opinion of the "Aviation Empowerment Act" (Uber for planes)

[dead0man]

For Private pilots to keep their license good they have to do 3 take offs (and landings! ) every 90 days.  It's very expensive to fly, and not all pilots are rich.  In the "good ol' days" they would post on bulletin boards (real ones) when and where they were planning on going and other pilots or just regular folk would tag along and help cover costs.

Then the internet came along and they started posting their trips on the internet.  Well, the airlines weren't keen on that and used the FAA and the courts to shut down all the apps.  This law hopes to fix that.  Europeans enjoy this freedom, we should too.

link to the act

a pilots organizations take

[Goldwater]

I see no issue with it.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Sounds great, though if it becomes cheap, it could really clog up airports with polluting small planes rather than the low-emission-per-passenger a380s of the world.

[Santander]

I have a commercial pilot license, meaning I can legally fly passengers for hire. You only need 200 hours of experience to get such license, and you don't need to get expensive IFR or multi-engine endorsements if you don't want to. Flying is extremely dangerous for infrequent pilots, especially those who own their own planes. Anyone who is serious about flying people around for hire would get their commercial and do it full-time, and anyone who isn't is nowhere near safe enough to be flying people around for hire. The only exception I might make is to experienced (1000+ hours on type) ex-commercial pilots who have given up their first/second-class medical certificate and maintain only a third-class medical certificate to fly for hire on a limited basis, but that is such a narrow niche that it really is unnecessary.

If you want to fly for free in the US, join the Civil Air Patrol or a non-profit that will give you some hours in exchange for your volunteer work. Nobody forced you to get into the hobby. Anyway, it's not that expensive to go to a local flying club once a quarter, rent a plane, and stay current - $150/hr wet for 2 hours, 4 times a year is only $1200 - not a terribly expensive hobby.

[MasterJedi]

I have a commercial pilot license, meaning I can legally fly passengers for hire. You only need 200 hours of experience to get such license, and you don't need to get expensive IFR or multi-engine endorsements if you don't want to. Flying is extremely dangerous for infrequent pilots, especially those who own their own planes. Anyone who is serious about flying people around for hire would get their commercial and do it full-time, and anyone who isn't is nowhere near safe enough to be flying people around for hire. The only exception I might make is to experienced (1000+ hours on type) ex-commercial pilots who have given up their first/second-class medical certificate and maintain only a third-class medical certificate to fly for hire on a limited basis, but that is such a narrow niche that it really is unnecessary.

If you want to fly for free in the US, join the Civil Air Patrol or a non-profit that will give you some hours in exchange for your volunteer work. Nobody forced you to get into the hobby. Anyway, it's not that expensive to go to a local flying club once a quarter, rent a plane, and stay current - $150/hr wet for 2 hours, 4 times a year is only $1200 - not a terribly expensive hobby.

God bless any soul that chooses to ride with you.

[StateBoiler]

I have a commercial pilot license, meaning I can legally fly passengers for hire. You only need 200 hours of experience to get such license, and you don't need to get expensive IFR or multi-engine endorsements if you don't want to. Flying is extremely dangerous for infrequent pilots, especially those who own their own planes. Anyone who is serious about flying people around for hire would get their commercial and do it full-time, and anyone who isn't is nowhere near safe enough to be flying people around for hire. The only exception I might make is to experienced (1000+ hours on type) ex-commercial pilots who have given up their first/second-class medical certificate and maintain only a third-class medical certificate to fly for hire on a limited basis, but that is such a narrow niche that it really is unnecessary.

Was about to post this. There is a commercial license out there already on offer you're required to have. I don't understand the point of this bill to be honest unless its goal is to eliminate the commercial license.

I disagree with "Flying is extremely dangerous for infrequent pilots, especially those who own their own planes. Anyone who is serious about flying people around for hire would get their commercial and do it full-time, and anyone who isn't is nowhere near safe enough to be flying people around for hire." My dad used to fly a J-3 Cub, now flys an Aviat Husky, and does annual inspections as side money for a lot of people (he's not shadetree mechanic, he did maintenance on military aircraft his entire working life). Flying a private plane is absolutely safer than driving a car. That's because aircraft maintenance, piloting, and "roadway/runway practices" requires a much higher standard of quality.

Really to do any sort of commercial flying where you have passengers and want to make money would require larger than a 4-seater to be profitable. A Cessna 172 for example shouldn't run with 4 people and a full tank of gas, you have to do one or the other. At the smallest and be profitable, you'd probably need a Bonanza is my guess.

Sounds great, though if it becomes cheap, it could really clog up airports with polluting small planes rather than the low-emission-per-passenger a380s of the world.

It wouldn't make sense to go to those airports. You would instead go to a smaller landing strip and not have to deal with jetliners. Not to mention, most of those airports require transponders, which most aircraft don't have or need.

[Santander]

I disagree with "Flying is extremely dangerous for infrequent pilots, especially those who own their own planes. Anyone who is serious about flying people around for hire would get their commercial and do it full-time, and anyone who isn't is nowhere near safe enough to be flying people around for hire." My dad used to fly a J-3 Cub, now flys an Aviat Husky, and does annual inspections as side money for a lot of people (he's not shadetree mechanic, he did maintenance on military aircraft his entire working life). Flying a private plane is absolutely safer than driving a car. That's because aircraft maintenance, piloting, and "roadway/runway practices" requires a much higher standard of quality.

It's not about the planes, it's about the pilots. There's a reason single-engine planes are called "doctor killers", because infrequent and inexperienced pilots are a very risky demographic. It is a bit safer if you rent a plane from a flying club and have to follow their flight planning/safety standards, but owners/part-owners who fly less than 25 hours a year are very dangerous.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Freedom Act. Would disrupt an industry that increasingly just sees its customers as money bags and tries to cram as many aboard a plane as possible.

Also would be nice to get a direct flight to wherever I want to go instead of having to get connecting flights to the nearest airport with commercial service.

[StateBoiler]

Freedom Act. Would disrupt an industry that increasingly just sees its customers as money bags and tries to cram as many aboard a plane as possible.

Also would be nice to get a direct flight to wherever I want to go instead of having to get connecting flights to the nearest airport with commercial service.

You can do that now, it's called a charter flight.