Even with a Commercial Airmans Certificate (aka CPL), you would also need a Air Operators Certificate before you can advertise services to the general public. This helps ensure the operator has procedures in place.
IANAL but because "funds" change hands and involves people with no prior relationship, its commercial enough to be a problem.
Organizations such as Angelflight do facilitate volunteer pilots flying people around for charitable purposes such as transport for medical care. This is legal as the pilot doesn't receive any compensation for the flight.
Pilot, not attorney. I'll be shocked if FAA permits this -- though happy to see anything that helps make more general aviation enthusiasts.
What I infer through having read various FAA letters in the past is that there needs to be a personal relationship between the parties (preferably established in-person) in a context outside of "share airplane ride".
Of relevance is the FAA's 1985 Chero letter [1] about a similar Pilot/Passenger sharing: "The PPA system is not a casual one of an individual pilot wishing to take some friends or acquaintances with him on a trip. The PPA system would violate the letter, as well as the spirit, of Section 61.118."
The Haberkorn Letter (2009) [2] has relevant content:
"You question whether advertising, on Facebook, the specific time and date of your trip to your "friends/family/acquaintances" would be acceptable as a private pilot, since you do not consider yourself to be holding out to "the general public." As described above, holding out is accomplished when one communicates to the public, or a segment to the public, that transportation services are indiscriminately available to any person with whom contact is made."
In a later paragraph:
"You question whether you may post the specific time and date that you are travelling to Long Island on an FBO's bulletin board in order to carry two additional passengers with in exchange for a pro rata reimbursement of the operating expenses. Again, the FAA cautions that this type of advertising may be construed as holding out (see explanation in question 1
above)."
And in a later paragraph in regards to being reimbursed via PayPal:
"Whether or not such payment comes through an online payment system such as Paypal has no bearing on the legality of this situation. However, payment through Paypal would suggest that there is an interest in carrying passengers with whom there is no previous personal relationship and that the offer to accept passengers is being made to the general public (see concerns raised in question 1 above)."
With regards to how Flytenow describes things: "Flytenow facilitates common purpose because pilots, rather than enthusiasts, unilaterally dictate the destination (and purpose) of an adventure, and enthusiasts express shared interest in the specific date, points of operation, and adventure."
The last time I checked United Airlines unilaterally dictates the destination of their adventures and the specific dates and points of operation. These characteristics do not seem to me to turn the flight into a "bona fide common purpose".
Again, without having explicitly stated it I believe the FAA wants expense-sharing passengers to be:
- friends
- family
- acquaintances
And not just those artificially constructed for the purpose of working around FAA rulings. At least, this is how I'll interpret the FAA rulings & letters until they explicitly state otherwise. Again, IANAL, hope they rule favorably, but wouldn't risk my license to learn the answer is "no".
Another pilot here. I also believe that FAA wouldn't recommend any pilot without at least a commercial pilot certificate to give rides to members of general public.
Personally, I do not hold CPL. Also, for many reasons, I would not be comfortable to fly with a random person from internet. edit: On the other hand, I might consider flying with someone who had passed some mild background checks and has shared rides before. For example, any of the following would probably do: student pilot or someone affiliated with a local flight school, house/business owner, graduate of ivy league, employee of a large company, etc.
I'm a little confused about what threats you fear that you would not perceive in "house/business owner, graduate of ivy league, employee of a large company".
Well, we where talking about flying with a random person from internet ;) I'd think that one would want to check that someone had flown before and that this person is 'in good standing' in our society.
As to 'ivy league or big company', its an answer to the question: "will I be comfortable sharing a ride with, say, a random Stanford student or with Google/whatewher employee?". The answer is yes. Simply because I understand where these people are coming from and this is already good enough a connection.
I thought that might be your reasoning, but it doesn't make sense to me. There are numerous examples of criminals, murderers and other deviant classes from big companies and ivy league schools. The Unabomber for example, graduated from Harvard, posessed a PhD and taught at UC Berkley.
Isn't it the same kind of reasoning that one would use when, say, hiring someone? That is, look for past credentials? And assume that past behaiviour would be a good predictor for the future?
I think the answer should be previous flight experience with commercial pilots + background check. And the reason for that is not terrorist threats, but just basic common sence. Flying is inherently dangerous, you can't just quit midflight. There've been described cases when flight instructors had to restrain inadequately behaiving flight students (scared, jamming controls, etc). And we've all been reading about cases when airliners crew had to restrain drunk/psyco passengers. This is what I'd be interested to avoid.
> Isn't it the same kind of reasoning that one would use when, say, hiring someone? That is, look for past credentials? And assume that past behaiviour would be a good predictor for the future?
I guess I just don't see the connect between your criteria and behaving well on a flight. In your education/employment example I can see that connection.
You're correct that the text of FARs does not explicitly require a prior personal relationship. However, as they are applied and interpreted in practice, you're almost guaranteed to get in hot water if you fly-share as a private pilot on a regular basis with people you don't know. And that's really not news to anyone with a private pilot certificate or anyone who has spent time looking into getting one.
Agreed, there is no 14 CFR (part 61 or other) regulation that I'm aware of. But the regulations are very concise, and not thorough enough to evaluate every possible scenario.
The point of the FAA's letters is to address the many variations and nuances with real world application of the regulations. And they do so in very readable language (in contrast to regulations). I've found them to be the best guidance on the FAA's opinions & likely actions when the regulations are vague and/or unclear.
I personally use prior personal relationship as a strong guide. One personal exception: I believe I'd be ok sharing costs on a flight with members of my flying club (all pilots or student pilots) who I do not currently know, so long as the means of establishing the flight is more private (club newsletter) than public.
It is interesting to me that you compare to Lyft, which looks very much like a taxi service to me, whereas Flytenow looks more like a ride sharing bulletin board. For what it's worth (IANAL), I agree with their interpretation and would not be worried about it.
EDIT: Of course, it is easy to imagine scenarios where a pilot, using this system, could get themselves in trouble. The same could be said, however, of a traditional bulletin board, so the onus is on the pilot to make sure it doesn't look too much like transportation for hire.
Flytenow would make this a more attractive proposition by agreeing to pay my attorney fees if the FAA takes action against me because of a Flytenow flight. That would include representing me before the FAA in administrative proceedings and in federal court as far as I choose. (I'm a private pilot, not a commercial pilot.)
Better yet, because I'm not aware of the funding behind Flytenow, put the estimated maximum cost in escrow with a trusted third party such as a bank so it would be available even if Flytenow runs out of money and ceases operation in the middle of the litigation.
Then I'd be more likely to try it, and as an additional benefit the FAA would be less likely to pursue Flytenow-affiliated pilots. (FedGov agencies would rather try to make a test case, all else being equal, of citizens lacking aggressive legal representation.)
It probably can't be bought. Most insurance relies on there being some kind of probabilities associated with different outcomes, and that the insurer can sell enough policies such that they capture the law of large numbers and the idea of an expected outcome is valid.
If Flytenow wants to cover this, they're going to be self-insuring and the policy is only good as far as the company has cash or credit to pay legal bills.
I guess it would be hard to underwrite something which is essentially a legal opinion, but there are underwriters who will do weird one-offs. Generally it's based on being able to reduce it to well-known probabilities, though.
I'm not gonna sacrifice my certificate to find out. I'd rather spend those legal fees on a CPL.