[kj65557]

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.

[ryanwaggoner]

Pilot here. The FAA is overly bureaucratic in some ways, but the safety record of modern commercial air travel is incredible, and that bureaucracy is partly responsible.

More to the point, there’s not enough information here to assess whether the FAA is overreacting, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt over an anonymous, newly-registered probable-sockpuppet account any day.

[dang]

> an anonymous, newly-registered probable-sockpuppet account any day

Attacking another user like that is explicitly against HN's rules, and we ban accounts that do it. What kind of community are we if we insult new commenters just because we don't agree with what they say? Please don't do it again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[kj65557]

> 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.

[biocomputation]

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

Using the word 'sock puppet' implies that you are speaking for someone else and that you might have a hidden agenda. Thus, your tenure on HN is indeed relevant in this case.

[dang]

People have a right to create accounts to join in on discussion here without being accused of sinister shillage—the tiredest internet trope of them all. Pulling such accusations out of thin air (let alone some more internal place) is absolutely not ok here.

[kj65557]

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.

[hodgesrm]

Let's see. 2017 was the fourth year in a row in which the US had 0 fatalities in commercial airline accidents. Seems like the FAA gets the benefit of the doubt here.

[hodgesrm]

p.s., forgot the citation: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-aviation-safety-201801...

[philipwhiuk]

> 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.

They are the regulator. They have the power to put in place temporary measures. Much like police can confiscate your driving license.

Sorry but I don't want my house squashed by a TapJet plane because the pilot got ill and the student pilot had no clue how to land the plane.

[kj65557]

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.

[dweekly]

A few thoughts here, responding to a comment where nearly all of the facts stated are wrong and/or ignorant.

Caveat 1: I'm not an aviation lawyer, or indeed licensed to practice law of any kind. Caveat 2: I am a licensed rotorcraft PPL, certified to fly helicopters non-commercially so I have a marginal amount of study of the FAR/AIM.

Now, some background. There are three primary ways to accomplish a flight:

A) Part 91 of the FAR covers non-commercial flights. This includes pleasure flights, such as private aviation, and flight schools. Unless a friend is giving you a ride in their plane (in which case you're only allowed legally to pay your pro-rata portion of flight costs) or if you're a student pilot (in which case your co-pilot must be performing flight instruction and be a Certified Flight Instructor with their Commercial license) you probably have never flown a Part 91 flight. There's really no way that TapJets could have been operating under Part 91: it's not a flight school and it is being run as a commercial operation.

B) Part 135 (not "part 131" in parent comment) covers air taxi / charter operations that are performed on an ad-hoc / on-demand basis. The bar for such flights is much higher than Part 91 flights. Pilots must not only have their commercial certification (250 hours of flight experience for fixed-wing) but also are subject to further training and the craft and overall operations are subject to a higher bar of scrutiny. This is sane: if you pay a commercial provider to ferry you from one place to the next, you have a reasonable expectation of safety.

C) Part 121 "air carrier" operations with regularly scheduled commercial flights. If you've purchased a plane ticket on a carrier (think: United, Delta, American, Southwest, etc) the flight you were on was almost certainly a Part 121 flight. These flights are subject to the highest scrutiny since they have the highest assumed customer safety. Pilots are held to an incredibly high bar, the Airline Transport Pilot level of certification, requiring a minimum of 1500 hours of flight experience. This also makes sense: if you're buying a regular plane ticket on, say, Hipmunk, your assumption is that your flight will be professionally and safely flown.

Now to address the specific commentary:

1) That's correct that if a private pilot is flying their friends and family who are not paying anything for a flight, that is a lawful Part 91 flight. I'm 99% confident this is not the service TapJets is offering.

2) Most commercial planes are not currently certified for single-pilot operations. There has been specific successful effort to do so for Very Light Jets but I would be surprised if TapJets was flying any Single-Pilot IFR certified aircraft. (Happy to learn more here if this guess is wrong.)

3) The FAA's legal jurisdiction is to secure and make safe the navigable airspace of the United States of America. They have full regulatory jurisdiction to make calls on what constitutes safe flight or not and to enforce such rules, as provided by Congress. They are not required to first successfully pursue a civil or criminal trial against an individual or organization in order to enforce regulatory code. In this case it would appear that a Part 135 licensed operator was performing flights outside of Part 135 requirements and has had their Part 135 certification revoked. TapJets "stating" that they conform to Part 135 is not sufficient; the FAA appears to have solid evidence that they have not.

For better or for worse, flight operations in the US are considered a privilege and not a right and Congress has given the FAA permission to regulate things that fly in the navigable airspace. (See US v Causby to begin going down a rabbit hole of the still not-very-well-defined notion of what constitutes "navigable airspace" but it certainly extends at least from 400 feet above ground everywhere over US territory to the edge of space.)

You may be annoyed at FAA regulation but their partnership with the NTSB investigating and remediating every aircraft accident has led to a truly astounding level of safety: ~0.07 fatalities per billion passenger miles. You're more likely to die on a bus, and buses are pretty safe. And compare with 212 fatalities per billion passenger miles on a motorcycle. Eep! [source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073988591... ]

So all that burdensome regulation has produced cheap, plentiful, inarguably safe air transit.

I think the FAA is doing just a fine job.

[kj65557]

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.

[biocomputation]

> I see your point but a perfect safety record doesn't preclude overreacting to fairly minor infractions.

But is it overreacting?

All systems of regulations are imperfect, but FAA regulations are the product of decades of work by very, very smart people. As a whole, FAA regulations are hugely concerned with what seem like 'minor infractions' because 'minor infractions' are often enough to start a chain of events that leads to major accidents. This is especially true as experience increases because experienced people are so much less likely to make major mistakes that they have to be concerned with the small chinks in the armor of safety.

[kj65557]

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.

[philipwhiuk]

A plane without a qualified pilot is ipso facto unsafe.

[kj65557]

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.