SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
janrinok
on Monday August 18 2014, @03:25AM
from the are-pilots-allowed-to-accept-'gifts'? dept.
from the are-pilots-allowed-to-accept-'gifts'? dept.
There will be no "ZimRide for airplanes", according to an FAA ruling released today that prohibits private pilots from publicly offering seats on their planes in exchange for gas money, including via startups like AirPooler and Flytenow.
The decision strikes a blow to the sharing economy, and comes in response to AirPooler formally requesting a clarification of the gray area it was operating in. Banning this form of planesharing (like ridesharing for aircraft) could keep people safe by preventing them from hopping in with rookie pilots. However, it will also make it more expensive for pilots to fly since they can't share costs, reduce travel options for passengers, and kill off an entire category of startups.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
FAA Bans 'Uber for Planes' Startups
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 21 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Now KEN and BARBIE are PERMANENTLY ADDICTED to MIND-ALTERING DRUGS ...
(Score: 4, Informative) by Nerdfest on Monday August 18 2014, @03:35AM
In Canada, it's always been illegal for non-commercial pilots to accept *any* money for transportation. The licensing and requirements for commercial aviation are far more strict, and you must have that licencing to charge passengers (to the best of my knowledge).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Username on Monday August 18 2014, @03:53AM
Very wise law, otherwise companies can bypass regulations by hiring non-comericial pilots to fly passengers in smaller aircraft.
They skies are only safe when you have well rested and trained pilots flying well maintained aircraft.
(Score: 2, Informative) by morpheus on Monday August 18 2014, @05:16AM
I am assuming you think that commercial pilots are always well rested and that airplanes flown for air carriers are always well maintained? I assure you, this is not always the case (I speak from personal experience). There are a myriad of rules prohibiting hiring of private pilots to transport passengers for compensation and commercial carriers would not even think about doing that. This ruling is simply closing an apparent loophole whereby a private pilot may share expenses with his/her passengers provided he decided to go to his destination on his own and the passengers simply joined in. The FAA simply stated that it is still compensation and is merely exempted from the `no flying for hire for private pilots' rule. The sticky point here is unlike in the situation when one is splitting expenses with friends to fly somewhere, in the case of these new companies the pilot announces his destination publicly and simply waits for somebody to join in. FAA interprets this as `holding out' thus making it a violation of two important rules: this behavior is no longer exempted for private pilots because it does not fall under the (very specific) exemptions for private pilots concerning compensation, and it puts such operations under the requirements of the laws governing air carriers. So even if the person has a commercial certificate (or ATP) and can receive compensation for flying, he/she would still be violating the rules applicable to air carriers.
(Score: 2, Informative) by frojack on Monday August 18 2014, @06:13AM
Pretty sure it was sarcasm....
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Monday August 18 2014, @01:32PM
I used to know a recreational pilot here in the US. I thought I remember him being under some kind of rule like that too. The thing was though, airplane fuel is very expensive. Plus one must log a certain number of flight hours to keep their license. He could accept gas money so he was always up for taking passengers. I don't think he could have maintained his license any other way.
(Score: 1) by morpheus on Monday August 18 2014, @03:42PM
Pilot certificates do not expire in the US (unlike flight instructor certificates), so the only reason to have a certain number of hours flown is to maintain currency. Those requirements are rather mild though, unless you really would like to be proficient, not just satisfy the rules. Flying is expensive simply because so few people fly. There is nothing complicated in a modern airplane. A typical car probably has more sophisticated electronics and engine than a typical small airplane does. But cars are mass produced, and airplanes are essentially hand made (a thousand airplanes is a long production run) simply because the demand is so low. This will not change until the manufacturing methods improve so drastically that even custom airplane production is cheap. Another factor is a costly certification process for airplanes, I am not sure what can be changed there.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday August 18 2014, @06:56PM
Always been true in the US, too, with just the tiniest few narrow exceptions. Canada probably has some, too.
The question is, what if you offer to give a flight to somebody you don't know, and in exchange their checked-luggage happens to be a 55-gallon barrel of aviation fuel? That's the grey area this company was trying to exploit, but got (rightly) hammered by the FAA for.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday August 19 2014, @03:36AM
What about the bush pilots who work the NW Territories? Or are they considered "commercial" ??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.