 7 年前 1

true

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

preacher1 7 年前 1

Seems like the crux of the whole issue is compensation and how that would cause this process to fall under the 135 regulations. There has been comment about those regulations and just comparing to ride sharing, as in a car. I would remind everyone that basically there are no regulations of such type governing cars or other groundbound motor vehicles. There are for airplanes. Technically, the interpretation is correct. In reality, a specific exception will have to be made for ride sharing, or else current 135 regulations will apply in full. Naturally, they will probably be ignored for the time being by individuals, until something happens to cause an "I told you so". Whoever this puts me agreeing or disagreeing with, so be it. It's my 2cts worth.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

David Stark 7 年前 2

There are regulations covering common carriage using motor vehicles. On the federal level, they apply mainly to buses and freight carriers. However, the states regulate the privileges of driving on their respective roadways. Many (if not all) states require a special type of operator license for those who carry passengers for hire.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

preacher1 7 年前 1

You are correct in that regulations are there, but there are no true enforcement agencies like the FAA. DMV would have the responsibility or authority but in most cases would not do anything unless there is a complaint or something happened. All this was going on everyday until the commercial bulletin boards got into it. Carriers probably putting up the fight just as the taxi companies are against Uber. The biggest thing is not knowing your pilot/driver/equipment. By Buses and planes being regulated and regularly inspected, you have a reasonable expectation of safety. Private carriage, you take a chance. That is the bottom line,

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

David Stark 7 年前 1

"...there are no true enforcement agencies like the FAA."

This, too, is inaccurate.

The federal DOT has enforcement power over common carriers in interstate commerce (which means all of them). They can and do issue fines and take away operating authority.

State motor vehicle statutes are enforced through the courts, with police officers being the front line detectors of violations.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

preacher1 7 年前 2

Well, the FAA and DOT are on par here as far as enforcement of their regulated charges, and yes, police officers have the enforcement on the others, but you don't really see commercial regulations filtering down to them. They don't actually filter to GA either, but when the commercial entity such as the bulletin board gets in there it puts in clear violation of FAA regs. You don't have that type enforcement agency sitting on ready in the private motor vehicle realm. It may be there and rise to a complaint or accident but not for routing happenings as this. The whole thing in a nutshell is that with this commercial deal, a party has no expectation of safety and all with an unknown flier/plane as they would with a 121/135 carrier. They are saying that when a GA unit participates in the commercial side of this, they fall into the category of the 135.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

lbjack 7 年前 1

"but when the commercial entity...gets in there..."

You nail it. Law enforcement and regulators operate by the Three "C"s: Is it commercial? Is it conspicuous? Are there complaints?

Not to encourage law-breaking, but avoiding the Three Cs will keep you out of trouble.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

David Stark 7 年前 1

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the origin of the term "Uber drivers" in the headline. It refers to exactly the same kind of scenario involving private car pooling.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

preacher1 7 年前 1

No, I'm familiar with it. Same scenario. Difference is, it is handled, or at least has been to date, by various state agencies and not a unified body as the FAA, hence not having a single entity to oversee it, people are taken totally by surprise on how to handle it. Concept is the same though, except that Uber is there and pretty well entrenched by now and the air service is not.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

David Stark 7 年前 1

OK, I concede that distinction. Carry on. :)

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

preacher1 7 年前 2

Yeah, I think it'll just be best to sit back and watch how it all plays out, not really having a dog in either fight. All have good points. Have a nice weekend.:)

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Maurice Stander 7 年前 2

The FAA is mandated to provide safety in the sky, that is why. They feel this is a threat to safety. If the public is opposed then they have a right to complain.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

zennermd 7 年前 2

My question for everyone is... how is this any different that advertising for ride sharing for college students driving home? You don't know if the person driving is a drug addict, kidnapper, a drunk or just a terrible driver that gets in an accident once a month? Why are pilots being treated so differently than everyone else? We at least have to go through a medical and a biannual.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

preacher1 7 年前 2

It really isn't, but the FAA has regulations about it and there is not for the car ridership. See my post below.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

David Stark 7 年前 1

You've made the same inaccurate statement twice. See my previous reply.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Barbara Harris-Para 7 年前 1

With the high cost of fuel and landing fees, parking etc. The G.A. pilot can't afford to fly like he or she used to. Less traffic due to gougers in the fuel area. We have a FBO at my home airport which feels that they need to make a huge profit so their fuel is over the top, an airport a few miles away is almost $2 cheaper per gallon and they are making a profit. So if someone can have a person ride along to lower the prices that helps us G.A. folks keep our airplanes in the sky. We many of us got a pilot's license to avoid the airports that was before 9/11 now afterwards it is three times as much trouble going to a commercial airport. What is the difference between putting up a notice on a bulletin board at your home airport vs. a website????

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Maurice Stander 7 年前 1

Because the general public does not know your flying capabilities. Someone else would have to insure that you are a safe pilot, since the general public cannot judge that. You can understand this concept, right. A BFR is not enough.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Marcos Villela 7 年前 1

Here in Brazil it's forbidden to charge for a plane ride. The reason is that the air taxi companies are subject to more strict regulations than the private owners. So, they are theoretically safer to fly than in a plane and a pilot you don't know.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Jon Stark 7 年前 1

BIG government at its best.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Ed Mentz 7 年前 1

Yeh, coast guard seys you cannot bring us lunch if you are going sailing with me!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Clement Roberts_ksjc408@aol.com 7 年前 1

.. It would also sound like, I can't go find someone to take me up for a photo shoot of various airports either .... What a bunch of crap .. Lets see now ? A privately owned plane, their money, my money, my camera .. Nope, no GOVERNMENT involvement ... Let them try to STOP me.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

Ric Wernicke 7 年前 1

Try Google Earth, plenty of airport shots.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

Christian Turner 7 年前 1

So let me get this straight, the old fashioned bulletin board time sharing method is now illegal? I always thought as long as you paid your fair share of the operating expenses (and nothing more) that move was perfectly legal. The regs are there for a reason but how are we ever going to contain the rising cost of flying without becoming more creative in the ways we attract more people to aviation?

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•Report

THRUSTT 7 年前 6

Sharing the cost is still legal, it's when you're "holding out," that makes a 135 certificate required.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

gmcmanus 7 年前 1

That's what he just said "Phil"...

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

[This comment was deleted.]

[This poster has been suspended.]

THRUSTT 7 年前 2

Not sure about that part Phil, if someone's just looking for a ride and you give it to them without compensation, that should be fine...

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

THRUSTT 7 年前 0

Never mind, I read your post again which started with "if you advertise," you're right!!!

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

[This comment was deleted.]

[This poster has been suspended.]

gmcmanus 7 年前 1

Who said anything about soliciting? How is answering someones direct question soliciting? Also, how is a passenger flying with you A to B for a common purpose and sharing expenses against any regulation?

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

[This poster has been suspended.]

[This comment was deleted.]

[This comment was deleted.]

preacher1 7 年前 3

YOU need to read the FAA reg yourself. The rideshare is OK. It is the ADVERTISING that is not.

返信 ↓•パーマリンク•上位•Report

ログイン

当ウェブサイトはクッキーを使用します。当ウェブサイトを使用し、サイト内を移動することで、あなたはこれに同意したこととみなされます。

閉じる

FlightAwareのフライト追跡は広告によりサポートされていることをご存知ですか？

広告表示を許可してくださることでFlightAware.comを無料で提供することができます。表示される広告は関連性の高い控えめなものを選んでいます。FlightAwareをホワイトリストに追加する方法はかんたんに設定していただくことができます。または、プレミアムアカウントのご利用をご検討ください.

閉じる