rickair7777

People are already allowed to assess their own risk by choosing 121 or 135.

They can also take even more control of their own risk by owning/operating their own plane under 91.

Government has taken a complicated, dangerous endeavor and packaged it into convenient risk-tiers for the consumer.

But history has clearly shown that under-regulated commercial ops are dangerous, to the point of causing political blow-back.

Kind of like pharmaceuticals are regulated, cuts down on the snake-oil. Airborne "ride-share" is aviation snake-oil.

aeroengineer

I would say it bowls down to your definition of what constitutes under regulated though I'm certainly not saying unregulated. To your point about Part 91 not everyone has the means to own their own aircraft but maybe they want the freedom to access an aircraft on their terms for transportation. I've seen a lot of comments on APC lately of what counts as acceptable loss of life in relation to the COVID crisis. If a Bonanza going down costing up to 6 lives is that acceptable? Hasn't Europe allowed flight sharing? I'll admit I don't know all the details as to what level it is regulated in Europe. Yes pharmaceuticals are and should continue to be regulated but what constitutes enough regulation? Some states have decided marijuana is medicinal and deserving of far less regulation than it once was shifting the responsibility to the user for his own health and yes to not drive impaired where that certainly effects others. As a pilot and a holder of a security clearance I'm obviously not allowed but I do know people who do use it. Nowadays ATC/ADSB and avionics like the G1000 with a simple SD card can record nearly everything that is done with an aircraft and where it goes. If the pilot commits a violation he can certainly face enforcement action with plenty of potential evidence to back it up.

rickair7777

Everybody knows it would be unlicensed charter ops. The "premise" is that it connects like-minded travelers, some of whom have a plane.

Uber had the same premise initially (ride sharing). How many uber drivers are actually full-time cab drivers? Many or most. How many of the part-timers actually just happen to be going in the direction the pax wants to go? Zero.

Now if they want to get a 135 cert like everyone else, then they can use whatever scheduling software they like.

SonicFlyer

No, don't you know, people are too stupid to make their own decisions or decide how much risk is appropriate for themselves?

The government must make those decisions for them in order that everyone be safe. We can't have people just running around all free accepting risk or doing their own research or making their own decisions or anything. What do you think this is, a republic?

Same goes for deciding what food they be allowed to eat. No trans fat, no sugar, no carbs, etc. It's really the government's responsibility to make sure everyone is healthy and safe, comrade.

aeroengineer

Oh I agree its an unlicensed charter ops because the FAA says so. I say drop the pretext and let people fly where they want whether it's a common destination or not. Limit the size of the aircraft is fine by me. Along the same line I recall that the FAA stated that they have found 3 contracts as private carriage but they had found 11 contracts as common carriage. I guess a bright line would take away their power to regulate as they see fit. Maybe the FAA should be more concerned about keeping the 737 MAX from killing people by the dozens than a guy flying a Cessna 206 from Texas to Florida. I see page after page of people on APC losing their minds over government regulations because let's face it it affects their life and bottom line even though the restrictions are in place for the "public interest" Look at police speed traps. All couched in public safety but oh how the cities love it as the money rolls in. Finally, who are we kidding? I'm sure some 135 operators like the regulations as they are because it protects their monetary interests. Fairness I suppose in the eye of the beholder.

rickair7777

Of course they do, they played by the rules and invested considerable money to obtain/maintain their cert. Why should the fed hold THEIR feet to the fire while allowing some hipsters with iphone apps to do regulatory end-runs and undercut their business?

If you want to put 135 in the shredder, fine then everybody who's not an airline is bound only to 91 and they can use whatever scheduling software they like.

As Briefed

You seem completely ignorant to the number of twin and even single engine pistons that are already available in the market for said demographic.

aeroengineer

I'm saying a carve out for say aircraft 6 seats or less not requiring a type rating. Anything above or outside of that is Part 135 etc and everyone operating those aircraft are under the same rules. I'm not suggesting otherwise. Certainly people are free to choose a Part 135 Operator and their associated fleet/size of aircraft. Admittedly this doesn't touch the pseudo-regulatory side known as insurance. As far as software doing the scheduling the plane doesn't fly any differently because of the how it was scheduled. Now do I realistically think this will actually take place? Outside of something like The Aviation Empowerment Act other Congressional action not likely.