UBER for the air

[DC3]

What do you think? Should there be an Uber style app where private pilots can post they are flying to some destination and ride sharers are welcome for a percentage of the cost?

http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/08/planesharing/

[Tug002]

Personly I see nothing wrong with this if the cost is split 4 ways in a 4 seater For Eg, and the pilot eats the extra if he only fills one seat, as he was going there any way. Eg. total cost of flight $100. only one seat filled. Passenger pays $25 and pilot pays $75. Just my opinion.

Keep smiling
Tug

[taildraggin68]

Sure thing. It's a great idea. There are plenty of "taxi" services out there and personally, I'd rather make a trip in a "small" airplane and split the cost then deal with the "headaches" of the airlines

[Great Ozzie]

Might be a boon'for the Private Pilot wanting to share costs.

It seems Airpooler has partially covered the "shared costs with passengers" problem. The AirPooler system does not allow amounts paid by any passenger to exceed his/her pro-rata share of the above costs.

However as stated in the article... "common purpose" is going to be one of the big sticking points with the FAA.

Also, I think there is going to be an issue of "common carriage", which to me, this is plainly a case of that. Airpooler is acting as the "holding out" agent i.e. providing a service to find passengers for the pilot. In Airpooler's FAQ, they say they are not doing this, calling what they do a "discovery platform".

This (flying for compensation or hire) is a very serious safety matter with the FAA. Even with a Commercial Pilot certificate, one is very limited in the kinds of operations permitted that do not require a certificate for operations (like a Part 135 Air Taxi / Charter certificate).

Just a fwiw, compensation includes the logging of flight time... even if no money exchanges hands.

If I were currently flying (and had thoughts of using this service) I would certainly wait for an FAA ruling on this. Also be aware of the liability involved. I would be absolutely certain my insurance company covers this type of operation.

-------------
AirPooler‘s attorney Rebecca MacPherson, who is highly qualified to comment since she was the former FAA assistant chief counsel, tells me “This is an issue that the FAA is very uncomfortable with because they’re worried about abuses. They’re looking at what restraints they could put on the response to make sure there’s a minimum number of bad actors in the marketplace.”

I am very curious who approached who in this case... I am wondering if this Rebecca MacPherson came onboard with the company and said, "guys... we need to suspend operations until gaining the FAA's blessing" or if this was something the FAA inspectors saw and said, "you would be wise to suspend operations until gaining the FAA's blessing".

I wouldn't at all be surprised to see this viewed as an 'Air-Taxi service for private pilots'.

[Great Ozzie]

"Just for kicks" I went to the FAA's Regulations Division - Legal Interpretations & Chief Counsel's Opinions site and used the search terms "private compensation hire". A number of hits... one I looked at was the "Sommer - (2010) Legal Interpretation".

The FAA construes the terms "compensation or hire" very broadly. It does not require a profit, profit motive, or the actual payment of funds. Instead, the FAA views compensation as the receipt of anything of value.

One issue was a "free dinner" from the restaurant for the pilot, when the balloon has a logo of that restaurant. Such dinner-for-advertising exchange would be enough to establish a beneficial economic relationship between your group of pilots and the owner, accordingly, such an exchange would establish a commercial operation which would require the pilot to hold a commercial pilot certificate...

Passengers paying Airpooler a portion of their "pro-rata share"... would this "be enough to establish a beneficial economic relationship" between the pilot and Airpooler?

...

Another issue:
In your letter, you state that the private pilot has paid his share of the propane (fuel), as well as shares of other expenses not covered by §61.113(c). This arrangement would not violate the rule, however, you go on to state that the balloon owner has begun paying some of the expenses related to the propane. Unless the owner is also a passenger on the flights for which he pays his share of the propane, such an arrangement would constitute reimbursement by a third party. This type of arrangement would violate §61.113(c).


Having Airpooler in the business of "finding" passengers (for a fee)... does this in some way "constitute reimbursement by a third party"?

This is why, if there is the least bit of uncertainty, to "Ask before you act". I also think it wise, to seek the advice of an aviation attorney.

Btw, I am not trying to act as the proverbial arm-chair lawyer. The point is to indicate how very complicated these matters can become.

[jtwillia]

Btw, I am not trying to act as the proverbial arm-chair lawyer. The point is to indicate how very complicated these matters can become.

Killjoy

[pilotgod]

I see this being an issue in regulating that the "share" is fare. As it is right now in the US, the honor system and Commercial pilots self regulating is really the only thing that stops a Private Pilot from not paying their "fair share" of the cost. Essentially, there is not any "Aviation Police" that come by and check your finances. So, the possibility of this being abused as a way of circumventing say Part 135 operators exists. Honestly, probably not enough to really be of any concern, but I can see this being something that groups such as NBAA would latch onto and likely have the FAA backing them.

With that said, I am all for it. We already have things where Private Pilots can donate open seats to fly people for medical treatment (Angel Flight for example) and this has proven to be a major service. I personally would love to be able to say "Hey, I am flying from Bremerton to Portland tomorrow afternoon in a Piper Arrow and have 2 seats open", then get two people to share the cost with me.

[Great Ozzie]

With that said, I am all for it. We already have things where Private Pilots can donate open seats to fly people for medical treatment (Angel Flight for example) and this has proven to be a major service.

There's a huge difference tho. There is no sharing of expenses for med flights. The pilot is donating all costs and time (save a fuel exemption). Note the reasoning for the FAA's justification which allows a pilot to be reimbursed for fuel (quoted below). Also check the requirements for pilots for Angel Flights (Example here). Afaik, for Airpooler, you just need a PPL (besides having a "common purpose" etc.)

the FAA found that the humanitarian efforts of these pilots who volunteer their time and piloting services are commendable, and the FAA wants to encourage this kind of volunteerism and public service for the common good of our citizens. The FAA recognizes the fact of rising costs for fuel and aircraft operating expenses; however, when money is exchanged for transportation, the public expects, and the FAA has a duty to demand, a higher level of safety for the flying public. The FAA believes by requiring the petitioners and their pilots to comply with the conditions and limitations set forth in this grant of exemption, the FAA can ensure that a higher level of aviation safety for the flying public will be maintained.

You've got just the reverse going on at Airpooler. And... just to get the fuel exemption reimbursement for Angel Flight, there are a number (a couple pages) of "Conditions & Limitations" that deal with Pilot qualifications (TT, PIC, recency, ratings, type medical, etc.) types of operations, training... not an operation for your basic PPL. An example of this fuel exemption can be found if one google's "Exemption No. 10360".

I found a good article on AVWEB Traps For The Unwary: Business Flying And The "Compensation Or Hire" Rule that will point to the complexities of this type of operation. Rideshare in lieu of a taxi is one thing... quite another to enter the world of the FAA.
(http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/186346- ... directed=1)

I personally would love to be able to say "Hey, I am flying from Bremerton to Portland tomorrow afternoon in a Piper Arrow
and have 2 seats open", then get two people to share the cost with me.

Yes, in a way, this would be very nice. My biggest concern would be the "what if" should there be an accident. Liability, imo, is a huge concern.

I see this being an issue in regulating that the "share" is fare.

This is one aspect that seems to be covered by how Airpooler handles the transaction.

Killjoy

Just practicing my "don't shut this thread down because of me" disclaimer should I post on a *cough* - certain forum.

Now where did my EULA notes go off to?

[DC3]

Seems as if the opportunity for abuse is high. I looked at some of the "per seat" charges on one of the flight sharing sites for recently completed flights. The charges were above and beyond simple fuel and oil costs. The charges (I surmise) also must have included rental costs.

If the FAA approves flight sharing what's to stop a flight school from participating in a flight sharing program and encouraging a flight sharing program or even setting up a flight sharing program in order to increase rental hours. Maybe the pp doesn't benefit but the flight school certainly would. And if the venture was successful the flight school could expand it's fleet and it's pool of pp by offering to always fill the seats on any flight the pp decided to make. Therefore lowering the cost for the pp and increasing the revenue of the school. This seems to me to be a way to work yourself into being an airline with private pilots as atp for the flight school.

[taildraggin68]

If this could be kept at a PPL level, with the only charges allowed per seat were the fuel and liquids costs, then I would see no issue....but, with the possibility of "schools" or other agencies abusing the revenue and creating outrageous charges per seat just to make more money in an already cost "exclusive" system, I would rather not see it be a possibility. For a new pilot student in my area, the costs are rather high as well as one may have to travel 1 to 2 hours to a facility. If that student pilot wanted only a Light Sport certification, then travel of up to 3 to 4 hours would be required. The "Schools" in this area are only interested in "fast tracking captains of the future" with deep pockets as opposed to bringing the joys of flight to the average joe. So to give them a way to make even more money? Nah

.....soapbox closed

[Great Ozzie]

taildraggin... Not sure if you mean a student pilot carrying passengers... as (I'm sure you know) that not permissible by FAR. That would be an instance of begging for an accident / certificate revocation. Hard for a flight school to get away with that for very long... I'm sure someone would report that lickety split. This puts in the realm of possibility the CFIs at the school getting their certificate(s) revoked.

Just a fwiw (for all) a Recreational Pilot can carry only one passenger (legally).

I’d encourage AirPooler passengers to look closely at their pilot’s credentials and only book with seasoned aviators, because the startup merely requires a minimum pilot’s license, doesn’t personally screen pilots, and doesn’t flag them for lack of experience. That seems a bit irresponsible to me.

I totally agree with that statement. At the very least, Airpooler should know precisely what "credentials" the pilot has. They may not need to release specifics, but could release "categories" of pilot experience.

Me... I would like to see the minimum requirements for Airpooler pilots be the same as that link I posted above for the Pilot Qualification Requirements for Angel Flight. I do not think it asking a lot if you are flying with someone you just met "today", that they have those qualifications.

Fwiw, I remember when I was actively flying, I would see solicitations for building multi-engine time (so you could land that Regional airline job). The way some of these worked... you bought a block of time (say a 100 hours) then would fly with someone. The PF would "go under the hood" (simulated instrument) and the NPF would act as the (required) safety pilot. Under certain conditions then, the Safety Pilot could log PIC.

I never really liked that idea (never tried it). If I was going to build multi time, it would be thru flight instruction or (given the opportunity) something like freight for Part 135. I felt too easy to look at the safety pilot way of building time a form of (or could be looked at this way) a form of P-51 time... i.e. the Parker Pen logbook time. Not saying anything wrong with logging time as a Safety Pilot (as long as adhering to the applicable FARs)... I'm just not a fan (currently) of building substantial logbook time that way.

[taildraggin68]

My only reference was to the possibility of a school using time and rental of an aircraft that a student is paying for as a means to "fill" other seats to gain more revenue. In my opinion, the school should honor the time block purchased by the student and not try to "gain" more by filling those seats. No it wouldn't be legal to do that and I would hope that there wouldn't be any CFI's that would allow their respective companies to put them into that decision. That being said, there are plenty of companies regulated in other ways by the government that will "bend" the rules on requirements set by the government.

[Great Ozzie]

No big news regarding Airpooler... but this AINonline article does mention one of the problems Airpooler faces: AirPooler Puts Ride-sharing System On Hold While Clarifying FAA Standpoint

AirPooler cofounder and CEO Steve Lewis said the enterprise has received a lot of interest since its launch in April. “At the same time, some have raised questions as to whether private pilots who list flights on AirPooler’s system might be holding out in violation of FAA regulations.”

Holding out is the term that addresses offering to transport people or cargo for a fee, and most private pilots understand it is not something they are allowed to do. Lewis told AIN that the legal interpretation that AirPooler is seeking is to show the FAA that the service has nothing to do with holding out. “The single most important and also vexed issue is the one around holding out,” he said. “It appears in quite a few places in statutes and opinions and documents, but connecting the dots is hard even for a trained lawyer.”

fwiw

[Great Ozzie]

Well... if you have not seen it... the FAA recently ruled on Airpooler's request for a legal interpretation for: (1) confirmation that a pilot participating in the Airpooler service is not receiving compensation in violation (of the FARs) and (2) a legal analysis of whether pilots participating in the Airpooler website are commercial operators who would be required to hold a certificate under 14 C.F.R. part 119 (Commercial Operations such as Part 121 Air Carrier / Part 135 Air Taxi etc.).

FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies (AVweb Article)
In a legal interpretation released Aug. 13, the FAA's Chief Counsel for Regulations ruled against "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.

------------

If you are interested in downloading this Legal Interpretation, go to the FAA's Regulations Division - Legal Interpretations & Chief Counsel's Opinions and click Recent Interpretations Postings, look for the "MacPherson-JonesDay - (2014) Legal Interpretation 08/15/2014" (direct download link).

Just a side note... I found it somewhat amusing that (at least) one of the legal interpretations the FAA Counsel's Office used (i.e. Legal Interpretation to Mark Haberkorn - Oct 3, 2011) was signed by "Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations"... the very same person who requested a legal interpretation from the FAA on behalf of Airpooler.

[DC3]

It seems the whole thing was too close to the line and could too easily cross the line for any person in the FAA to feel comfortable.