“We are left with no choice but to shut down Flytenow”(blog.flytenow.com)
blog.flytenow.com
“We are left with no choice but to shut down Flytenow”
http://blog.flytenow.com/the-beginning-of-the-end
110 comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
That statement is indeed absurd on so many levels. I only hope it doesn't not come from someone who is IFR rated.
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.
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."
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
In the Opinion of the Court, Judge Pillard held that pilots sharing expenses on Flytenow were engaged in common carriage, making them the only common carriers (i.e., commercial airliners) in history to not seek a profit.
Profit seeking is not a requirement to be considered a common carrier. The FAA and the Court are quite clear in that all that is required for a common carrier classification is "(1) a holding out of a willingness to (2) transport persons or property (3) from place to place (4) for compensation" and that all four are satisfied by Flytenow. Posting an itinerary to the website qualifies as holding out, the flight is transportation, the individuals go from place to place, and the cost sharing is compensation. Flytenow's response to this is just needling and attempting to spin.
The current state of the law is extremely deferential to regulatory actions, at the expense of innovation. The Court relied on that regulatory deference, and the result is less choice for consumers, and less innovation in general aviation.
This is true. And it's for good reason. Flying is dangerous and should not be subject to the race to the bottom and rent-seeking behavior that is the "sharing economy".
Profit seeking is not a requirement to be considered a common carrier. The FAA and the Court are quite clear in that all that is required for a common carrier classification is "(1) a holding out of a willingness to (2) transport persons or property (3) from place to place (4) for compensation" and that all four are satisfied by Flytenow. Posting an itinerary to the website qualifies as holding out, the flight is transportation, the individuals go from place to place, and the cost sharing is compensation. Flytenow's response to this is just needling and attempting to spin.
The current state of the law is extremely deferential to regulatory actions, at the expense of innovation. The Court relied on that regulatory deference, and the result is less choice for consumers, and less innovation in general aviation.
This is true. And it's for good reason. Flying is dangerous and should not be subject to the race to the bottom and rent-seeking behavior that is the "sharing economy".
Ok I'm going to agree that Flytenow's operation obviously fails the duck test, no sure what they were hoping for. In fact I met with one of the founders when they started and told him no way it was going to fly (pun intended) with the current FAA regulations.
But is the current regulation reasonable? So a private pilot putting 3 pax in the back of his 1956 Skylane on Angel Flight is ok but the same pilot taking people up to circle around their neighborhood is suddenly dangerous? Ah no it perfectly safe if they just smiled and walked away after the flight. But if they offered to chip in for the fuel then they were well into the "danger zone" right?
The way FAA regulates commercial air transport is outdated and harmful for businesses. Here is another example. A 10000 hours commercial pilot who happened to own a brand new twin cannot take paying passengers, that according to the FAA is dangerous. But a 500 hours 18 year old kid with a wet ink on his commercial license taking 10 pax in a beat up C402 is just fine. What's the difference between the two? The latter works for a company that paid slightly over a million dollars to the FAA for the part 135 certificate.
I'm sorry but this regulation makes no sense.
But is the current regulation reasonable? So a private pilot putting 3 pax in the back of his 1956 Skylane on Angel Flight is ok but the same pilot taking people up to circle around their neighborhood is suddenly dangerous? Ah no it perfectly safe if they just smiled and walked away after the flight. But if they offered to chip in for the fuel then they were well into the "danger zone" right?
The way FAA regulates commercial air transport is outdated and harmful for businesses. Here is another example. A 10000 hours commercial pilot who happened to own a brand new twin cannot take paying passengers, that according to the FAA is dangerous. But a 500 hours 18 year old kid with a wet ink on his commercial license taking 10 pax in a beat up C402 is just fine. What's the difference between the two? The latter works for a company that paid slightly over a million dollars to the FAA for the part 135 certificate.
I'm sorry but this regulation makes no sense.
Abdul, profit seeking is the most important element of a common carrier (a common law term). The term “common carriage” is well-known and understood by the courts, and refers to a commercial transportation enterprise that is willing to take all comers who are willing to pay a fare, without refusal. See CSI AVIATION SERVICES v. US Dept. of Transp., 637 F. 3d 408 (Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 2011). A commercial enterprise is a business pursuit for livelihood or profit. See STONE V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 198 F.2d 601 (D.C. Cir. 1952). In contrast, there is no possibility for profit when expense sharing.
At Oral Argument, the FAA agreed the common law definition of common carriage applied.
See, https://soundcloud.com/flytenow/judge-wilkins-on-whether-the....
Despite this, the court did not apply the common law definition. Indeed, they ignored the question, "we therefore do not consider Flytenow’s argument that the FAA’s decision contravenes the common law."
So, the determination is that Flytenow pilots are engaged in common carriage, yet the central element of common carriage - commercial enterprise for profit - was not addressed by the Court.
Your last statement [Flying is dangerous and should not be subject to the race to the bottom and rent-seeking behavior that is the "sharing economy"] cuts against your own argument. There is no "rent-seeking" behavior where there is no possibility for profit. That's the whole point of the common carriage analysis, and why the FAA and the Court got it wrong.
At Oral Argument, the FAA agreed the common law definition of common carriage applied.
See, https://soundcloud.com/flytenow/judge-wilkins-on-whether-the....
Despite this, the court did not apply the common law definition. Indeed, they ignored the question, "we therefore do not consider Flytenow’s argument that the FAA’s decision contravenes the common law."
So, the determination is that Flytenow pilots are engaged in common carriage, yet the central element of common carriage - commercial enterprise for profit - was not addressed by the Court.
Your last statement [Flying is dangerous and should not be subject to the race to the bottom and rent-seeking behavior that is the "sharing economy"] cuts against your own argument. There is no "rent-seeking" behavior where there is no possibility for profit. That's the whole point of the common carriage analysis, and why the FAA and the Court got it wrong.
Per the CSI Aviation Services case:
The term refers to a commercial transportation enterprise that "holds itself out to the public" and is willing to take all comers who are willing to pay the fare, "without refusal." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 226 (8th ed.2004). Some courts have allowed that holding out on an all-comers basis to a limited segment of the public might be enough to qualify as a common carrier. See Woolsey v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 993 F.2d 516 (5th Cir.1993) (concluding that an air carrier had acted "as a common carrier" in offering services pursuant to negotiated contracts to members of the music industry because it had "held itself out to the public or to a definable segment of the public as being willing to transport for hire, indiscriminately"). But whatever the particular test, some type of holding out to the public is the sine qua non of the act of "provid[ing]" "transportation of passengers or property by aircraft as a common carrier." 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(25), 41101.
Flytenow would satisfy the requirements here as the pilots on the site HELD OUT to a DEFINABLE SEGMENT OF THE PUBLIC and were willing to TAKE ALL COMERS WHO ARE WILLING TO PAY THE FARE. There is no mention of profit. The argument of whether or not profit is a requirement is an interesting one but, ultimately, is not relevant due to the below.
In addition, you misrepresent the Court's ignoring of the question by quoting only a portion of the text:
In its reply brief, Flytenow raises a new line of attack against the Interpretation, contending that it must be set aside because the FAA’s definition of common carriage contravenes the common-law definition. “Ordinarily, we will not entertain arguments or claims raised for the first time in a reply brief.” Forman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 84 F.3d 446, 448 (D.C. Cir. 1996). As we have explained, considering such arguments “is not only unfair to an appellee, but also entails the risk of an improvident or ill-advised opinion on the legal issues tendered.” McBride v. Merrell Dow & Pharm., 18 Inc., 800 F.2d 1208, 1211 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted).
In its opening brief to this court, Flytenow did not contest the FAA’s definition of common carriage. To the contrary, it invoked the FAA Advisory Circular’s articulation of the FAA’s understanding of common carriage. See Br. of Petitioner 6 n.6, 11, 25. Thus, in its response, the FAA did not defend its Interpretation on the ground that its definition of common carriage is in keeping with the common law, aside from making passing reference to a decision in this court that noted the common-law pedigree of “common carriage.” See Br. of Respondent 30 (citing CSI, 637 F.3d at 415). We therefore do not consider Flytenow’s argument that the FAA’s decision contravenes the common law. That argument is forfeited.
As you can see, the question is ignored because Flytenow was attempting to append the argument after the fact. If Flytenow had argued the common law definition originally then the Court may have had to rule in a different manner.
In other words, the Court got it right and Flytenow screwed up.
The term refers to a commercial transportation enterprise that "holds itself out to the public" and is willing to take all comers who are willing to pay the fare, "without refusal." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 226 (8th ed.2004). Some courts have allowed that holding out on an all-comers basis to a limited segment of the public might be enough to qualify as a common carrier. See Woolsey v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 993 F.2d 516 (5th Cir.1993) (concluding that an air carrier had acted "as a common carrier" in offering services pursuant to negotiated contracts to members of the music industry because it had "held itself out to the public or to a definable segment of the public as being willing to transport for hire, indiscriminately"). But whatever the particular test, some type of holding out to the public is the sine qua non of the act of "provid[ing]" "transportation of passengers or property by aircraft as a common carrier." 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(25), 41101.
Flytenow would satisfy the requirements here as the pilots on the site HELD OUT to a DEFINABLE SEGMENT OF THE PUBLIC and were willing to TAKE ALL COMERS WHO ARE WILLING TO PAY THE FARE. There is no mention of profit. The argument of whether or not profit is a requirement is an interesting one but, ultimately, is not relevant due to the below.
In addition, you misrepresent the Court's ignoring of the question by quoting only a portion of the text:
In its reply brief, Flytenow raises a new line of attack against the Interpretation, contending that it must be set aside because the FAA’s definition of common carriage contravenes the common-law definition. “Ordinarily, we will not entertain arguments or claims raised for the first time in a reply brief.” Forman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 84 F.3d 446, 448 (D.C. Cir. 1996). As we have explained, considering such arguments “is not only unfair to an appellee, but also entails the risk of an improvident or ill-advised opinion on the legal issues tendered.” McBride v. Merrell Dow & Pharm., 18 Inc., 800 F.2d 1208, 1211 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted).
In its opening brief to this court, Flytenow did not contest the FAA’s definition of common carriage. To the contrary, it invoked the FAA Advisory Circular’s articulation of the FAA’s understanding of common carriage. See Br. of Petitioner 6 n.6, 11, 25. Thus, in its response, the FAA did not defend its Interpretation on the ground that its definition of common carriage is in keeping with the common law, aside from making passing reference to a decision in this court that noted the common-law pedigree of “common carriage.” See Br. of Respondent 30 (citing CSI, 637 F.3d at 415). We therefore do not consider Flytenow’s argument that the FAA’s decision contravenes the common law. That argument is forfeited.
As you can see, the question is ignored because Flytenow was attempting to append the argument after the fact. If Flytenow had argued the common law definition originally then the Court may have had to rule in a different manner.
In other words, the Court got it right and Flytenow screwed up.
Since its opening brief, Flytenow maintained that common carriage was a common law term. The FAA introduced a distinction between common law and their own interpretation of common carriage, to which Flytenow responded to in its Reply.
In any event, the FARs are dispositive on the issue: "Where it is doubtful that an operation is for “compensation or hire”, the test applied is whether the carriage by air is merely incidental to the person's other business or is, in itself, a major enterprise for profit." See definition of commercial operator, http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div8&node=14:1.0.1....
In any event, the FARs are dispositive on the issue: "Where it is doubtful that an operation is for “compensation or hire”, the test applied is whether the carriage by air is merely incidental to the person's other business or is, in itself, a major enterprise for profit." See definition of commercial operator, http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div8&node=14:1.0.1....
What do you mean by rent-seeking behavior?
Companies that use their property – distribution networks, in this case – to profit from others without providing wealth creation back to society.
AKA Landlords, Realtors®, Middlemen, Licensures etc.
AKA Landlords, Realtors®, Middlemen, Licensures etc.
I know you're not OP and I understand this is the definition of rent-seeking behavior, but your examples are empirically and theoretically invalid. Landlords (renters of capital) and middlemen provide huge benefits to society.
Of course, this doesn't mean that it's impossible for a landlord it middleman to be a rent-seeker, but they would need to pursue some type of artificial benefit/restriction on others in order for this to be the case. This does happen often, but I have no idea why OP would suggest rent-seeking is the primary activity of sharing economy companies. One of Uber's greatest accomplishments has been significantly weakening the rent-seeking taxi industry.
Of course, this doesn't mean that it's impossible for a landlord it middleman to be a rent-seeker, but they would need to pursue some type of artificial benefit/restriction on others in order for this to be the case. This does happen often, but I have no idea why OP would suggest rent-seeking is the primary activity of sharing economy companies. One of Uber's greatest accomplishments has been significantly weakening the rent-seeking taxi industry.
I should have clarified by "Landlords" and "Middlemen" I meant the groups that lobby local governments to restrict zoning and growth, so they can retrieve higher profits.
Uber is very much within the "virtuous cycle" – but they may also become rent seekers via monopolization of private transportation.
Uber is very much within the "virtuous cycle" – but they may also become rent seekers via monopolization of private transportation.
I think we'd agree that a large portion of the current world economy is driven by rent seeking.
Would seem trivial to itemize the costs and have them paid directly by the parties so as to avoid 'compensation'.
How is even partial reimbursement not by definition compensation?[0]
[0] https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&q=compensation
[0] https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&q=compensation
If you send me to get you lunch and I pay for it, say $8, with my own money, you would reimburse me the $8. If you gave me an extra $1 for my trouble, you have compensated me.
Isn't that a bit of an artificial distinction? If the time it took for you to get his lunch is worth $1 then he's still simply reimbursing you for your incurred costs. Just because you left the situation with more currency than you started with doesn't mean you've made a profit.
It would not be reimbursement if it were not structured that way.
See: fractional ownership
See: fractional ownership
Honestly I have no idea how you'd structure a flight sharing business in a fractional ownership way such that nobody is actually being compensated for anything.
Ah, my impression was that the claim was that flight sharing wasn't a business (and therefore should not be treated as common carriage).
Ride sharing in aviation is perfectly legal, the FAA isn't interested in the commercialization of ride sharing in aviation. However there have been websites offering that for many years, none are popular. Whoever thought of suing the FAA for something that is already legal... probably listening to an investor who didn't want to invest unless if it was given the FAA seal of approval...
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part61-113-FAR.shtml Sec. 61.113(1)(c)
This is a good article on this http://speednews.com/article/6966 (2011) essentially two people have to be intending to go to the same destination, the passenger can only pay half the costs and the pilot has to pay the other half since he/she is going to the same destination anyway.
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part61-113-FAR.shtml Sec. 61.113(1)(c)
This is a good article on this http://speednews.com/article/6966 (2011) essentially two people have to be intending to go to the same destination, the passenger can only pay half the costs and the pilot has to pay the other half since he/she is going to the same destination anyway.
Read their older blog posts. It was 16 months ago that the FAA told them that, effectively, they couldn't operate under their model.
Wow I never knew such a thing existed. I wish I could sign up, this is amazing!
Customary, I'm probably going to get downvoted for this but..
What part of there being a "transaction" makes the flight inherently unsafe? Does a "transaction" imply that the private pilot will be flying more to make money, therefore be less safe? If that's the case shouldn't there just be a limitation on the number of flights private pilots can do?
Are private pilots not supposed to take passengers with them? If that's the case, maybe there can be additional safety/certification requirements imposed for private pilots (without requiring them needing to learn all the ins and outs of commercial 747 flights).
A blanket ban just because there is money involved seems silly.
What part of there being a "transaction" makes the flight inherently unsafe? Does a "transaction" imply that the private pilot will be flying more to make money, therefore be less safe? If that's the case shouldn't there just be a limitation on the number of flights private pilots can do?
Are private pilots not supposed to take passengers with them? If that's the case, maybe there can be additional safety/certification requirements imposed for private pilots (without requiring them needing to learn all the ins and outs of commercial 747 flights).
A blanket ban just because there is money involved seems silly.
One additional note above is that having a less-flexible destination (due to the passenger) can cause the flight to be less safe.
I don't see the blanket ban...dozens of carriers operate in the US daily.
Blanket ban on private pilots having paying passengers.
What about in other countries? It's perplexing to me why the green lobby isn't up in arms about hostility to Uber et al.
Services like Uberhop save energy, reduce traffic, pollution, cost. There are no downsides.
Services like Uberhop save energy, reduce traffic, pollution, cost. There are no downsides.
The competition here is not everyone flying their personal plane (with "sharing" introduced to maximize efficiency), it's commercial aviation, whose cost structure is already more efficient compared to general aviation.
It's as if Uberhop was launched in a market that used predominantly city buses.
It's as if Uberhop was launched in a market that used predominantly city buses.
"Green" is often linked to social causes. Uber is perceived as reducing/eroding the job stability of workers/employees by some. I could imagine this being part of the cause.
Back when I ran a consulting/web dev biz I had a client who came to me with an idea like this. I didn't like the sounds of it and didn't pursue it. Glad I didn't. There's a myriad of technical legal issues to go through. Uber ("rideshare") vs taxis are majorly different from Flytenow ("flightshare") vs commercial airlines.
The FAA will never allow "flightsharing" on the commercialism that Uber is at. It's simply too dangerous.
The FAA will never allow "flightsharing" on the commercialism that Uber is at. It's simply too dangerous.
> The FAA will never allow "flightsharing" on the commercialism that Uber is at. It's simply too dangerous.
There are lots of people who have no problem doing dangerous things or even love it (say, dangerous sports). If they are cleared up about the risks involved I openly support allowing people to do dangerous things if they love to.
There are lots of people who have no problem doing dangerous things or even love it (say, dangerous sports). If they are cleared up about the risks involved I openly support allowing people to do dangerous things if they love to.
> If they are cleared up about the risks involved I openly support allowing people to do dangerous things if they love to.
Even if that risk is flying a large object in the sky at high speeds?
Even if that risk is flying a large object in the sky at high speeds?
There are also lots of people who would find a loophole and sue the government for not properly regulating such a service.
I don't buy the "dangerous" argument at all. Show me the danger.
edit: I'm referring to the danger of adding a passenger to an already scheduled flight by a private pilot, which is what I thought this flytenow service was about. (Assuming there's not a weight issue and someone isn't trying to intentionally crash the plane...)
edit: I'm referring to the danger of adding a passenger to an already scheduled flight by a private pilot, which is what I thought this flytenow service was about. (Assuming there's not a weight issue and someone isn't trying to intentionally crash the plane...)
Fatal Accident Rate (Table 5 [1]):
1: http://enhs.umn.edu/current/injuryprevent/aviation/magnitude...
Commercial Aviation (per 100,000 flight hours): 0.022
General Aviation (per 100,000 flight hours): 1.11
Motor Vehicle: (per 100 million miles): 1.5
1: http://enhs.umn.edu/current/injuryprevent/aviation/magnitude...
Comparing 100,000 flight hours to 100,000,000 miles seems strange to me. If you assumed an average speed of 50MPH, that would be:
Commercial Aviation (per 100,000 flight hours): 0.022
General Aviation (per 100,000 flight hours): 1.11
Motor Vehicle: (per 100,000 driving hours): 0.075
What if I find 1.1 deaths per 100,000 flight hours to be a perfectly reasonable risk relative to the benefits I receive from using such a service? I can't make that decision for myself?
Are 100K flight hours comparable to 100M miles in a car?
You're misreporting that data.
From the same table the overall risk of death (Fatality Rate) is the same for both forms of flying:
From the same table the overall risk of death (Fatality Rate) is the same for both forms of flying:
Fatality Rate (Commercial Aviation): 1.9
Fatality Rate (General Aviation): 1.91
No, you're mis-interpreting the data. The commercial aviation record is as low as it is in spite of the large number of people on board. So the chances of accidents in general aviation are many times higher for any given flight using the one or the other mode.
In other words - and to make it really simple - if you are given the choice of going with a commercial carrier or with a general aviation craft to the same destination in a single flight then you would do wise to take the commercial carrier.
In other words - and to make it really simple - if you are given the choice of going with a commercial carrier or with a general aviation craft to the same destination in a single flight then you would do wise to take the commercial carrier.
You're correct in the narrow sense (a commercial flight is less likely to crash) but wrong on the big picture (a commercial flight is safer for passengers).
Here's the thing: we don't care about the number of crashed airplanes, we care about crashed people (the number of deaths). And the number of deaths is about the same per passenger mile flown.
Passengers are no safer in either form of flying, according to this source.
Here's the thing: we don't care about the number of crashed airplanes, we care about crashed people (the number of deaths). And the number of deaths is about the same per passenger mile flown.
Passengers are no safer in either form of flying, according to this source.
It's worth getting to the bottom here, but like 'jacquesm' I think you are misinterpreting the data.
And the number of deaths is about the same per passenger mile flown.
Deaths per passenger mile is indeed the relevant metric, but this is not the number which is equal. Instead, the deaths per airplane mile are about equal. Since the commercial flights tend to have many more passengers, the passenger miles denominator will be greater by this ratio.
From a passenger's perspective, commercial flights are thus safer than private planes by this same ratio. I don't think the linked article gives enough information to calculate the ratio of passenger miles for GA and commercial, but 50x seems like it would be in the ballpark.
And the number of deaths is about the same per passenger mile flown.
Deaths per passenger mile is indeed the relevant metric, but this is not the number which is equal. Instead, the deaths per airplane mile are about equal. Since the commercial flights tend to have many more passengers, the passenger miles denominator will be greater by this ratio.
From a passenger's perspective, commercial flights are thus safer than private planes by this same ratio. I don't think the linked article gives enough information to calculate the ratio of passenger miles for GA and commercial, but 50x seems like it would be in the ballpark.
Why would we care about the number of crashed people? You said it yourself, the number of deaths for commercial flight is higher because there are more people on board. If I'm on a plane, I don't care about how likely I am to be one of the people who died in airline crashes this year, I care about how likely it is that this plane is going to crash.
I understand it's not intuitive, but the statistics are clear: If you have 100 times more people on commercial flights, then the flights would have to be 100 times less likely to crash to have the same risk to each passenger.
Let's break this into two specific questions (assuming the source is correct):
1) How likely is it that a specific flight will crash?
Answer: it's more likely that a private flight will crash than a commercial flight.
2) How likely is it that I will die on a private vs commercial flight?
Answer: your likelihood of dying is the roughly the same for both private and commercial flights.
Let's break this into two specific questions (assuming the source is correct):
1) How likely is it that a specific flight will crash?
Answer: it's more likely that a private flight will crash than a commercial flight.
2) How likely is it that I will die on a private vs commercial flight?
Answer: your likelihood of dying is the roughly the same for both private and commercial flights.
I'm not sure you're reading the replies here. Nobody is arguing that your likelihood of dying is significantly higher on a private flight. We're arguing that the thing you should care about is whether the specific flight that you are on will crash, which has a significantly higher likelihood in general aviation.
Nobody is arguing that your likelihood of dying is significantly higher on a private flight.
I might be wrong, but this is indeed what I am arguing, and I think 'jacquesm' is saying the same. 'nostromo' says your likelihood of dying is the roughly the same for both private and commercial flights, and I don't think this is true if the metric is getting from point A to point B without dying.
If my memory of previous research is correct, a passenger on a private plane has approximately the same risk per mile travelled as a passenger on a motorcycle[1], which is something much greater than the risk per passenger mile of a normal automobile, which is in turn something significantly riskier than traveling the same number of miles by a commercial jet.[2]
We're arguing that the thing you should care about is whether the specific flight that you are on will crash, which has a significantly higher likelihood in general aviation.
Yes, each flight you take in a private plane is significantly more likely to end in a crash than each flight you take on a commercial airline. Your chances of being killed if the plane is involved in an accident are greater in a private plane (fatalities per accident are greater on the commercial flight, but risk to each passenger is lower). Therefore, your chances of dying per flight taken are greater in private flight than in commercial aviation. Is this the same as what you are saying?
[1] Edit: Found a seeming good source at http://www.nianet.org/ODM/presentations/Overview%20SVO%20Ken..., page 8. Looks like I was slightly wrong to say that motorcycles and GA are comparable risks. If we trust their estimates, motorcycles are about 2x more dangerous per hour than GA, and 3x more dangerous per mile.
[2] I put the specific numbers from in my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10781106
I might be wrong, but this is indeed what I am arguing, and I think 'jacquesm' is saying the same. 'nostromo' says your likelihood of dying is the roughly the same for both private and commercial flights, and I don't think this is true if the metric is getting from point A to point B without dying.
If my memory of previous research is correct, a passenger on a private plane has approximately the same risk per mile travelled as a passenger on a motorcycle[1], which is something much greater than the risk per passenger mile of a normal automobile, which is in turn something significantly riskier than traveling the same number of miles by a commercial jet.[2]
We're arguing that the thing you should care about is whether the specific flight that you are on will crash, which has a significantly higher likelihood in general aviation.
Yes, each flight you take in a private plane is significantly more likely to end in a crash than each flight you take on a commercial airline. Your chances of being killed if the plane is involved in an accident are greater in a private plane (fatalities per accident are greater on the commercial flight, but risk to each passenger is lower). Therefore, your chances of dying per flight taken are greater in private flight than in commercial aviation. Is this the same as what you are saying?
[1] Edit: Found a seeming good source at http://www.nianet.org/ODM/presentations/Overview%20SVO%20Ken..., page 8. Looks like I was slightly wrong to say that motorcycles and GA are comparable risks. If we trust their estimates, motorcycles are about 2x more dangerous per hour than GA, and 3x more dangerous per mile.
[2] I put the specific numbers from in my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10781106
Keep in mind the context of this conversation is about regulation, not about individual decision making.
From an individual stand-point, you are correct: "will my flight crash?" is a question that the individual would ask. But from a regulatory stand-point, the question is, "what is the safest way to transport people?" and those questions are not the same statistically.
This is similar to Taleb's "black swans" conundrum. You're comparing likely events with small ramifications to unlikely events with large ramifications.
From an individual stand-point, you are correct: "will my flight crash?" is a question that the individual would ask. But from a regulatory stand-point, the question is, "what is the safest way to transport people?" and those questions are not the same statistically.
This is similar to Taleb's "black swans" conundrum. You're comparing likely events with small ramifications to unlikely events with large ramifications.
Page 8 of this NASA document is the most trustworthy single page source I've found so far:
http://www.nianet.org/ODM/presentations/Overview%20SVO%20Ken...
This chart gives (among other things) fatalities per passenger mile for 2005-2012 as a multiplier of the per passenger risk of death when traveling by automobile.
Of course, all else is not necessarily equal. A daytime motorcycle ride in full gear in good weather is definitely safer than an unexpected night flight in the fog with a low hour private pilot. A trip on a well-maintained corporate jet with an experienced pilot is almost certainly safer than snowy roads in a rear-wheel drive automatic. And of course, statistics don't answer the question of what should and should not be acceptable risks.
This chart gives (among other things) fatalities per passenger mile for 2005-2012 as a multiplier of the per passenger risk of death when traveling by automobile.
Passenger auto: 1x
Commercial Airline: .006x
Motorcycle: 40.2x
General Aviation: 12.0x
Of course, all else is not necessarily equal. A daytime motorcycle ride in full gear in good weather is definitely safer than an unexpected night flight in the fog with a low hour private pilot. A trip on a well-maintained corporate jet with an experienced pilot is almost certainly safer than snowy roads in a rear-wheel drive automatic. And of course, statistics don't answer the question of what should and should not be acceptable risks.
Because Googling is arduously hard here is some sauce and some commentary to the sauce:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-15/more-peopl...
Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opinion/The-Dangers-of-Pri...
"""The National Transportation Safety Board found that in 2011, 94 percent of fatal aviation accidents occurred in what’s called general aviation. That category includes private small planes flown by amateurs as well as professionally piloted corporate flights in high-powered aircraft, such as the Gulfstream IV jet that crashed in May in Bedford, Mass., killing all seven people on board. By contrast, commercial aviation had no fatal accidents that year. Statistics from the N.T.S.B. show that general aviation aircraft average nearly seven accidents per 100,000 flight hours, compared with an average of 0.16 accidents per 100,000 hours for commercial airlines. """
Sauce straight from the horse' mouth:
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/AviationDataSt...
It is actually 100x more dangerous than commercial aviation. Is that what you meant by "showing me the danger"?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-15/more-peopl...
Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opinion/The-Dangers-of-Pri...
"""The National Transportation Safety Board found that in 2011, 94 percent of fatal aviation accidents occurred in what’s called general aviation. That category includes private small planes flown by amateurs as well as professionally piloted corporate flights in high-powered aircraft, such as the Gulfstream IV jet that crashed in May in Bedford, Mass., killing all seven people on board. By contrast, commercial aviation had no fatal accidents that year. Statistics from the N.T.S.B. show that general aviation aircraft average nearly seven accidents per 100,000 flight hours, compared with an average of 0.16 accidents per 100,000 hours for commercial airlines. """
Sauce straight from the horse' mouth:
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/AviationDataSt...
It is actually 100x more dangerous than commercial aviation. Is that what you meant by "showing me the danger"?
You don't see the danger in pilots running a commercial aviation business with a personal license? They're not like cars where you can willy around and if things go wrong usually it's at 30mph...
Yea, when I was going through pilot training it took me a while to realize why it was so dangerous compared to cars. The biggest reason, in my opinion, is that in a car, you can stop and get out and you're ok. In a plane, you can't stop and get out, you're trapped. If you bail out, now you have an unguided missile.
Private pilot licenses have much lower standards than commercial operations. Commercial has tighter maintenance and training requirements, and is consequently much more expensive to run.
Until around the 1960s to 1970s, air travel was very very dangerous. People died quite regularly. It was the implementation of serious safety practices and regulations that changed the risk to be safer than riding in a car, and public perception. Since aviation makes the country go, and people have an innate fear of flying, the FFA is both concerned for the increased loss of human life and the loss of trust in flying that would translate to the commercial sector if this went through.
Private pilot licenses have much lower standards than commercial operations. Commercial has tighter maintenance and training requirements, and is consequently much more expensive to run.
Until around the 1960s to 1970s, air travel was very very dangerous. People died quite regularly. It was the implementation of serious safety practices and regulations that changed the risk to be safer than riding in a car, and public perception. Since aviation makes the country go, and people have an innate fear of flying, the FFA is both concerned for the increased loss of human life and the loss of trust in flying that would translate to the commercial sector if this went through.
GA is nowhere near as safe as automobile travel.
I wasn't looking at it from that perspective. I was looking at it as a rideshare service. Example: a pilot already has a flight scheduled and you can join if there is room available. Not one where they are trying to make a living off of chartering people around.
Adding humans to these existing flights does not make them more dangerous, but creating more private charter flights may very well be more dangerous. There is some good data linked above that indicates they are equally dangerous.
YMMV I guess.
Adding humans to these existing flights does not make them more dangerous, but creating more private charter flights may very well be more dangerous. There is some good data linked above that indicates they are equally dangerous.
YMMV I guess.
So Jim in Vermont is going to New Haven, CT tomorrow to see his sister. Jeff has a business meeting in the same city and figures he can save some time waiting around in airports if he flies with Jim and pays half the costs.
At takeoff time, weather around the CT coast looks iffy. Jim would rather stay home and see his sister next weekend instead. Jeff can't get a flight on such short order, and tells Jim he really needs to make the meeting or a big contract is lost. He offers to pay Jim 2x the full flight costs to make his meeting.
What Jim will do in this situation is likely very different than if he hadn't agreed to take Jeff along.
At takeoff time, weather around the CT coast looks iffy. Jim would rather stay home and see his sister next weekend instead. Jeff can't get a flight on such short order, and tells Jim he really needs to make the meeting or a big contract is lost. He offers to pay Jim 2x the full flight costs to make his meeting.
What Jim will do in this situation is likely very different than if he hadn't agreed to take Jeff along.
:( poor Jim and Jeff
Ha! Point taken. The video is not available but here's the song:
Mojo Nixon — You Gotta Be Insane To Fly In Small Private Planes
http://redmp3.cc/1334534/mojo-nixon-you-gotta-be-insane-to-f...
Mojo Nixon — You Gotta Be Insane To Fly In Small Private Planes
http://redmp3.cc/1334534/mojo-nixon-you-gotta-be-insane-to-f...
Called it 549 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7923297
Did Flytenow ever even "make it off the ground"? Was there ever a single flight? I'm not sure that there was.
Other sites offering the same service for more than 5 years on USA that now have to shutdown:
http://www.skypool.com/ (Since 1999- 16 years) http://www.pilotsharetheride.com/
http://www.skypool.com/ (Since 1999- 16 years) http://www.pilotsharetheride.com/
Ohhh, that mean old grinch Mr. Government. Always telling entrepreneurs their dumb ideas are dumb.
mahouse(1)
Consenting people, using private property in compliance with the law. Why exactly is this banned, other than it cutting into the pocketbooks of carriers?
It's banned because the general public cannot assess the risk of private flights, and the flight is not under an AOC.
The FAA maybe a lot of things, but they're 100% right about this.
The FAA maybe a lot of things, but they're 100% right about this.
Then why allow PPL holders to have passengers at all. Why does it magically change when you split a tank of gas with me? I agree, I am skeptical of flying with low hours pilots. I AM a low hour pilot and I'm skeptical of flying myself! But it would be perfectly legal for me to take passengers as a PPL holder. It's also perfectly legal for me and others to share the flight costs down to a common destination. As long as I don't pay less than my fair share. I think saying that something is transformed when I say on a public forum "Hey guys, I'm going to New Orleans for the weekend. Anyone want to come down and split costs with me?" Is being dishonest.
Either passengers can assess the danger, or they can't.
Paying for half a tank of gas does not change that.
Either passengers can assess the danger, or they can't.
Paying for half a tank of gas does not change that.
The general public cannot assess the risk of riding in a Taxi, bus, uber, etc. any better than taking a flight with a private pilot.
Near-100% of the public owns a driver's license. 100% of the public has logged thousands of hours on the road, be it at the wheel, or in the passenger's seat. If you feel like your life is in danger, you can always ask your driver to stop, and let you out.
Near-100% of the public wouldn't have the first clue about what it takes to fly a two-seater aircraft, how dangerous the conditions they are flying in are, and most definitely can't ask the pilot to pull over half-way through the flight.
Your claim is farcical.
Near-100% of the public wouldn't have the first clue about what it takes to fly a two-seater aircraft, how dangerous the conditions they are flying in are, and most definitely can't ask the pilot to pull over half-way through the flight.
Your claim is farcical.
Not a lot of of time to respond, but my first observations about your comment are:
1) How many pilots are actually unlicensed? I suspect given the relative difficulty of getting access to aircraft vs. cars that the more pilots in the air are of greater competence than the average driver by a long shot. Moreover, I'll bet that the examination standards for pilot licenses are somewhat more rigorous than the average drivers license.
2) Have you failed to assess that the greatest likely danger in a road trip is not the driver giving you a ride, but other drivers on the road? I use to commute between LA and the Bay Area every week for a couple of years. I guarantee you that not everyone you encounter is sane or competent to be on the road. And yeah, in the middle of nowhere on I-5 (or better still, I-15 between LA and Los Vegas close to Death Valley) you can ask to get out of the car if you are uncomfortable with the way the person is driving... but get out in the middle of nowhere and then what?
The complexity of the driving environment and the relatively low barrier to entry for cars don't make the risk assessment as simple as you would like to believe.
Finally, unless you are a pilot (you may be) seems like you're merely a member of that ignorant general public that can't make such assessments. If that's the case, how can you possibly be in a position to make a judgement? Or are you just better than everyone else and it's your paternalistic instincts taking over?
EDIT: To be clear... I am not arguing that general aviation is safer than driving (last I looked it's not). But I am arguing that the risk assessment may not be a difficult as people here are making it out to be, especially in light of the complexity of driving on the road.
1) How many pilots are actually unlicensed? I suspect given the relative difficulty of getting access to aircraft vs. cars that the more pilots in the air are of greater competence than the average driver by a long shot. Moreover, I'll bet that the examination standards for pilot licenses are somewhat more rigorous than the average drivers license.
2) Have you failed to assess that the greatest likely danger in a road trip is not the driver giving you a ride, but other drivers on the road? I use to commute between LA and the Bay Area every week for a couple of years. I guarantee you that not everyone you encounter is sane or competent to be on the road. And yeah, in the middle of nowhere on I-5 (or better still, I-15 between LA and Los Vegas close to Death Valley) you can ask to get out of the car if you are uncomfortable with the way the person is driving... but get out in the middle of nowhere and then what?
The complexity of the driving environment and the relatively low barrier to entry for cars don't make the risk assessment as simple as you would like to believe.
Finally, unless you are a pilot (you may be) seems like you're merely a member of that ignorant general public that can't make such assessments. If that's the case, how can you possibly be in a position to make a judgement? Or are you just better than everyone else and it's your paternalistic instincts taking over?
EDIT: To be clear... I am not arguing that general aviation is safer than driving (last I looked it's not). But I am arguing that the risk assessment may not be a difficult as people here are making it out to be, especially in light of the complexity of driving on the road.
I take issue with your claim that the majority of the populace knows how to drive. My experience differs strongly.
All kidding aside, the numbers are a big issue. How many cars are on the road versus how many planes in the sky? Add to it the fact that in the sky you have three dimensions of completely free travel ability to evade accidents, where in a car, you typically have at most two and more commonly one completely safe area to "duck into" to avoid an accident.
Plus, no one (at least in my mind) is advocating that anyone gets to FLY the plane, they're saying anyone should be able to fly IN a plane. You don't need to know shit about driving a car to know whether or not a car you're getting into is safe, and same goes for a plane. If the exhaust is dragging on the ground and a rear door is missing, you don't need to know anything about cars to know that's probably not the safest car ever.
All kidding aside, the numbers are a big issue. How many cars are on the road versus how many planes in the sky? Add to it the fact that in the sky you have three dimensions of completely free travel ability to evade accidents, where in a car, you typically have at most two and more commonly one completely safe area to "duck into" to avoid an accident.
Plus, no one (at least in my mind) is advocating that anyone gets to FLY the plane, they're saying anyone should be able to fly IN a plane. You don't need to know shit about driving a car to know whether or not a car you're getting into is safe, and same goes for a plane. If the exhaust is dragging on the ground and a rear door is missing, you don't need to know anything about cars to know that's probably not the safest car ever.
Is this... are you serious or is this some weird rhetorical gambit? Do you really think driving in a motor vehicle—which most passengers are also qualified and certified to do—usually on surface streets less than 40 MPH, is actually equivalent to flying in an airplane?
[deleted]
Sir, please keep logic out of this.
We can ban things because there's too much of a chance of things going wrong? It's travel via aircraft, I think John Q. Public can probably fairly well assess what might go wrong, and more to the point, it's none of the FFA's business. If I go on a plane and I die crashing into some guys house, we have legal frameworks in place to handle all of those events. Why do we need more on top?
>We can ban things because there's too much of a chance of things going wrong?
Yes. This is literally how public safety works.
Yes. This is literally how public safety works.
Then let's talk safety. Every pilot in the sky has spent thousands of dollars learning how to handle that craft, compared to most drivers have spent, what, $150, assuming they went for Driver's Ed. They then spent a magnitude more money on the plane, had it inspected so they could fly it, and will be piloting it in the atmosphere where they have a much greater chance of running into an angel than another aircraft en route to a planned destination that everyone within a thousand miles can look up. Compare that to Uber or hell, even driving your own car and tell me which is safer.
> piloting it in the atmosphere where they have a much greater chance of running into an angel than another aircraft en route to a planned destination
Shall we compare the number of aircraft-angel collisions to the number of aircraft-aircraft collisions?
Shall we compare the number of aircraft-angel collisions to the number of aircraft-aircraft collisions?
Sure, as long as you're willing to discount accidents involving air shows or other activities that involve planes flying intentionally close together. In normal flight circumstances, planes are intentionally kept miles apart and even when they do get close, communication between the vehicles to assure that doesn't happen is not only possible, your pilot in question would be fined if he weren't doing it.
Empirically that isn't always the case. Often rent-seekers who stand to profit from various regulations have far more influence on public policy than "safety" does.
Pilots are free to offer commercial services; they merely have to obey a much stiffer set of regulations.
Flying privately is legitimately dangerous, whereas commercial aviation in the united states is very safe. Customers are in no position to evaluate the pilot or plane. Most accidents are due to pilot fault, often because of bad weather; offering commercial services that come with expectations of getting places increases pressure to fly in weather or circumstances exceeding the capabilities of the pilot, plane, or both.
Flying privately is legitimately dangerous, whereas commercial aviation in the united states is very safe. Customers are in no position to evaluate the pilot or plane. Most accidents are due to pilot fault, often because of bad weather; offering commercial services that come with expectations of getting places increases pressure to fly in weather or circumstances exceeding the capabilities of the pilot, plane, or both.
Due you suppose consumers are only unable to determine pilot skill due to a lack of prior incentive to develop systems for disseminating this information or because it is technologically impossible?
Some of both. Even if one were to postulate a pilot rating organization other than the faa, let's not pretend it wouldn't be just as captured by the various pilots as the credit-rating agencies were captured by the banks whose products they rated.
But again, we have a system with an astounding track record of safety and great prices too. It's what we use for commercial airlines.
But again, we have a system with an astounding track record of safety and great prices too. It's what we use for commercial airlines.
This line of thought comes up in every time this subject comes up. I'm genuinely curious where you would draw the line:
0. is it ok to fly for compensation if you have a commercial pilot license? (The FAA draws the line here.)
1. is it ok to fly for compensation if you have a private pilot license?
2. is it ok to fly for compensation if you have a recreational pilot license?
3. is it ok to fly for compensation if you have a light sport pilot license?
4. is it ok to fly for compensation if you have a student pilot certificate?
5. is it ok to fly for compensation if you don't have a pilot license?
0. is it ok to fly for compensation if you have a commercial pilot license? (The FAA draws the line here.)
1. is it ok to fly for compensation if you have a private pilot license?
2. is it ok to fly for compensation if you have a recreational pilot license?
3. is it ok to fly for compensation if you have a light sport pilot license?
4. is it ok to fly for compensation if you have a student pilot certificate?
5. is it ok to fly for compensation if you don't have a pilot license?
Because it wasn't in compliance with the law, they were using personal aircraft licenses for commercial purposes. The standards for those two things are vastly different.
"Consenting adults"? If the government lets you only have a portion of their money "how it views taxes" why wouldn't they let you only keep a portion of your Liberty "how it views regulating consenting adult activities"?
[deleted]
They weren't "innovating". They were trying to run an air taxi service without meeting the pilot training requirements and aircraft equipment safety requirements for carrying passengers. Private pilots should not be carrying passengers for money - the accident rates at the low end of general aviation are too high.
(Never go flying to a destination with someone who isn't IFR qualified. The weather can always change.)
This was on YC a few days ago, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10769333