FAA and cost sharing website FlyteNow
Thread Starter
FAA and cost sharing website FlyteNow
Spotted this on AvWeb today.
FlyteNow Sues FAA Over Flight-Sharing Site - AVweb flash Article
If I'm not mistaken, the same "vagueness" exists within the Australian regulations for communications around the notification of a flight and who your "friends" really are in terms of cost sharing.
Similarly, if I post on here that I'm doing a ferry flight for example and want someone to share expenses, am I breaking the law to do this? Facebook friends would be a similar situation if I'm not mistaken.
------------------------------
FlyteNow, a start-up online business that wants to match empty seats in general-aviation aircraft with passengers who would share the costs, has sued the FAA over its statement that the practice would violate FARs. "This is a classic case of government overreaction to new technologies and innovative ideas," said Jon Riches, a lawyer at the Goldwater Institute, a nonprofit group that promotes free-market economics. The institute, which is representing Flytenow in its suit against the FAA, argues in its news release, issued on Tuesday, that the FAA's decision "violates the First Amendment and Due Process rights" of the company.
The Institute says it believes the FAA's rules are "unconstitutionally vague because it cannot provide legally-required 'fair warning' of what communication activities of private expense-sharing pilots are allowed or not." Riches said: "Instead of updating regulations to reflect the way Americans communicate today, the FAA is stifling innovation and silencing pilots who want to use the Internet to communicate their travel plans." In its interpretation of the regulations, issued last August in response to a request from AirPooler, a similar flight-sharing start-up, the FAA said for a general-aviation pilot to post flights online would constitute "holding out," that is, making a public offer to transport people for compensation.
-------------------------------
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
FlyteNow Sues FAA Over Flight-Sharing Site - AVweb flash Article
If I'm not mistaken, the same "vagueness" exists within the Australian regulations for communications around the notification of a flight and who your "friends" really are in terms of cost sharing.
Similarly, if I post on here that I'm doing a ferry flight for example and want someone to share expenses, am I breaking the law to do this? Facebook friends would be a similar situation if I'm not mistaken.
------------------------------
FlyteNow, a start-up online business that wants to match empty seats in general-aviation aircraft with passengers who would share the costs, has sued the FAA over its statement that the practice would violate FARs. "This is a classic case of government overreaction to new technologies and innovative ideas," said Jon Riches, a lawyer at the Goldwater Institute, a nonprofit group that promotes free-market economics. The institute, which is representing Flytenow in its suit against the FAA, argues in its news release, issued on Tuesday, that the FAA's decision "violates the First Amendment and Due Process rights" of the company.
The Institute says it believes the FAA's rules are "unconstitutionally vague because it cannot provide legally-required 'fair warning' of what communication activities of private expense-sharing pilots are allowed or not." Riches said: "Instead of updating regulations to reflect the way Americans communicate today, the FAA is stifling innovation and silencing pilots who want to use the Internet to communicate their travel plans." In its interpretation of the regulations, issued last August in response to a request from AirPooler, a similar flight-sharing start-up, the FAA said for a general-aviation pilot to post flights online would constitute "holding out," that is, making a public offer to transport people for compensation.
-------------------------------
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
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok. I'm at a party and make an announcement. I'm flying to Melbourne and back tomorrow. The aircraft will cost $1000. Three people can come with me at $250 each (Cost Share therefore private flight). Who wants to come?
How is that different to saying the same thing on Facebook or web page, as long as it's cost sharing it's a private flight I would have thought.
How is that different to saying the same thing on Facebook or web page, as long as it's cost sharing it's a private flight I would have thought.
The second part of squawks post describes the long held FAA position so I doubt they will have much of a chance in these circumstances.
I flew in USA for years and they are very strict on people trying to set up pseudo charter type operations in place of a private op.
Charter operators could try and sell empty seats on certain sites to try and fill them on empty legs of existing charters etc.
Here in Aust, if I post on my FB page I am renting and flying a plane to Woop Woop on such and such a date /weekend and ask if any of my friends want to come along and share the cost I think that would be legal as I am NOT a commercial business, and only my friends can see the posts, NOT the public. ie it is not "Holding out".
I have a document somewhere that explains what the FAA considers "Holding out" as naturally it is NOT defined in the FAR's. That would make it a lot clearer if it was.
Also I have an ATPL, not only a PPL, but of course that doesnt mean I can offer a "Charter type" service without an AOC in any country.
I think the Aust Regs define what constitutes are private flight reasonably clearly, been a while since I last read those specific sections.
I flew in USA for years and they are very strict on people trying to set up pseudo charter type operations in place of a private op.
Charter operators could try and sell empty seats on certain sites to try and fill them on empty legs of existing charters etc.
Here in Aust, if I post on my FB page I am renting and flying a plane to Woop Woop on such and such a date /weekend and ask if any of my friends want to come along and share the cost I think that would be legal as I am NOT a commercial business, and only my friends can see the posts, NOT the public. ie it is not "Holding out".
I have a document somewhere that explains what the FAA considers "Holding out" as naturally it is NOT defined in the FAR's. That would make it a lot clearer if it was.
Also I have an ATPL, not only a PPL, but of course that doesnt mean I can offer a "Charter type" service without an AOC in any country.
I think the Aust Regs define what constitutes are private flight reasonably clearly, been a while since I last read those specific sections.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Straya
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could one get around the rules with some creative accounting?
Ie rather than PIC paying for fuel, hire, fees etc and then pax reimbursing him or her (which could be seen as hire/reward), one person pays for the fuel with their own card, another pays for landing fees etc etc.
If need be a large expense (Eg fuel) can be split between people by doing say 2+ bowser transactions.
Ie rather than PIC paying for fuel, hire, fees etc and then pax reimbursing him or her (which could be seen as hire/reward), one person pays for the fuel with their own card, another pays for landing fees etc etc.
If need be a large expense (Eg fuel) can be split between people by doing say 2+ bowser transactions.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(7A)An aircraft that carries persons on a flight, otherwise than in accordance with a fixed schedule between terminals, is employed in a private operation if: (a) public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of public advertisement or announcement; and
(b) the number of persons on the flight, including the operating crew, does not exceed 6; and
(c) no payment is made for the services of the operating crew; and
(d) the persons on the flight, including the operating crew, share equally in the costs of the flight; and
(e) no payment is required for a person on the flight other than a payment under paragraph (d).
Looking further into it, part a above puts the kybosh on advertising for
'friends' on a website or any public announcement. Still enough grey though for plenty of shonky charter operations in Australia.
(b) the number of persons on the flight, including the operating crew, does not exceed 6; and
(c) no payment is made for the services of the operating crew; and
(d) the persons on the flight, including the operating crew, share equally in the costs of the flight; and
(e) no payment is required for a person on the flight other than a payment under paragraph (d).
Looking further into it, part a above puts the kybosh on advertising for
'friends' on a website or any public announcement. Still enough grey though for plenty of shonky charter operations in Australia.
Private flights do not have the liability or indemnity insurance that commercial operations have. You think some of these "friends" will have any qualms about suing your ass if something goes wrong?
DD, as long as the cost is equally shared between everyone, reimbursing the pilot (excluding his/her share) for what he/she has paid is very much within the scope of the rule. He/she cannot profit from the exercise, though.
DD, as long as the cost is equally shared between everyone, reimbursing the pilot (excluding his/her share) for what he/she has paid is very much within the scope of the rule. He/she cannot profit from the exercise, though.
Moderator
If I want to sell seats it's called RPT.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting take on Hire or Reward
Below is an interesting take on the subject of the UAV Hire or Reward test which determines whether a UAV AOC is required.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL POLICY AND LEGAL AFFAIRS - Drones and privacy [Official Committee Hansard]
Apparently if you rent the equipment you need an AOC too 
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL POLICY AND LEGAL AFFAIRS - Drones and privacy [Official Committee Hansard]
Mr PERRETT: A commercial purpose.
Mr McCormick: For hire or reward—
Mr PERRETT: And that involves a reward, does it?
Mr McCormick: Generally it is taken to involve reward, yes.
Mr PERRETT: Okay. So the World Wildlife Fund, or something like that, would not necessarily be commercial at all?
Mr McCormick: If they were operating in their own right as a private operation, and they were the operators of the RPA, they owned the equipment and they did not have to rent it from anybody or have an operator do that for them, then it would be a purely private operation, as it would be for an individual entity.
Mr McCormick: For hire or reward—
Mr PERRETT: And that involves a reward, does it?
Mr McCormick: Generally it is taken to involve reward, yes.
Mr PERRETT: Okay. So the World Wildlife Fund, or something like that, would not necessarily be commercial at all?
Mr McCormick: If they were operating in their own right as a private operation, and they were the operators of the RPA, they owned the equipment and they did not have to rent it from anybody or have an operator do that for them, then it would be a purely private operation, as it would be for an individual entity.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost sharing
The second part of squawks post describes the long held FAA position so I doubt they will have much of a chance in these circumstances.
I flew in USA for years and they are very strict on people trying to set up pseudo charter type operations in place of a private op.
Charter operators could try and sell empty seats on certain sites to try and fill them on empty legs of existing charters etc.
Here in Aust, if I post on my FB page I am renting and flying a plane to Woop Woop on such and such a date /weekend and ask if any of my friends want to come along and share the cost I think that would be legal as I am NOT a commercial business, and only my friends can see the posts, NOT the public. ie it is not "Holding out".
I have a document somewhere that explains what the FAA considers "Holding out" as naturally it is NOT defined in the FAR's. That would make it a lot clearer if it was.
Also I have an ATPL, not only a PPL, but of course that doesnt mean I can offer a "Charter type" service without an AOC in any country.
I think the Aust Regs define what constitutes are private flight reasonably clearly, been a while since I last read those specific sections.
I flew in USA for years and they are very strict on people trying to set up pseudo charter type operations in place of a private op.
Charter operators could try and sell empty seats on certain sites to try and fill them on empty legs of existing charters etc.
Here in Aust, if I post on my FB page I am renting and flying a plane to Woop Woop on such and such a date /weekend and ask if any of my friends want to come along and share the cost I think that would be legal as I am NOT a commercial business, and only my friends can see the posts, NOT the public. ie it is not "Holding out".
I have a document somewhere that explains what the FAA considers "Holding out" as naturally it is NOT defined in the FAR's. That would make it a lot clearer if it was.
Also I have an ATPL, not only a PPL, but of course that doesnt mean I can offer a "Charter type" service without an AOC in any country.
I think the Aust Regs define what constitutes are private flight reasonably clearly, been a while since I last read those specific sections.
