When do laws actually matter? The commercial requirement to fly people for money doesn’t seem even remotely unreasonable - 250 hrs. [1] That is not a lot of flight time. General aviation is also about 20 times more dangerous than driving a car [2], and I’d argue even more for the pilots with less than 250hrs. Glad to see this ruling. I hope we are beginning to see peak regulatory disruption.

[1] http://www.universalairacademy.com/downloads/COM_Reqirements... [2] http://www.livescience.com/49701-private-planes-safety.html

It's not only a simple 250h flight time requirement - you also need further theoretical tests to pass, another flight check and most importantly, even then you still need to fly for a company which holds an active airworthyness certificate.

250h is not a lot of time for a CPL. You only need 40 for a PPL. Once you have a PPL, you're really only talking about another $27,000 or so in rentals, plus the check ride.

My current instructor had almost 100 hours of solo time before he went for his PPL check ride, specifically because he understood how dangerous it was, and he wanted to know he was ready before bringing his friends up in the air.

If you want to make the argument that the FAA should revisit the Part 119 Air Carrier Certificate requirement for CPLs, I don't see a problem with that, but I do see a lot of issues with letting a 60-hour PPL fly a family of three across the country.

No, I am not making this argument, but I think I should have quoted "simple" - as I see some downvotes now.

I just wanted to explain that it's not only flight time regulations but a lot more you need to complete to get a CPL (oh and we didn't even mention the medical yet) _and_ to fly commercially.

A CPL is not enough to fly commercially. It's always a CPL/ATPL and an airworthyness certificate of the operator. But I think you know that :)

Oh and of course you need an AOC too, forgot about that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_operator%27s_certificate

So?

Why should people who didn't pass these tests be allowed to fly people around commercially?

Also, why couldn't that company provide the certificate?

Why have police, or any sort of civil society? It's impossible for most individuals to accurately or reliably evaluate risks or manage properly understood risks individually a social contract is required. This regulates the behaviour of actors so as to make transactions generally safer encouraging participation and economic activity. If a social structure (like a regulatory body) doesn't step in then naïve players are exploited, sometimes to the extent that they end up dead.

We like living inside and eating regularly. Ditching these kinds of structures may lead back to the iron age, and wherever people have walked down the road of ditching them bad bad bad things have happened.

You misread my post. I was arguing for regulation and enforcement thereof.

> Why should people who didn't pass these tests be allowed to fly people around commercially?

By that I meant: people who didn't pass these tests should, not be allowed to fly people around commercially -- so I share the opinion of that US court.

> Also, why couldn't that company provide the certificate?

By that I meant: "cover their pilots cost of certification and do the other duties (e.g. ensure maintenance gets done, and be liable if it isnt) airlines have to do", not "just hand out certifications".

Citation please.

Hello Syria, Hackernews is calling and wondering what the problem is? Oh oh, ring Russia 1993 to 1999 you say? It's hard to hear you because somebody has stolen most of the copper and shot the telecoms engineers. Russia in 1999 says that a random kelptocracy is so bloody dreadful that they'd like to go back to a soviet style strong man instead. Hmm I'll ask Somalia 1991 to present; how's it going there? Better than last year? Well, is that because some semblance of a civil administration has been established? People can sell goats in a market without shooting people with AK-47's - sounds like a breakthrough to me.

"General aviation is also about 20 times more dangerous than driving a car"

Yet the title of your link is "Why Private Planes Are Nearly as Deadly as Cars" and by nearly, the clickbait means:

"Breaking out the data per mile puts the accident rate of private aviation at one-sixth the accident rate in automobiles"

The truth is likely somewhere in between that 1:120 range.

"[For automobiles] the fatality rate was 1.1 deaths per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled. Assuming an average vehicle speed of 50 miles per hour (a big assumption), the fatality rate for automobiles translates to 1.1 per every 2 million hours. Taking the preliminary 2013 fatality rate in general aviation of 1.05 fatalities for every 100,000 hours of flight time and scaling it up to 2 million hours gives a comparison rate of 21 general aviation fatalities per every 2 million hours."

Depends on how you measure.