DrZoos Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 uh oh looks like uber wanna be's are taking to the skies.... not officially under uber as we know it..but there are uber like services now starting up asking pilots to use apps, services and bid for flying people from point A to B...... this looks like it will open a pandora's box in aviation.... I guess its just a way of efficiently tendering for charter work if it was all legal....but you can bet your bottom there will be some illegal tendering with aircraft and pilots not properly endorsed, licensed, registered or maintained for such activities... 1
Robbo Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 www.skyuber.com The business model looks a bit like empty seats. Dunno how its gonna pass the AOC and CPL requirements if its for general pilots, well in a nutshell it cant. Uber would have to run as a charter company with a full aoc and pilots being CPL rated. I think they will have problems with pilots using there own aircraft to. I remember when Angel Flight first started, Bill had so many hoops to jump through and they were doing it all for free!
Ultralights Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 not if CASA have anything to do with it.. there have already been a few companies trying similar things in oz. CASA shuts them down real quick. 1
bexrbetter Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 It will be impossible to shut them down, no way can they control Peer to Peer (P2P) contact. Will put more planes in the air, that's a good thing, instead of taking a friend, you are taking someone who is paying for your fuel. 1
Robbo Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 It will be impossible to shut them down Untill there is a fatal accident and the next of kin sues for millions. Remember its not uber who will be sued it will be the pilots!
Drew Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 There is currently a case before the US Court of Appeals in which the petitioner (FlyteNow) is seeking clarification from the FAA on what constitutes a commercial operation and one in which pilots and passengers are united through common cause and costs are merely shared. You can read more about the case here: https://goldwater-media.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/Flytenow_v._FAA_Backgrounder.pdf A ruling in favour of FlightNow would be a tremendous win for GA. Whether or not that would translate locally is a another matter, of course. We can dream, can't we?
bexrbetter Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Untill there is a fatal accident and the next of kin sues for millions. Remember its not uber who will be sued it will be the pilots! Exactly how is that different from killing a friend, family member or joyride passenger?
poteroo Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Uber Air? The FAA will drag this through the courts for years. No doubt, CASA and their legal team will be right onto this. It would not surprise anyone to see a sneaky amendment to the CASR's or CARs being slipped through before the US courts hand down a decision. One contentious section of 'cost sharing' is - just what are the permissible components of 'cost' as it pertains to a private flight? If you were to cost out a 300hr TT private owner, who so happens to own a Beechcraft 36 Bonanza worth $180,000, who insures it fully, but flies only 50 hrs pa - then the 'cost/hr will be massive due to insurance of say $8000 and depreciation of at least $18,000 pa. So, before operatings - we have a per hour 'annual' cost of $360 + $160 = $520. By my reckoning, that 36 is likely to be 'costing' at least another $300/hr for other costs. Share with 3 others and it will be 'costing' $200/hr/person. Hard to see where this private owner will actually be able to compete with a charter operator using a similar aircraft such as a C210 - given the usually much higher annual utilisation of the charter aircraft. Would you rather fly with the private pilot or the probably higher time, more current, CPL in a charter category aircraft? As we all know, trying to 'fit in' with friends on a flight to the same location is usually hard work. Trying to do it with complete strangers could be much more challenging. Meeting the expectations of your 'cost-sharers' could prove beyond the abilities of many pilots, and could result in some unhappy endings. (Think Angel Flight of recent times). I think the 'uber' concept has possibilities, but both CASA and the aircraft insurance industry might have strong reservations.
Guest ozzie Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 You can do this every year to get to and from Airventure.
spacesailor Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Thought we could do the same by "Trips;Events;SpareSeats". What a great idea for someone not yet solo to fly into an Event. I tried it at Narromine in the FoxbatA22, didn't work that way & couldn't get the instructor to sign off my logbook, after my flight. spacesailor
Happyflyer Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 CASA Regulation 2 para 7(a) has this covered. As soon as you advertise a flight in any way it is no longer a private flight and you are deemed to be operating commercially. For example, if you advertise in a public forum that you have a seat in your aircraft to go to a fly in, and you take someone who responds to your ad, you may be contravening this regulation even if you do not charge. (7A) An aircraft that carries persons on a flight, otherwise than in accordance with a fixed schedule between terminals, is employed in a private operation if: (a) public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of public advertisement or announcement
Birdseye Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Should be fun to see how many holes there really are are in CASA's knickers legislation. TIFs????
SDQDI Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 CASA Regulation 2 para 7(a) has this covered. As soon as you advertise a flight in any way it is no longer a private flight and you are deemed to be operating commercially. For example, if you advertise in a public forum that you have a seat in your aircraft to go to a fly in, and you take someone who responds to your ad, you may be contravening this regulation even if you do not charge.(7A) An aircraft that carries persons on a flight, otherwise than in accordance with a fixed schedule between terminals, is employed in a private operation if: (a) public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of public advertisement or announcement So taking that literally, if I was to 'announce' at our next aero club meet that I had a spare seat if someone wanted a ride and then took someone for a circuit with no charge I would still be operating illegally?
poteroo Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 So taking that literally, if I was to 'announce' at our next aero club meet that I had a spare seat if someone wanted a ride and then took someone for a circuit with no charge I would still be operating illegally? No. A 'club' meeting is members only and therefore private. You could have your offer in a club magazine and it would be safe - providing that said publication wasn't distributed beyond bona fide members. Word-of-mouth via other members isn't public advertising. You'd be wise to check that the clubs' insurance covered passengers who were obtained in this way. happy days,
DrZoos Posted November 8, 2015 Author Posted November 8, 2015 No. A 'club' meeting is members only and therefore private. You could have your offer in a club magazine and it would be safe - providing that said publication wasn't distributed beyond bona fide members. Word-of-mouth via other members isn't public advertising. You'd be wise to check that the clubs' insurance covered passengers who were obtained in this way. happy days, So could this be circumvented by a site or app like Flytenow being membership only...thus it wont be public, it will be in a private group...??
Happyflyer Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Should be fun to see how many holes there really are are in CASA's knickers legislation. TIFs???? A TIF can only be done within flying school environment by qualified instructors so can be legally advertised.
jetjr Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 So any RA member could setup their own service for other members? If theres choice youd fly commercial no doubt but they dont actually fly many places
DrZoos Posted November 9, 2015 Author Posted November 9, 2015 My aircraft costs $1000 and hour to run...if you wanna contribute 49% towards costs, and sod off and do ya own thing when we get there, i will take you anywhere it goes! 1
Nobody Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 IT is a bit interesting here. The CASA regulations say: (7A) An aircraft that carries persons on a flight, otherwise than in accordance with a fixed schedule between terminals, is employed in a private operation if: (a) public notice of the flight has not been given by any form of public advertisement or announcement; and (b) the number of persons on the flight, including the operating crew, does not exceed 6; and © no payment is made for the services of the operating crew; and (d) the persons on the flight, including the operating crew, share equally in the costs of the flight; and (e) no payment is required for a person on the flight other than a payment under paragraph (d). This leaves it a bit ambiguous at to what the full costs of the flight are. Does it include an allowance for insurance? How about engine replacement? The rules in the USA are more defined: ©A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
aro Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 This leaves it a bit ambiguous at to what the full costs of the flight are. Does it include an allowance for insurance? How about engine replacement? I'm not a lawyer, but I would argue that the cost of the flight is the difference in cost between making the flight and not making the flight. For a rental it's easy, it's the cost to rent the aircraft. For a private aircraft it would include e.g. fuel, but not standing costs like insurance, hangarage, interest, depreciation etc. that must be paid whether or not you make the flight. Engine replacement? Maybe, IF you could show that you did enough hours that replacement will be required based on the number of hours (probably unlikely for private aircraft). CASA Regulation 2 para 7(a) has this covered. As soon as you advertise a flight in any way it is no longer a private flight and you are deemed to be operating commercially. Actually CAR 206 is more relevant. If you are carrying passengers for hire or reward an AOC is required - advertising or no advertising. As far as I can see it doesn't matter if you can shoe-horn it into CAR 2(7A), carrying passengers for hire or reward requires an AOC. CAR 2(7A) is defining what you can do with a private pilot license, not exemptions from AOC requirements.
Happyflyer Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Actually CAR 206 is more relevant. If you are carrying passengers for hire or reward an AOC is required - advertising or no advertising. As far as I can see it doesn't matter if you can shoe-horn it into CAR 2(7A), carrying passengers for hire or reward requires an AOC. CAR 2(7A) is defining what you can do with a private pilot license, not exemptions from AOC requirements. All regulations are relevant. Unfortunately you can't choose which one is more relevant, you have to comply with them all, grey and muddy as they are.
facthunter Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 If the aircraft was rented ALL those mentioned cost would be in the rent figure. Nev
DrZoos Posted November 9, 2015 Author Posted November 9, 2015 I tend to agree with aro...however, engine wear and partial depreciation due to engine and airframe hours would imho be warranted.... a 200 hour aircraft is worth a lot more than a 1200 thus engine and airframe is part of the hourly cost... Fuel 20lph at $2.20 = $44ph Oil 50hours at $40 = $1 hr Engine wear including labour freight etc to replace engine = $28,000 / 2000 hours = $14 hr Gearbox service every 600 hours = $1.50 per hour Other wear and tear at on parts and components = 200 hours per year $1000 cost per year = $5 hr L2 inspection costs per 100 hrs = $200 = $2 hr Airframe wear 4000 hours TT till $20,ooo value = $80000 / 4000hrs = $20hr Total $44+1+14+1.5+5+2+20hr = $87.5 hr That has to be split in two so i would be assuming i have missed some items and fairly charging $50 per hour on cost recovery and assuming that is reasonable Note: i wouldn't do this for uber etc... but if a non family member wanted to go 2 up to say natfly then i think this is reasonable. In the past, i have heard old timers say if you go two up and get the pax to pay fuel, it works out about right. those old blokes are pretty close assuming fuel cost remain similar.. I heard others say Pax pays fuel and shouts lunch
spacesailor Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 Is this a club, and therefore Not public, As for cost, an empty seat drinks practically the same fuel consumption as $50 for gas share . I would have thought the power's that control the world, would or should help us to expand this flying thing, so they get more kudos as well as money, therefor more job security. If they that be, kill the goose that lays the golden egg, they will join the long, LONG queues at Social security. Just like the MSB, spacesailor
Yenn Posted November 11, 2015 Posted November 11, 2015 What ever makes anyone think that CASA would be worried about killing the goose that keeps them in business. Even if GA failed completely there will always be work for CASA just to loook after the airlines. Don't forget that CASA does not have the same charter as FAA. Don't like it, talk to a politician and all you will find out is that politicians are useless.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now