Re:FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets
by zaroth on Friday February 02, 2018 @09:58PM
(#16295882)
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?
Re:FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets
by rory096 on Friday February 02, 2018 @10:15PM
(#16295939)
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.
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.