Skyuber... or how is this even legal in EASA land?

[Fostex]

Interesting article on the Beeb website regarding Skyuber. As you can guess from the name it is an uber-alike pooling app that allows flight sharing.

Catching a lift on a private plane - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34544208)

This is basically cost sharing... which is legal, however the advertising of flights for cost sharing is not strictly legal.

https://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=224&pagetype=90&pageid=16888

A flight can now be advertised in advance, but it should be made clear that it is a cost sharing flight, and not commercial air transport under an Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC), since it is an offence to advertise the sale of a public or commercial air transport flight without being in possession of an AOC.

This aims to allow cost sharing between friends and colleagues and not to provide an air taxi service to members of the public.

Can't see the CAA allowing this in any shape or form in the UK. Even if they did, it would only last as long as it took for the first 45 hour PPL to fly a group of skyuber pax into the side of a mountain in IMC.

[Saab Dastard]

Previous threads on a similar topic:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/560702-cost-sharing-caa-update.html

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/536645-ride-sharing-service-ga.html

SD

[ChickenHouse]

In the BBC article they talk "finding passengers", which would translate to PAX in "aviation speak". I am not wure to fetch the idea correctly, but isn't that exactly the regime where you need CPL and at least a good insurance, if not be enrolled as a passenger carrying air transport organization? Can this AirUber be legal?

*ok, update* I did not read the other threads before posting, clarifies a lot.

[Pace]

Jetblu

Uber took on the Black Cabs in London and won in the courts. They are not stupid and have a very good legal department.
They wouldn't take this on if they didn't think it was legal so good luck to them :E

Pace

[Fostex]

One thing to point out is that this is not run by the company that runs Uber, it is a private effort using a similar name.

To quote the beeb article...

Despite its name, Skyuber has no connection to the popular taxi-hailing Uber app that allows users to book a car and driver. And the founders say they don't want to compete with private jet companies and low cost airlines.

Based on the CAA guidance on advertising flights for cost sharing which I posted above I can't see how this is in anyway legal. Whilst it is legal to advertise a flight for cost sharing to other members in your flying club, it is not legal to do the same to members of the public on Gumtree, how is this different?

[ChickenHouse]

Whilst it is legal to advertise a flight for cost sharing to other members in your flying club, it is not legal to do the same to members of the public on Gumtree, how is this different?
I do not know the specifics in the UK, but in other countries and environments they circumvent the issue by selling "daily memberships" to clubs. Do you need to do anything in the UK to constitute a flying club, or does it exist immediately by declaration of intent?

[EchoSierra]

"The maximum number of private persons who must share the direct costs (and only the direct costs) of the flight is increased from four to six (including the pilot), and the requirement for those costs to be shared equally and for the flight not to be published or advertised is removed.

IN 2015/029

How can the flight be classed as private though? Surely if it's a service offered through SkyUber an AOC would be required?

[foxmoth]

What they may fall foul off is :- This aims to allow cost sharing between friends and colleagues and not to provide an air taxi service to members of the public.

Whilst this does not strictly make it illegal it certainly hints that it may lead to further rules being brought in to stop it!

[piperboy84]

This idea may have legs, I just registered on their site and the featured flight of the week is some guy with a PPL IR flying from Cambridge to Biggin Hill with the shared costs at 63 euros. If I was in the market to just get in the air and have a plane ride and didn't want to faff about with booking in, pre-flighting, checking weather or the FBO/Flight school kerfuffle this would be the way go. You can look at the pilots license, medical, aircraft ownership and insurance documents right on the site and run a G info or N reg search for added verification. Show up 5 minutes before the engine gets fired up, climb in and get comfy and your off. Upon landing its jump out and wave goodbye, no farting around securing, tidying , pushing back in the hangar or feigning interest while some prat dressed like a South American dictator gives a long winded debriefing followed by the pesky logs and maintenance squawks paperwork, leave it all to Mr Uber Pilot and head off for a pint. .

Would be really good for overseas pilots on holiday here that just wanted to go for a buzz around without the hassle of getting checked out, learning the airspace or getting renters insurance. In the extremely unlikely situation where the pilot turned out to be an dip**** you could always give him the old "I have control" routine and land safely then give him a **** review on the site so others don't use him just like you do on Uber cabs.

[ChickenHouse]

@piperboy: as you have registered already - what were you asked as a PAX to provide on information upon yourself? If I were a pilot sharing a seat like this, I absolutely would want to make sure not to get a lunatic on the right seat.

[foxmoth]

In the extremely unlikely situation where the pilot turned out to be an dip**** you could always give him the old "I have control" routine and land safely

Wow, impressed by your CRM - NOT! I think most "dip****" pilots might not relinquish the controls so readily and you could end up with a VERY nasty situation - rather makes you sound like the dip****!!:eek:

[piperboy84]

I haven't finished my profile, just registered with the bare minimum without uploading the documents etc. so I could take a look around. But it seems that its just like getting an Uber cab with little or no PAX screening. I suppose you could get a nutter showing up, but then again that could happen at a flight school or even when taking a friend up if they had some mental or addiction issue that you were unaware of.

Thinking about it, if you were minded to top yourself by jumping out this would be a high profile (and cheap if you cancelled your card prior to take off) way of doing it if that's what you were after.

[bookworm]

How can the flight be classed as private though? Surely if it's a service offered through SkyUber an AOC would be required?

The holding out provisions in the UK ANO are a bit circular:

Art 14 Offering commercial transport and public transport flights

(1) No person may hold anyone out (whether the person who is being held out is the same person as the one who is holding out or is another person) as being one who may offer flights in an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom for the purpose of public transport or commercial air transport unless the person being held out holds:
(a) in the case of a commercial air transport operation, a valid Part-CAT air operator certificate;
(b) in the case of a public transport flight, a valid national air operator’s certificate or a valid Part-CAT air operator certificate; or
(c) in the case of an A to A commercial air transport aeroplane operation, a valid Part-CAT air operator certificate or a valid EU-OPS air operator certificate.

So you can't claim to be a CAT operator unless you have an AOC. But it does not appear to prohibit offering private flights involving passenger cost sharing, and does not in fact even require the operator to include in the offer any warning that it is not an AOC holder.

[piperboy84]

"Dip****"

Now, now, calm down there Mr. Airbus Jockey/CRM guru, I’m just PPL on a rumour website joshing about the hypothetical pros and cons of hiring out the spamcan as a mini cab. We both know it aint ever going to happen.

[foxmoth]

Piperboy, just saying how that comment makes you look, if you have no problem with that neither do I!:bored:


Bookworm -
does not in fact even require the operator to include in the offer any warning that it is not an AOC holder.

This would suggest otherwise!

A flight can now be advertised in advance, but it should be made clear that it is a cost sharing flight, and not commercial air transport under an Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC),

[Gentoo]

I think the reason this could reasonably be called 'private' is because the pilot is not going to be making any money out of it. The record of payments will quite clearly show whether the costs were shared equally.

I like the idea, but not as a 'taxi' type app, but as a way that qualified (or even people in the process of learning) can find another (fully qualified) pilot and pay to take a flight that a pilot may be going on anyway.

This would allow someone to get some experience of what happens on a variety of flights without having to fly themselves.

......by the way, a possible 'legal' test in these things is about control. i.e. the app cannot 'assign' pilots to passengers or vice versa and neither party has any obligations, the flight can be cancelled on a whim by either party with no penalty.

[Pace]

But it does not appear to prohibit offering private flights involving passenger cost sharing,

Bookworm

I know that Uber (iF this is the same company} are in this to make money. With Uber Taxi drivers they take 20% of the fare, the payment goes to Uber not the driver on a stored credit/debit card and is then paid back to the driver minus the charge.
If it was pure cost sharing I would question why Uber would want involvement. with past experience they will have some sort of legal loophole and will have done their research

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

AIUU, Uber have nothing to do with this at all, it's an independent firm plagiarising the name.

G

[md 600 driver]

gentoo

I think the reason this could reasonably be called 'private' is because the pilot is not going to be making any money out of it. The record of payments will quite clearly show whether the costs were shared equally.

i don't think under the new rules the costs have to be shared equally

1.6 The EASA Air Operations Regulation was amended in 2014 to include some exceptions of its own, similar to some of the exceptions in the ANO. Two of these EASA exceptions go further than the ANO:
• the EASA exception allowing cost sharing permits up to 6 persons to share the cost with no minimum contribution and no restriction on advertising, and
3 Cost-Sharing by Private Persons
3.1 The maximum number of private persons who must share the direct costs (and only the direct costs) of the flight is increased from four to six (including the pilot), and the requirement for those costs to be shared equally and for the flight not to be published or advertised is removed.

[bookworm]

This would suggest otherwise!

The CAA can suggest whatever it likes, but it doesn't make it the law!

[UV]

Coming back from Europe? Want to share the costs with someone you don't know?

Hmmmm, going to search his luggage? Just taking him one way? From Holland by any chance?

Any private pilot in his right mind should have nothing to do with flying passengers they have never met before.

The same should apply to any passenger wanting a jolly with someone they don't know, regardless of their "claimed experience".

I would give it a wide berth....regardless of what the "law" says.

[Rhino25782]

Hmmmm, going to search his luggage? Just taking him one way? From Holland by any chance?

Any private pilot in his right mind should have nothing to do with flying passengers they have never met before.

The same should apply to any passenger wanting a jolly with someone they don't know, regardless of their "claimed experience".

I would give it a wide berth....regardless of what the "law" says.

I just don't get all the negativity towards this.

There's tons of sites out there and the single most relevant problem in my view is that there is not one site that is good enough to create a critical mass to make it actually work on a larger scale.

I've used similar sites in Germany for a while and had great flights with people I would have otherwise not met. The negative arguments are the same that nay-sayers have against AirBnB, CouchSurfing, and anything involving stepping out there and meeting people.

Now, why do people compare this to Uber? Apart from the name, the comparison doesn't make any sense at all. Uber competes with taxis and that is a problem in some places such as Germany because you need a taxi license (compare AOC) to transport people from A to B on request and for pay.

Platforms that allow private pilots to advertise their seats on given flights to cost-share are not like that! They are to be compared with platforms where private folks advertise their free seats in their private cars to cost share - very popular, perfectly legal in Germany at least and a really cool thing (e.g. https://flinc.org/, blablacar.de etc.).

Now, I know those people who say "how could you step into a car with a complete stranger?" or how could you stay on the couch of a complete stranger (as in couchsurfing) but when you talk to people who've actually tried this, there are few who've made truly bad experiences.

I see it as a great way to share the things I do, in some instances to save money, and to meet great new people. And I fully take the risk to, once in a while, meet a complete nutter or two. I can always cancel the flight if I don't like the people who show up.

And the current EASA law has nothing against this - and that's a good thing.

[BEagle]

Anyone who wishes to risk flying unknown passengers should read this case of a pilot whose passengers turned out to be drug smugglers:

Welsh pilot cleared of cocaine plot tells of ?two years of hell? - Wales Online (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-pilot-cleared-cocaine-plot-1840067)

It took him 2 years of hell before he was eventually found innocent.

[Pace]

Beagle

As in anything in life with any element of risk you take precautions to minimise that risk.
This was very much a case of police malpractice with no evidence and guilty until proven innocent there should be an enquiry into this case

You wouldn't climb a high mountain in winter in a tee shirt and shorts.
When I first read this this thread I thought that there was a connection with Uber but now realise that there isn't so rather than a financial gain its purely a means of putting people together.

I have my doubts whether there are enough where such schemes will actually work but its up to the pilot to determine the background and character of strangers and to cover himself.

Even in commercial ops there are PAX who will try to smuggle drugs and there are safeguards to screen those people through security.

Unless the pilot is going to land somewhere illegally then there should be no difference ? As stated the pilot needs to do his own due diligence on people he is carrying use his /her instincts and cover himself by getting agreements signed pre the trip.
In some of the countries I have flown all over the world you have to be street wise and cautious

Flying is a very expensive business and the more we fly the safer we become if these schemes help pilots to fly more then they have to be welcome

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

Smuggling is clearly only an issue if you cross any international borders.

G

[Pace]

It might also be a safeguard to add a note to your Gendec that you do not know one or more of the PAX cannot be responsible for checking their bags and inviting special attention? Small things like that can be a diamond in your defence if anything should happen?

With somewhere like a busy GA airfield abroad this situation could also happen with decent law abiding people you know well

What is there to stop someone flying into such an airfield off an internal flight in France maybe, parking alongside you? Waiting for you and your friends to go and get a coffee? Transferring drugs into your aircraft under the baggage carpets? Waiting till you clear customs and fly to your destination back in the UK and then days later catching a schedule flight to the UK to your sleepy airfield and retrieving those drugs ?

What would you do if on landing the aircraft was checked and those drugs found? The finger would point at you and your friends even though you knew them well and they were upstanding citizens. How many pilots lock their aircraft on the Apron in such airfields? Not many.

I even heard of one pilot who was offered a cheap re leather of his seats which were duly fitted containing XYZ (not drugs) luckily he became suspicious before a continental flight

So its not just PAX you don't know you need to be aware of

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

I even heard of one pilot who was offered a cheap re leather of his seats which were duly fitted containing XYZ (not drugs) luckily he became suspicious before a continental flight

Shades of the last episode of Cabin Pressure.

G

[The_Pink_Panther]

Perhaps the inclusion of "Uber" in the app title has led to certain assumptions about this outfit.
Am I oversimplifying the whole thing by saying it's much akin to most lift share websites?

TPP

[500ft]

Perhaps the inclusion of "Uber" in the app title has led to certain assumptions about this outfit.

I think it is natural to compare them to Uber. They put Uber in their name and according to the BBC article “Carlos Oliveira says they aim to have the largest aircraft fleet in the world without actually owning the planes” which suggests another Uber is exactly who they are trying to be.

It looks to me like they have modified the concept of Uber to fit the rules rather than rethinking private ride sharing.

As for legality who knows how the regulators will react and what additional conditions they may decide to come up with. In my opinion when passengers become customers regardless of the structure then the regulators will have a problem.

[Genghis the Engineer]

http://www.chickenwingscomics.com/comics/2015-11-10-cw0942.jpg

G

[Pace]

GTE

That statement in the cartoon I have a problem with!
" private pilots cannot fly people for money, its a safety thing"

Why is it more of a safety thing than flying people for no money ?
A private pilot can take a 12 year old up for a flight for no money and that is safe? But the passing of money makes it not safe?

That child is not of an age to make an informed decision so an adult will make that decision for them?

I am not promoting the idea of private pilots commercialising themselves, the very opposite as everyone whether paying money or not should be protected in their lack of knowledge of the capability of the pilot flying them or the aircraft and risks of flying in SEP aircraft.

I was always told as a PPL to judge another PPL by asking the question " Would I send my kids or loved ones up for a flight withy them?"

Some the answer would be yes but in a minority others not in a million years so varied is the quality of PPLs. I just find it strange that the passing of money makes a difference to safety of passengers?
Even adults who make informed decisions? How informed are those decisions with adults who know little about aviation or the quality and capability of the pilot flying them?

I remember my CFI when I got my licence many moons ago stating that this was a license to learn to fly on my own and 30 years later I question with NO money passing hands and adults making informed decisions on how informed those decisions really are in many many cases ?

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

I obviously just put the cartoon up because it was topical and amusing. However...

I think that the argument, really, is that if there's no money changing hands, the pressure is relatively limited to fly. If money is changing hands, then the pressure to fly is greater, and thus the need for greater judgement and skill.

It's a healthy argument - particularly since there's not much in the CPL about judgement, and most of the skill is about precision flying. If the CPL TK was all about judgement, and the skill test all about handling emergencies, the argument would be stronger.

G

[Pace]

GTE

There are bad CPLs too. Where the difference lies is that with PPLs there is a broader spectrum of experience and ability ranging from downright dangerous and incompetent to some PPLs who are well up with the best in ability skills and experience.

The problem being that Mr average passenger who is supposed to make an adult informed decision probably is not that informed on the ability of the pilot or the aircraft they accept a flight in.

Many Pax I flew in light twins really believed the second engine was a spare where the aircraft would perform as well if one died :ugh:

Above the PPL level the motivations are probably different the skills, experience and capability usually higher so that band between the bad and good narrower.

my disagreement is that paying people are entitled to higher safety than those who are passengers for free on the implication that those who accept flights for free make an informed decision. Other than the PPL PAX or experienced PAX i have a problem with the informed decision part or that the paying of money entitles those to better safety

Joe Bloggs who owns his own company and company aircraft can legally transport his employees in that aircraft. those employees will know no more than the PAX climbing into Easyjet

Pace

[piperboy84]

The issues regarding an UberSky type setup is legislation or regulation is running behind the technology and is trying to playing catch-up. In US cities where laws are in place strictly regulating taxi cabs especially in heavily unionized towns like NY and SF etc, that view Uber as holding out for hire ( and argue they should be regulated) as opposed to a genuine ride share are fighting like hell to control (and tax) the service. Uber has stated that based largely on their financial resources they will continue operating as if they are allowed to and litigate any challenges. They have also publicly stated that this strategy will allow their service to become so widley utilized by the public who will then become so dependent on it that no politician will dare incurring the wrath of the voters by inhibiting or legislating against the service. Their strategy seems to be working for automobiles but when it comes to aviation they aren't fighting local city hall they are up against the FAA which is a whole different kettle of fish. I'm surprised for the limited amount of revenue attainable versus the risk they would even bother with starting a GA ride share business unless it's a toe in water test run before they go after the likes of Netjets, Options etc. An example of how Uber flaunt or outright ignore municipal codes, there is a city parking lot near me where Uber drivers gather, some who distribute restaurant food even repackaging and adding personalized touches like adding condiments for final deliver. If a restaurant ever tried to do that outside a licensed and inspected kitchen they would be closed down.

I personally use Uber cars, the service is so good, inexpensive, convenient and professional I actually regret buying my last car which gets little use and I may sell it and just use Uber exclusively, aircraft travel however is a different story.

[Fly-by-Wife]

If a restaurant ever tried to do that outside a licensed and inspected kitchen they would be closed down.

Agreed but that's not the point - to compare you have to look at the meal sharing concept, which is already causing restaurants headaches around the world:

https://www.mealsharing.com/

Why Home-Cooking From Total Strangers May Be the Future of Food - CityLab (http://www.citylab.com/tech/2013/08/sharing-economy-want-change-way-you-eat-dinner/6389/)

BBC - Capital - Eat with strangers, make money? (http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20150429-eat-with-strangers-make-money)

FBW

[frontlefthamster]

Just my private opinion: Regulators, and the UK CAA in particular, seem to delight in making life as difficult as possible for small AOC operators just as much as they take pleasure in doing nothing whatsoever to address all the grey market dodgy doings that we all know pervade the industry...

[601]

the requirement for those costs to be shared equally

So is the cost going to be increased so that the pilot, even though "paying their share" will still come out in front.

If not, the business model is flawed.

[AerocatS2A]

If I were to do it, I'd have a company set up in my partner's name that owned the aircraft and leased it to me at a commercial rate. Then anything I pay as part of "cost sharing" eventually comes back to me.

[Gentoo]

but you would still only be able to charge a portion of the costs to the passenger so what is the point of all the limited company malarkey?

[AerocatS2A]

but you would still only be able to charge a portion of the costs to the passenger so what is the point of all the limited company malarkey?

Aeroplane costs $100/hour to operate, lease company leases it to me for $300/hour, I cost share it for $300/hour, worst case I only have one passenger and they pay $150 and I pay $150. Lease company pays operating costs of $100/hour and $200/hour to the owner (my wife). I have got all of my $150 back plus $50 profit.

[Gomrath]

The FAA have decreed that 'Uber of the sky' is illegal.