kj65557

No need for ad hominem attacks. You make no rebuttals to the points made by the comment above and just dismiss it as PR. Just because something is (or isn't) PR doesn't mean that it's false.

I agree with the fundamental protections provided by privacy act legislation, but I'm concerned that the cost of compliance (hiring people to respond to every gdpr request, for example) prevents startups and smaller companies from competing with larger companies who already have lawyers on staff.

It's really hard to imagine this will be good for anyone except airlines.

If you have suggestions for other places to work let me know

I've wondered about getting a degree in aerospace...

That's true. I'm still new to this org so things might change

Fixed, thanks

I see what you mean, but getting approval to make changes is challenging in this particular department.

And recommendations for advisors?

FlumeJava/Spanner/Stubby Services, mostly in payments

How so?

There might be some possibility for leadership but otherwise it's all CRUD operations and the complexity is in the business, not the tech.

(also work for google)

It is pretty easy to delete your account on many social networks. The following support deletion:

* Google (all account data)

* Facebook (all account data except messages that others have received)

* Reddit

* Instagram

* Snapchat (requires you to "deactivate" for 30 days)

One thing that is confusing is that many websites also have a "deactivate" feature. Some users may confuse the two and mistakenly think "deactivation" is the same as "deletion".

I hate to break it to you, but many planes are flown by one pilot- Even some small jets are certified for this and it happens all the time... Possibly above your house.

They don't specify the type of plane used. Some require two, some require only one. If it was the type that requires two, then yes, it was unsafe.

If they were flying planes not certified for single pilot operation, I'd completely agree with you. However that would be problematic under both part 91 and part 135. If their actions were completely legal under part 91 and friends/family were not compensating them, I take serious issue with treating the test flights like a 135 operation.

The FAA does have very smart individuals, but they are also heavily lobbied by airlines and are subject to conflicts of interest just like cities with Uber/Lyft.

I'm long time HN news lurker and student pilot. My only conflict of interest is that I find the FAA a pain in the ass (and seeing this article encouraged me to finally post something).

I didn't even know about TapJets until yesterday but find it amusing that people think I'm a sockpuppet.

Does US airspace have a good safety record? Yes. Is that mutually exclusive from the FAA overreacting? No.

I think they 100% should be investigated but unless something legitimately risky is happening then I really just have to roll my eyes at this emergency order. FAA policy is heavily influenced by airlines so it would be unsurprising if this was more politically motivated than anything, but until I hear more specifics about the models of plane used I'll wait and see.

Thanks for the correction on part 135 vs 131. I see your point but a perfect safety record doesn't preclude overreacting to fairly minor infractions.

I would be interested to know exactly what model of plane they we're flying with a student pilot in the right seat.

> newly-registered probable-sockpuppet account any day.

Thanks for your response but my tenure on hn is probably the least relevant part of the discussion.

There is no safety concern here, it's purely bureaucratic and political. Many GA planes are 100% legal and safe to be flown with one pilot. The question here is whether or not this was a commercial (part 91) operation or a charter (part 135) operation. If passengers (friends and family) were not paying, it seems sensible to treat this like any other general aviation (private) flight, but the FAA is notorious for not being particularly sensible. If there's even a remote opportunity to pursue legal action, the FAA will do so.

What's problematic here (and with many FAA cases) is the total lack of due process. The TapJets case hasn't even gone to court and the FAA has already punished them and issued a public statement before TapJets was even able to argue their case. They are guilty until proven innocent.

The "emergency order" used here is intended for actual emergencies, such as if a carrier was flying planes that weren't physically safe. A dispute over whether compensation occurred over a year ago is not an emergency and the use of such an order seems like an abuse of power.

Note: for all flights with paying customers (not friends and family) TapJets states that they operate according to the rules of any other air charter under part 135.