Breath of Fresh Air from the FSDO

[Roger Long]

I decided to get our local FSDO's take on the flight compensation issue
since so many of these things vary in interpretation from district to
district.

I spoke with someone who said, in response to some of the points kicked
around in the Cost sharing - reimbursement - flight for hire mess thread
below, "That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Where did you get
that?' He then took me through the regulations and pointed out that it
doesn't say that stuff anywhere.

About 20 minutes later, he called back and said he'd done some research and
talked to some other people and I was right. However, he said they thinks
Washington is being silly and assured me that they would never violate
anyone on things like logging unpaid time. They have much more important
things to do.

His advice: Go fly, have fun, don't worry, follow the regs as written.

I guess most of you guys who responded similarly were right.

These technicalities only appear to be pulled out when the find someone
making a while mini industry out of bending a regulation for significant
gain.

Thanks guys, I feel a lot better and we'll probably drop the flight rule
thing.

--
Roger Long

[Jay Honeck]

> His advice: Go fly, have fun, don't worry, follow the regs as written.

For those of us who didn't follow that thread till the bitter end, Roger,
can you sum up what this statement means?

What's the bottom line?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Don Tuite]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:56:10 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:


>What's the bottom line?

Gotcha!.

Don

[Hilton]

Roger Long wrote:
> However, he said they thinks
> Washington is being silly and assured me that they would never violate
> anyone on things like logging unpaid time. They have much more important
> things to do.

The FSDO continue to amaze me. IMHO, the FSDO should not make regulatory
decision or FAR interpretations.

Anyway, in a memo dated May 1982 from Bernard Geier, Chief, General Aviation
and Commercial Division, to Chief, Flight Standards Division, Bernard Geier
noted that a private pilot may not serve as pilot in command of such an
operation [towing gliders] even when he/she elects to forego actual monetary
compensation for service as pilot in command since, as stated, the private
pilot is rendering his/her services to build (flight) time. This act,
within itself, constitutes an operation for gain or advantage, other than
for transportation alone. As such, it would be considered an operation for
compensation or hire.

The FAA has 'punished' pilots for logging such time.

Hilton

[Hilton]

Hilton wrote:
> operation [towing gliders] even when he/she elects to forego actual
monetary

FWIW: The "towing gliders" issues was resolved with 61.113(g). However, the
"logging time is compensation" issue remains valid.

Hilton

[Roger Long]

Here's how I think it works:

Bear in mind that the FSDO's have a lot of discretion and individual
priorities. We've all heard the horror stories but I've been working with
transportation regulators for over a quarter century and the FSDO crew in
our district are the most reasonable and helpful I've ever encountered.

A FSDO learns that a pilot has set up a mini industry bending a rule to the
max. It's probably somebody they have other reservations about and are
looking for a way to shut down. They bust him. In the subsequent legal
flap, both sides stretch every interpretation and fact as far as they can.
Out of this comes something like the FAA Counsel's opinion that free logged
flight time is compensation. This, in absence of someone else coming along
and spending a lot of time and money fighting it, then becomes technically
part of the regulations.

AOPA then gets a hold of it and, when asked what does a pilot has to do to
be sure of being 100% legal, points it out. Flying club maintenance officer
then reviews this material and thinks. "Oh my God, if one of us does this,
our member will shrivel, our nose strut will go flat, and our insurance won'
t pay out if there is an accident."

The FSDO was telling me that they go by the rules as written. The extended
and stretched interpretations aren't on their radar screen. If fact, the
fellow I spoke to had never even heard about the logging rule. Even if they
become aware of one of these technical violations, they aren't going to
invest any time in it by starting an action. At most, they'll just say,
"You really shouldn't do that, be careful." They are overworked.

If however, you are making significant money or financing your time building
with a convoluted scheme based on stretching the rules to the limit, they
may use one of the technicalities to shut you down. They need a good reason
to look beyond what is clearly written in the FAR's because it makes for a
tough and time consuming case to pursue. They look bad when they start
something they can't win.

On the other hand, there are the occasional rogue inspectors we've all heard
about who try to make a name for themselves as a gunslinger or start a
personal vendetta against a particular pilot. Violation of something like
the free time logging could let them get their hooks into you. If there is
someone like that in your district, or you think you are otherwise in the
crosshairs, it's probably worth getting the AOPA stuff and staying squeaky
clean.

If a friend asks you to fly his plane back from somewhere and doesn't pay
you anything other than for any direct expenses you incur, the FAA isn't
going to bother with it unless they have some other agenda, legitimate or
otherwise. It that case, they'll probably get you some other way.

However, if it comes to their attention that you racked up 300 hours last
year moving "friends" planes around, and are doing for people all over the
state, they are going to reasonably suspect that you've got something going
on the side and pull this little rabbit out of the hat to shut you down.

--
Roger Long
Jay Honeck > wrote in message
news:ef1lb.832451$Ho3.239473@sccrnsc03...
> > His advice: Go fly, have fun, don't worry, follow the regs as written.
>
> For those of us who didn't follow that thread till the bitter end, Roger,
> can you sum up what this statement means?
>
> What's the bottom line?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Todd Pattist]

"Hilton" > wrote:

>FWIW: The "towing gliders" issues was resolved with 61.113(g). However, the
>"logging time is compensation" issue remains valid.

Interestingly, the "towing gliders" issue was supposed to be
resolved in 61.113(g) by allowing the logging of time (which
is compensation under the existing interpretation).
However, the rewrite was screwed up and they ended up
making a blanket exception for towing gliders whereby *all*
types of compensation are permitted. IOW, a private pilot
can tow gliders and be paid $$$$ for that towing as well as
logging the time because of the blanket exception to the
non-compensation rules.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Jay Honeck]

Thanks for the synopsis, Roger.

> The FSDO was telling me that they go by the rules as written. The
extended
> and stretched interpretations aren't on their radar screen. If fact, the
> fellow I spoke to had never even heard about the logging rule. Even if
they
> become aware of one of these technical violations, they aren't going to
> invest any time in it by starting an action. At most, they'll just say,
> "You really shouldn't do that, be careful." They are overworked.

One thing I've never quite figured out: What, exactly, does a FSDO *do* all
day long, that keeps them "overworked"?

I suppose there are routine inspections and the like to keep them busy, but
I have no idea what a FSDO actually does. Other than ramp checks and field
approvals, what goes on in those cubicles?

Can anyone here give us a "day in the life" at a FSDO?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> Here's how I think it works:
>
> Bear in mind that the FSDO's have a lot of discretion and individual
> priorities. We've all heard the horror stories but I've been working with
> transportation regulators for over a quarter century and the FSDO crew in
> our district are the most reasonable and helpful I've ever encountered.
>
> A FSDO learns that a pilot has set up a mini industry bending a rule to
the
> max. It's probably somebody they have other reservations about and are
> looking for a way to shut down. They bust him. In the subsequent legal
> flap, both sides stretch every interpretation and fact as far as they can.
> Out of this comes something like the FAA Counsel's opinion that free
logged
> flight time is compensation. This, in absence of someone else coming
along
> and spending a lot of time and money fighting it, then becomes technically
> part of the regulations.
>
> AOPA then gets a hold of it and, when asked what does a pilot has to do to
> be sure of being 100% legal, points it out. Flying club maintenance
officer
> then reviews this material and thinks. "Oh my God, if one of us does this,
> our member will shrivel, our nose strut will go flat, and our insurance
won'
> t pay out if there is an accident."
>
>
> If however, you are making significant money or financing your time
building
> with a convoluted scheme based on stretching the rules to the limit, they
> may use one of the technicalities to shut you down. They need a good
reason
> to look beyond what is clearly written in the FAR's because it makes for a
> tough and time consuming case to pursue. They look bad when they start
> something they can't win.
>
> On the other hand, there are the occasional rogue inspectors we've all
heard
> about who try to make a name for themselves as a gunslinger or start a
> personal vendetta against a particular pilot. Violation of something like
> the free time logging could let them get their hooks into you. If there
is
> someone like that in your district, or you think you are otherwise in the
> crosshairs, it's probably worth getting the AOPA stuff and staying squeaky
> clean.
>
> If a friend asks you to fly his plane back from somewhere and doesn't pay
> you anything other than for any direct expenses you incur, the FAA isn't
> going to bother with it unless they have some other agenda, legitimate or
> otherwise. It that case, they'll probably get you some other way.
>
> However, if it comes to their attention that you racked up 300 hours last
> year moving "friends" planes around, and are doing for people all over the
> state, they are going to reasonably suspect that you've got something
going
> on the side and pull this little rabbit out of the hat to shut you down.
>
> --
> Roger Long
> Jay Honeck > wrote in message
> news:ef1lb.832451$Ho3.239473@sccrnsc03...
> > > His advice: Go fly, have fun, don't worry, follow the regs as
written.
> >
> > For those of us who didn't follow that thread till the bitter end,
Roger,
> > can you sum up what this statement means?
> >
> > What's the bottom line?
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993
> > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
> >
> >
>
>

[Roger Long]

Remember, they have to be lunch room monitor to the airlines and the charter
operators as well.

You think there are some shysters and rule benders in GA......

My impression from what I've heard when I've been in the FSDO is that they
are mostly focused on heading off the really big news stories.
--
Roger Long

>
> I suppose there are routine inspections and the like to keep them busy,
but
> I have no idea what a FSDO actually does. Other than ramp checks and
field
> approvals, what goes on in those cubicles?
>
> Can anyone here give us a "day in the life" at a FSDO?

[Newps]

Roger Long wrote:

> My impression from what I've heard when I've been in the FSDO is that they
> are mostly focused on heading off the really big news stories.
> --

Exactly. To think that a FSDO could give a rats ass if you are logging
time while giving your buddy a ride to somewhere boggles the mind.

[Jim]

I was just at the MKE FSDO last week. From what I can tell, most of the
inspectors aren't in the office most the time. They seem to be out working
with the certificate holders and new certificate applicants making sure all
the "i"s are dotted and "t"s are crossed. One local 135 applicant has been
working on his operating manual for over a year and a half. The inspectors
handling it have been flying back and forth several times a month with
re-write demands and inspections.

The inspector that gave me my CFI ride does a lot of part 121 rides so she's
hardly ever in the office.

The inspector that wrote my IGI certificate mentioned that he doesn't do it
very often so he went to confer with their 141 specialist.

They always complain about their budget's getting cut and thus not haveing
any money to do the General Aviation Safety Seminars or FSDO "Road Shows",
the MKE Safety Specialist hasn't been able to put on any seminars lately.

Just my general observation but it seems like they specialize in different
areas.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

[Bob Noel]

In article <uFalb.832970$YN5.918245@sccrnsc01>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> One thing I've never quite figured out: What, exactly, does a FSDO *do*
> all
> day long, that keeps them "overworked"?
>
> I suppose there are routine inspections and the like to keep them busy,
> but
> I have no idea what a FSDO actually does. Other than ramp checks and
> field
> approvals, what goes on in those cubicles?
>
> Can anyone here give us a "day in the life" at a FSDO?

fwiw - I spent a lot of time on the phone with a couple of
different guys at the FSDO discussing STCs and other changes
to my aircraft. This was in addition to my A&P guys talking
to the FSDO. This was just putting in 6 different STCs on
my cherokee 140 during the engine overhaul while removing
some of the air conditioning parts.

--
Bob Noel

[BTIZ]

there were many issues like this in glider "clubs" where private pilot tow
pilots were deemed "Compensated" for the free time the logged while towing
for the club. They were not paying for hours flown on the tow plane, and
they did not receive any monetary compensation for "services", just hours in
the log book.

This was looked at by Soaring Society of America and FAA and the FAR61.69
was changed to specify "private pilot". Many Commercial glider operations
for insurance coverage purposes do require their tow pilots to hold a
Commercial Pilot Certificate for Airplane.

BT
"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> Here's how I think it works:
>
> Bear in mind that the FSDO's have a lot of discretion and individual
> priorities. We've all heard the horror stories but I've been working with
> transportation regulators for over a quarter century and the FSDO crew in
> our district are the most reasonable and helpful I've ever encountered.
>
> A FSDO learns that a pilot has set up a mini industry bending a rule to
the
> max. It's probably somebody they have other reservations about and are
> looking for a way to shut down. They bust him. In the subsequent legal
> flap, both sides stretch every interpretation and fact as far as they can.
> Out of this comes something like the FAA Counsel's opinion that free
logged
> flight time is compensation. This, in absence of someone else coming
along
> and spending a lot of time and money fighting it, then becomes technically
> part of the regulations.
>
> AOPA then gets a hold of it and, when asked what does a pilot has to do to
> be sure of being 100% legal, points it out. Flying club maintenance
officer
> then reviews this material and thinks. "Oh my God, if one of us does this,
> our member will shrivel, our nose strut will go flat, and our insurance
won'
> t pay out if there is an accident."
>
> The FSDO was telling me that they go by the rules as written. The
extended
> and stretched interpretations aren't on their radar screen. If fact, the
> fellow I spoke to had never even heard about the logging rule. Even if
they
> become aware of one of these technical violations, they aren't going to
> invest any time in it by starting an action. At most, they'll just say,
> "You really shouldn't do that, be careful." They are overworked.
>
> If however, you are making significant money or financing your time
building
> with a convoluted scheme based on stretching the rules to the limit, they
> may use one of the technicalities to shut you down. They need a good
reason
> to look beyond what is clearly written in the FAR's because it makes for a
> tough and time consuming case to pursue. They look bad when they start
> something they can't win.
>
> On the other hand, there are the occasional rogue inspectors we've all
heard
> about who try to make a name for themselves as a gunslinger or start a
> personal vendetta against a particular pilot. Violation of something like
> the free time logging could let them get their hooks into you. If there
is
> someone like that in your district, or you think you are otherwise in the
> crosshairs, it's probably worth getting the AOPA stuff and staying squeaky
> clean.
>
> If a friend asks you to fly his plane back from somewhere and doesn't pay
> you anything other than for any direct expenses you incur, the FAA isn't
> going to bother with it unless they have some other agenda, legitimate or
> otherwise. It that case, they'll probably get you some other way.
>
> However, if it comes to their attention that you racked up 300 hours last
> year moving "friends" planes around, and are doing for people all over the
> state, they are going to reasonably suspect that you've got something
going
> on the side and pull this little rabbit out of the hat to shut you down.
>
> --
> Roger Long
> Jay Honeck > wrote in message
> news:ef1lb.832451$Ho3.239473@sccrnsc03...
> > > His advice: Go fly, have fun, don't worry, follow the regs as
written.
> >
> > For those of us who didn't follow that thread till the bitter end,
Roger,
> > can you sum up what this statement means?
> >
> > What's the bottom line?
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993
> > www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
> >
> >
>
>