Hacker News Reader

Comment by IIAOPSW | Hacker News Reader

It actually does make a difference. The main difference between a Private Pilots License (PPL) and a Commercial Pilots License (CPL) is that you cannot fly customers for profit on a PPL (but you can fly people as favors and be reimbursed for expenses).

Its hard to tell just how serious these accusations are. For instance

>the airman who served as second-in-command only had a student pilot certificate

Presumably the first in command did have a full certificate (otherwise why wouldn't they mention it). The reality of this could be as mundane as "the guy sitting shotgun in the Cessna is only half way to his PPL and we bought a friend along".

Legally Tapjet may squeak by if their counterarguments are legitimate. At the very least fully rescinding their license may be overkill. This decision might be politically targeted at anyone trying to be Uber of the skies. I'd want to see more than this one off press release before calling them reckless.

View on HN

The problem with your comment is that you are wrong in your interpretation. Your interpretation is that it's black and white on what the FAA can do. There's famous saying among pilots when doing something that isn't explicit in FARs. "That sounds like a grey area". For a conservative pilot, they'll never do it because it could be a license suspension or at minimum dialing a number to talk to an FAA investigator. To a more liberal or adventurous pilot, they might bend the limit and see if it comes up.

I am curious if you're a pilot and if so have your CPL or ATP.

It's not about the PPL vs. CPL (and by definition they need more than a CPL). The difference is in what might be considered "compensation". The FAA's interpretation of this is so incredibly broad, it should scare the pants off anyone considering bending the rules here, and their lawyers should have picked up on this. Did the flights with vendors increase a relationship that might further an interest or negotation later? Did the flights help them improve their app? Did it result in a prospect of a return favor?

It may not be fair or just, but the FAA put those rules out there and a whole lot of people have been inconvenienced by them. I love that Tapjets is doing this, but they moved fast and not particularly wisely. If they thought they could run like Uber and ask for forgiveness later, they never worked with the FAA.

>I am curious if you're a pilot and if so have your CPL or ATP.

I got nothin. I'm just a slightly knowledgeable person.

Flying is on my bucket list. I've researched the topic a bit more than the average lay person. That's about it.

10-4

pursue flying now, you won't regret the freedom it brings.

>It actually does make a difference. The main difference between a Private Pilots License (PPL) and a Commercial Pilots License (CPL) is that you cannot fly customers for profit on a PPL (but you can fly people as favors and be reimbursed for expenses).

Not exactly. Under 14 CFR 61.113(c) carrying a passenger as a PPL requires a bona fide common purpose (c.f. MacPherson-Winton interpretation) — you can't just go on a flight because they need to go there and you owe them a favor. Uber-style ridesharing has already been thoroughly rebuked by the FAA after two companies (Airpooler and Flytenow (YC S14)) attempted it, even if the pilot is only being reimbursed their pro rata share, under the justification that pilots cannot be holding out publicly for passengers on a flight they intend to take. It went all the way up to certiorari being denied by the Supreme Court in Flytenow v. FAA.

The FAA action this week makes it clear that Tapjet's flights were under Part 135, not Part 91. Flying a student pilot as SIC is in gross violation of the FARs.

Part 135 vs Part 91 is exactly the issue. They thought they were complying with Part 91, those are reasonable rules to run your test flights under I think?

Was TapJet reckless?

If they were flying their 'friends and family' all about in 2016-17 in response to bookings on their app without bona fide reasons to go to those places (not least with a student pilot as SIC on business jets), then that's an emphatic yes. The FAA made it quite clear well before then that such flights cannot qualify under Part 91.

It is not correct that a private pilot can be reimbursed for expenses. Pilots are permitted to share expenses for a common purpose.

The long standing (~30 years) rule is the pilot's share can't be less than their proportionally equal share, based on the total number of people in the aircraft. The pilot can't walk away from a private flight with a net $0 cost or it isn't really a private flight, the pilot is being compensated. And the passengers and the pilot need to be engaged in a common purpose activity, ergo it cannot just be about transporting people from A to B if the pilot has no need himself to go from point A to point B.

If the purpose of the flight is to test an app for the company, it is unquestionably a commercial flight and the pilots are employees for the app company. Depending on myriad other factors, the size of the aircraft and how many passengers are on board, a two pilot crew rule might apply and if so absolutely a student pilot does not qualify.

>> ergo it cannot just be about transporting people from A to B if the pilot has no need himself to go from point A to point B.

Is that true even if there is no money involved? If your friend needs a ride from A to B and you were looking for an excuse to go flying that should be alright assuming you're not compensated for it. Or is that not right? Your parents are in another state and want to come visit, so you go pick them up via plane. That's certainly alright. I've never heard of it being an issue unless money was involved or a business trip.

Pretty much it's about sharing expenses. But if I go by myself from A to B, neither expense sharing or common purpose applies. But then B to A is taking my mom/friend as well as myself back home. So that voyage is common purpose and if there are two people the cost of that direction can be split 50/50 (or I can pay a bigger share, I just can't pay less).

The rules on reimbursement are a reasonable accommodation that TapJets is trying to exploit to do an end-run around regulations that exist primarily for safety reasons. When an entity attempts such a move, the FAA may reasonably enforce the letter of the law, and even adjust the regulations, to preserve safety - in fact, it has an obligation to do so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com