A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 20th 14, 05:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies

FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...t=email#222609
In a legal interpretation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/236884814/FAA-Ruling-Banning-Planesharing released
Aug. 13, the FAA's Chief Counsel for Regulations has prohibited "peer-to-peer
general aviation flight sharing" Internet-based operations that allow private
pilots to offer available space on flights they intend to take. AirPooler Inc.
had asked the FAA for an interpretation of the regulations—seeking to confirm
that a pilot participating in the AirPooler service would not be receiving
compensation as prohibited by FAR 61.113 and whether pilots participating in
AirPooler are commercial operators and thus required to hold a certificate
under Part 119.

The interpretation issued by the FAA disagreed with AirPooler's position and
stated that arranging for flights and passengers through the AirPooler website
met all elements of common carriage and are not legal under Part 91 because
pilots would be "holding out" to transport persons for compensation or hire.
The FAA noted that its position forbidding website-based ride sharing
operations is consistent with rulings it had made previously on nationwide
initiatives involving expense-sharing flights.
Ads
  #2  
Old August 21st 14, 03:24 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies

On 21/08/2014 2:35 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...t=email#222609
In a legal interpretation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/236884814/FAA-Ruling-Banning-Planesharing released
Aug. 13, the FAA's Chief Counsel for Regulations has prohibited "peer-to-peer
general aviation flight sharing" Internet-based operations that allow private
pilots to offer available space on flights they intend to take. AirPooler Inc.
had asked the FAA for an interpretation of the regulations—seeking to confirm
that a pilot participating in the AirPooler service would not be receiving
compensation as prohibited by FAR 61.113 and whether pilots participating in
AirPooler are commercial operators and thus required to hold a certificate
under Part 119.

The interpretation issued by the FAA disagreed with AirPooler's position and
stated that arranging for flights and passengers through the AirPooler website
met all elements of common carriage and are not legal under Part 91 because
pilots would be "holding out" to transport persons for compensation or hire.
The FAA noted that its position forbidding website-based ride sharing
operations is consistent with rulings it had made previously on nationwide
initiatives involving expense-sharing flights.


That's the FAA's interpretation. The courts might take a different view.

Sylvia.
  #3  
Old August 24th 14, 01:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:24:50 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

On 21/08/2014 2:35 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...t=email#222609
In a legal interpretation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/236884814/FAA-Ruling-Banning-Planesharing released
Aug. 13, the FAA's Chief Counsel for Regulations has prohibited "peer-to-peer
general aviation flight sharing" Internet-based operations that allow private
pilots to offer available space on flights they intend to take. AirPooler Inc.
had asked the FAA for an interpretation of the regulations—seeking to confirm
that a pilot participating in the AirPooler service would not be receiving
compensation as prohibited by FAR 61.113 and whether pilots participating in
AirPooler are commercial operators and thus required to hold a certificate
under Part 119.

The interpretation issued by the FAA disagreed with AirPooler's position and
stated that arranging for flights and passengers through the AirPooler website
met all elements of common carriage and are not legal under Part 91 because
pilots would be "holding out" to transport persons for compensation or hire.
The FAA noted that its position forbidding website-based ride sharing
operations is consistent with rulings it had made previously on nationwide
initiatives involving expense-sharing flights.


That's the FAA's interpretation. The courts might take a different view.

Sylvia.



Perhaps. But it's difficult to get a case before a court who is not a law
judge. I suppose the operators of ride-sharing web sites could always try to
sue the FAA, and get the case into the "real" court system that way.

  #4  
Old August 24th 14, 02:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies

On 24/08/2014 10:41 PM, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:24:50 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

On 21/08/2014 2:35 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...t=email#222609
In a legal interpretation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/236884814/FAA-Ruling-Banning-Planesharing released
Aug. 13, the FAA's Chief Counsel for Regulations has prohibited "peer-to-peer
general aviation flight sharing" Internet-based operations that allow private
pilots to offer available space on flights they intend to take. AirPooler Inc.
had asked the FAA for an interpretation of the regulations—seeking to confirm
that a pilot participating in the AirPooler service would not be receiving
compensation as prohibited by FAR 61.113 and whether pilots participating in
AirPooler are commercial operators and thus required to hold a certificate
under Part 119.

The interpretation issued by the FAA disagreed with AirPooler's position and
stated that arranging for flights and passengers through the AirPooler website
met all elements of common carriage and are not legal under Part 91 because
pilots would be "holding out" to transport persons for compensation or hire.
The FAA noted that its position forbidding website-based ride sharing
operations is consistent with rulings it had made previously on nationwide
initiatives involving expense-sharing flights.


That's the FAA's interpretation. The courts might take a different view.

Sylvia.



Perhaps. But it's difficult to get a case before a court who is not a law
judge. I suppose the operators of ride-sharing web sites could always try to
sue the FAA, and get the case into the "real" court system that way.


Or just appeal any adverse decision by the administrative law judge.
Eventually you reach a real court.

Even the ALJ might find against the FAA.

The FAA's position is dependent on the claim that

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieve...se14.2.61_1113

implies that pro-rata sharing with passengers constitutes compensation.
That doesn't sit so well with the wording which says the the pilot must
not pay less than the pro-rata share.

It doesn't say that the pilot must not receive more than the pro-rata
share of the passengers, which would be the more natural way of
expressing it if it were trying to limit the amount of compensation.

A different way of viewing it is that §61.113(c) is just saying that
such an arrangement doesn't constitute compensation.

Of course that view doesn't sit well, either, but legislation is
frequently not that well written.

All that said, I think one would have to be mad to fly with a private
pilot whom one doesn't know. There are some lunatics out there, and some
of them won't live to build up many hours.

Sylvia.


  #5  
Old August 24th 14, 09:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
george152
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies

On 25/08/14 01:27, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 24/08/2014 10:41 PM, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:24:50 +1000, Sylvia Else

wrote:

On 21/08/2014 2:35 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...t=email#222609

In a legal interpretation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/236884814/FAA-Ruling-Banning-Planesharing released

Aug. 13, the FAA's Chief Counsel for Regulations has prohibited
"peer-to-peer
general aviation flight sharing" Internet-based operations that
allow private
pilots to offer available space on flights they intend to take.
AirPooler Inc.
had asked the FAA for an interpretation of the regulations—seeking
to confirm
that a pilot participating in the AirPooler service would not be
receiving
compensation as prohibited by FAR 61.113 and whether pilots
participating in
AirPooler are commercial operators and thus required to hold a
certificate
under Part 119.

The interpretation issued by the FAA disagreed with AirPooler's
position and
stated that arranging for flights and passengers through the
AirPooler website
met all elements of common carriage and are not legal under Part 91
because
pilots would be "holding out" to transport persons for compensation
or hire.
The FAA noted that its position forbidding website-based ride sharing
operations is consistent with rulings it had made previously on
nationwide
initiatives involving expense-sharing flights.


That's the FAA's interpretation. The courts might take a different view.

Sylvia.



Perhaps. But it's difficult to get a case before a court who is not a
law
judge. I suppose the operators of ride-sharing web sites could always
try to
sue the FAA, and get the case into the "real" court system that way.


Or just appeal any adverse decision by the administrative law judge.
Eventually you reach a real court.

Even the ALJ might find against the FAA.

The FAA's position is dependent on the claim that

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieve...se14.2.61_1113


implies that pro-rata sharing with passengers constitutes compensation.
That doesn't sit so well with the wording which says the the pilot must
not pay less than the pro-rata share.

It doesn't say that the pilot must not receive more than the pro-rata
share of the passengers, which would be the more natural way of
expressing it if it were trying to limit the amount of compensation.

A different way of viewing it is that §61.113(c) is just saying that
such an arrangement doesn't constitute compensation.

Of course that view doesn't sit well, either, but legislation is
frequently not that well written.

All that said, I think one would have to be mad to fly with a private
pilot whom one doesn't know. There are some lunatics out there, and some
of them won't live to build up many hours.


That also holds for many new Commercials.
We had one basic rule.
To fly for hire or reward we had to have a Commercial Pilot License, as
Private Pilots we would share the flight time and cost

  #6  
Old August 25th 14, 02:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 08:28:27 +1200, george152 wrote:

To fly for hire or reward we had to have a Commercial Pilot License


A private certificate permits 25 mile maximum from departure point sight seeing
flights, IIRC. Commercial permits flying for heir (crop dusting, photo, banner
tow, ...), but not pax.
  #7  
Old August 25th 14, 11:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
george152
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies

On 26/08/14 01:17, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 08:28:27 +1200, george152 wrote:

To fly for hire or reward we had to have a Commercial Pilot License


A private certificate permits 25 mile maximum from departure point sight seeing
flights, IIRC. Commercial permits flying for heir (crop dusting, photo, banner
tow, ...), but not pax.

Different here and I rather suspect there.
A Commercial permits you to fly for hire or reward. Carrying cargo, ag
chemicals or pax.
A Private Pilots License permits you to fly and do all the above but not
receive remuneration.
That limit I seem to recall we had for night flying.
And there was a limited PPL but as far as I know that died. I'll have to
check.
  #8  
Old August 26th 14, 12:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies

On 25/08/2014 6:28 AM, george152 wrote:
On 25/08/14 01:27, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 24/08/2014 10:41 PM, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:24:50 +1000, Sylvia Else

wrote:

On 21/08/2014 2:35 AM, Larry Dighera wrote:
FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...t=email#222609


In a legal interpretation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/236884814/FAA-Ruling-Banning-Planesharing
released

Aug. 13, the FAA's Chief Counsel for Regulations has prohibited
"peer-to-peer
general aviation flight sharing" Internet-based operations that
allow private
pilots to offer available space on flights they intend to take.
AirPooler Inc.
had asked the FAA for an interpretation of the regulations—seeking
to confirm
that a pilot participating in the AirPooler service would not be
receiving
compensation as prohibited by FAR 61.113 and whether pilots
participating in
AirPooler are commercial operators and thus required to hold a
certificate
under Part 119.

The interpretation issued by the FAA disagreed with AirPooler's
position and
stated that arranging for flights and passengers through the
AirPooler website
met all elements of common carriage and are not legal under Part 91
because
pilots would be "holding out" to transport persons for compensation
or hire.
The FAA noted that its position forbidding website-based ride sharing
operations is consistent with rulings it had made previously on
nationwide
initiatives involving expense-sharing flights.


That's the FAA's interpretation. The courts might take a different
view.

Sylvia.


Perhaps. But it's difficult to get a case before a court who is not a
law
judge. I suppose the operators of ride-sharing web sites could always
try to
sue the FAA, and get the case into the "real" court system that way.


Or just appeal any adverse decision by the administrative law judge.
Eventually you reach a real court.

Even the ALJ might find against the FAA.

The FAA's position is dependent on the claim that

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieve...se14.2.61_1113



implies that pro-rata sharing with passengers constitutes compensation.
That doesn't sit so well with the wording which says the the pilot must
not pay less than the pro-rata share.

It doesn't say that the pilot must not receive more than the pro-rata
share of the passengers, which would be the more natural way of
expressing it if it were trying to limit the amount of compensation.

A different way of viewing it is that §61.113(c) is just saying that
such an arrangement doesn't constitute compensation.

Of course that view doesn't sit well, either, but legislation is
frequently not that well written.

All that said, I think one would have to be mad to fly with a private
pilot whom one doesn't know. There are some lunatics out there, and some
of them won't live to build up many hours.


That also holds for many new Commercials.


I suppose that can be true.

Though some of the PPL lunatics won't even reach the number of hours you
need to get a CPL.

Sylvia.

  #9  
Old August 26th 14, 09:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
george152
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies

On 26/08/14 23:50, Sylvia Else wrote:

I suppose that can be true.

Though some of the PPL lunatics won't even reach the number of hours you
need to get a CPL.


And then there was all that BS about eyesight having to be 8/8 in order
to get a CPL..
And thats why I didn't pursue a career in aviation
Didn't want to be a 1000 hour PPL
Nowadays in nearly every aircrew some-ones wearing corrective lenses.

  #10  
Old August 28th 14, 12:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:46:23 +1200, george152 wrote:

On 26/08/14 01:17, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 08:28:27 +1200, george152 wrote:

To fly for hire or reward we had to have a Commercial Pilot License


A private certificate permits 25 mile maximum from departure point sight seeing
flights, IIRC. Commercial permits flying for heir (crop dusting, photo, banner
tow, ...), but not pax.

Different here and I rather suspect there.


I'm surprised to hear it's different in NZ.

A Commercial permits you to fly for hire or reward. Carrying cargo, ag
chemicals or pax.


Flying pax beyond 25 miles from point of departure is Part 135 or Part 121
here.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FCC bans 121.5/243 ELTs brian whatcott Piloting 8 June 25th 10 09:14 PM
FAA bans Chantix Jim Burns[_2_] Piloting 42 May 23rd 08 05:12 PM
Santa Monica Airport Bans Jet Traffic Larry Dighera Piloting 22 April 7th 08 10:52 PM
France Bans the Term 'E-Mail' bsh Military Aviation 38 July 26th 03 03:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.