I assume that the reason why this is being downvoted is because people disagree with the "for money" premise. (I wish downvoters in this case would comment, rather than simply downvoting!) Flytenow was operating under the provision that allows a private pilot to take a "pro rata share" of costs from a passenger, for a genuine "common purpose".

I think that Flytenow, by their advertising, probably failed the "common purpose" test, but more than that, it failed the duck test -- it looked like a duck, walked like a duck, and quacked like a duck. It looked like using a private pilot's license for commercial activity.

As someone with a pilot pilot's license, I think the FAA and the judicial branch made the right call.

Most people I know at the intersection of GA and technology are mostly (or entirely) on board with the FAA in this case. The ones acting like this is a great injustice are either GA-only with little tech savvy (and didn't know what Flytenow was before a few days ago) or have no aviation experience and greatly underestimate the danger of GA and the need for clear distinctions between PPL, CPL, CFI, etc.

Just FYI, the link provided has an extra double quote character and the end for some reason. It worked after manually removing it.

> Never go flying to a destination with someone who isn't IFR qualified. The weather can always change.

This is an absurd statement.

That's not an absurd statement. If you're trying to fly "to a destination" and don't have an IFR-qualified pilot, and the weather changes, you'll be in IFR conditions without someone who doesn't have the training to keep you in the air in those conditions.

If your destination doesn't matter, or isn't set in stone, then a non-IFR pilot is free to choose to fly somewhere else, where the weather is better, or land at the closest airport.

For those who don't know: IFR means "Instrument Flight Rules" or flying by instruments only. An IFR-qualified pilot is allowed to fly in conditions where he/she cannot see out of the aircraft, such as at night or through low-visibility weather.

There are a whole lot of places where the weather doesn't change on a dime and an IFR rating is not required. Also, you don't need IFR for night flying.

Any high hour pilot worth his salt is going to be IFR rated, but there are tons of great VFR pilots who know not to leave when the weather might turn IFR.

METARs and TAF are your friend.

Proper planning and weather monitoring makes VFR perfectly acceptable, to say never to fly anywhere without an IFR qualified pilot is absurd. It's akin to saying jr. devs should never write code that will be run in production.

More like "Junior devs should not be shipping nonreviewed code into lifesaving medical devices."

That statement is indeed absurd on so many levels. I only hope it doesn't not come from someone who is IFR rated.

No, it's not. As a student pilot one of the most influential things I ever read was this: http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/EN/TP2228/PDF/HR/TP2228E_1....

tl;dr: the average non-rated pilot flying into IFR conditions will be dead in an average of 178 seconds!

It is stupendously easy for a non-IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) rated pilot to find himself in IFR conditions accidentally. Student private pilots receive just enough IFR training to hopefully get themselves out of IFR conditions before they die.

You know how I can tell you've never had to scud run back to your home airport ~500-1000 feet above the ground (as cloud cover is quickly descending) because the pilot you're flying with doesn't have an IFR ticket?

Don't fly with someone without their IFR ticket.

Why is it an absurd statement?

I legitimately don't know. I don't know what IFR qualified means.

IFR means that you're certified to fly a plane using no outside visual cues (instruments only). The alternative is VFR, or visual flight rules, which basically means you're only allowed to fly if it's a nice day (gross oversimplification).

IFR = Instrument Flight Rules

Basically, lets you fly through weather/darkness. The alternative is VFR, Visual Flight Rules.

Many countries allow you to fly at night without an IFR rating, including the US, Canada, UK, and most of western Europe.

One this is to allow flying and the other is if you actually should. Accident rate in low-end bracket of flying is very high (higher than roads and other forms of transport combined) and a huge chunk of accidents is due to inexperience of the pilots.

Which was what to do with what? The question was regarding the definition of IFR, and I offered a clarifying statement that IFR does not typically prohibit flight at night. In fact, the US requires that 3 of your 40 hours (for PPL) be at night.

It's literally a requirement for a basic VFR PPL.

I assume you were making a quip about your own statement, because IFR Qualification literally says that a pilot is qualified to fly under IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) should the weather warrant it.

No I was making a comment about the OP saying never to fly to a destination without an IFR qualified pilot. Proper planning and weather monitoring makes VFR completely fine, to say never to fly anywhere without IFR is absurd. Especially coming from someone the HN crowd.

I think it's a valid opinion. Weather changes suddenly. While "never" may be a bit too absolute, I think it's wise to prefer an IFR qualified pilot when one is available.

"Especially coming from someone the HN crowd."

I think you're venturing into No True Scotsman territory with that statement. The "HN crowd" is pretty diverse.

Yes it is