Inc.

AirPooler sponsors a website that connects pilots and passengers to save money over commercial fares with pilots saving money on the operation of their aircraft. Before the founders of AirPooler set up this program, they would have been well-advised to have conducted some basic research. This is not the first time a scheme of this nature has been attempted.

The case of Administrator v. Fulop, 6 NTSB 298, NTSB Order No. EA-2730, 1988 WL 250619 (N.T.S.B.) [the “Fulop case”] confirms that the NTSB does not apply a standard of strict liability against pilots in cases involving allegations of illegal air taxi operations. Even if the pilot’s recitation of the facts portrays him as being naïve about the underlying economics of the flights, still, the pilot is given the benefit of the doubt in that regard. This article will discuss the Fulop case and the lessons we can draw from that decision.

Flight department companies are routinely employed as subsidiaries of parent corporations or holding companies. These flight department companies, financed by the parent corporations or holding companies, own, operate and maintain aircraft, employ the flight crew, and provide air transportation to employees and guests of parent and subsidiary corporations. These operations are typically conducted under Part 91 of the Federal Avia- tion Regulations (FARs) without an air carrier certificate.

On August 3, 2012, the President signed into law the Pilots’ Bill of Rights as Public Law 112-153 (the “PBR” or “Act”). Now that the PBR has become law, it is appropriate to look forward and speculate about the extent to which the Act will have any impact on precedent decided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) allowing the FAA to withhold certain portions of the Enforcement Investigative Report (“EIR”).