"Rescue" flight, PPL

[Joe Johnson]

Last week, as I returned to my rental FBO after an evening local flight, the
clerk on duty said an instructor and his student were stuck at an airport
about 40 minutes away. I spoke to the instructor on the phone and I agreed
to fly up and bring them back. He mentioned that, of course, I wouldn't
have to pay for the aircraft time. Did I violate the terms of my PPL by
accepting free time in the airplane as "compensation" for picking them up
and bringing them back? Should I therefore have paid a proportional share
of the costs?

[tony roberts]

As I understand it you are not allowed to make a profit from the flight.
I'm not aware of any restriction that prevents you from accepting the
free use of an aircraft - and if it was an issue re sharing you could
have made the instructor PIC on the return leg.
That's how it would work in Canada.
In the US? I'll leave someone else to address that one.

Tony
--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE


In article >,
"Joe Johnson" > wrote:

> Last week, as I returned to my rental FBO after an evening local flight, the
> clerk on duty said an instructor and his student were stuck at an airport
> about 40 minutes away. I spoke to the instructor on the phone and I agreed
> to fly up and bring them back. He mentioned that, of course, I wouldn't
> have to pay for the aircraft time. Did I violate the terms of my PPL by
> accepting free time in the airplane as "compensation" for picking them up
> and bringing them back? Should I therefore have paid a proportional share
> of the costs?

[Peter Gottlieb]

I've done that for people (and instructors) with the understanding that they
would recriprocate should I ever be in that situation. People being
friendly and helping each other out.

Besides, there is a "cost" to me, the opportunity cost of my time.

Don't make a habit of it, though.


"Joe Johnson" > wrote in message
m...
> Last week, as I returned to my rental FBO after an evening local flight,
> the
> clerk on duty said an instructor and his student were stuck at an airport
> about 40 minutes away. I spoke to the instructor on the phone and I
> agreed
> to fly up and bring them back. He mentioned that, of course, I wouldn't
> have to pay for the aircraft time. Did I violate the terms of my PPL by
> accepting free time in the airplane as "compensation" for picking them up
> and bringing them back? Should I therefore have paid a proportional share
> of the costs?
>
>

[Roger Long]

Yes, you were bad. You broke the rules and the FAA could suspend your
license. I've seen the opinion letter.

I went round and round on this since our club doesn't make members pay when
they move the plane for maintenance.
I called up our local FSDO and asked if this kind of thing was a violation.
They said, "Of course not, that's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
Who told you that?"

I faxed them a copy of the FAA counsel's opinion letter and they called back
to say sheepishly that I was right. However they said that they have far
too much to do to ever worry about something like that.

Here's how it works in the real world:

You aren't going to get in trouble doing things like moving planes for
friends in the normal course of flying. However, if the FAA finds out that
you have "friends" all over the region and are racking up 20 - 40 hours of
free flight time moving planes while building time for your commercial
license, they may use the regulation to shut you down.

They may also use something like this that you did only once or twice if
they want to yank your chain for some other reason. For example, if they
are pretty sure that you are the guy who flew under the bridge last week and
can't prove it.

--

Roger Long



"Joe Johnson" > wrote in message
m...
> Last week, as I returned to my rental FBO after an evening local flight,
the
> clerk on duty said an instructor and his student were stuck at an airport
> about 40 minutes away. I spoke to the instructor on the phone and I
agreed
> to fly up and bring them back. He mentioned that, of course, I wouldn't
> have to pay for the aircraft time. Did I violate the terms of my PPL by
> accepting free time in the airplane as "compensation" for picking them up
> and bringing them back? Should I therefore have paid a proportional share
> of the costs?
>
>

[James M. Knox]

Roger gave you the correct answer. Yes, technically they could claim it
was "compensation" and come after you. Should you have let that stop
you? No... I would have done it, and I suspect most all of us on this
list would have also - without a second thought.

You were just "helping out" and I would hate to live where we were all
so terrified of big brother that we were afraid to give a friend a lift
to pick up his plane, or help out some folks stuck away from home.
Should you worry about a letter from the FAA for this - absolutely not.

So where *does* the rare action come from? It usually comes from
repeated actions, where someone has a vested interest in stopping you
from doing it. One of the cases on the books is glider tow, where the
company operating the aircraft will exchange free flight time if one of
the pilots who is also power rated and checked out will work a couple of
hours of tow first. [Nothing wrong with a bunch of glider pilots simply
trading off who tows whom. This is a different situation.]

Here the private pilot is getting free flight time in exchange for
flying duties. Yes, it's done all the time, so why this action? Well,
it COULD have simply come to the attention of some FAA type hanging
around. But more likely a commercial tow pilot who couldn't get enough
work dropped a dime on the FBO.

[Bill Denton]

Let's restate the problem so we can see some absurdities and discover why
lawyers have more money than the rest of us...

It is illegal in our hypothetical state to carry passengers in a motor
vehicle for compensation unless one has a chauffeur's license or a
commercial driver's license.

My girlfriend calls me and tells me her car has broken down. She asks me to
come pick her up.

I am otherwise occupied, so I ask my neighbor for assistance.

My neighbor does not own a car. Normally, he rents or borrows one when he
needs a car.

My neighbor doesn't have a chauffeur's license or a commercial driver's
license; he only has an ordinary driver's license.

I ask my neighbor if he will take my car and go pick up my girlfriend.

Is my neighbor's usage of my car "compensation", placing him in violation of
the licensing laws?



"Joe Johnson" > wrote in message
m...
> Last week, as I returned to my rental FBO after an evening local flight,
the
> clerk on duty said an instructor and his student were stuck at an airport
> about 40 minutes away. I spoke to the instructor on the phone and I
agreed
> to fly up and bring them back. He mentioned that, of course, I wouldn't
> have to pay for the aircraft time. Did I violate the terms of my PPL by
> accepting free time in the airplane as "compensation" for picking them up
> and bringing them back? Should I therefore have paid a proportional share
> of the costs?
>
>

[Dave S]

Is your neighbor logging the driving time in his logbook for the
furtherance of a commercial drivers license??

<ducking>
Dave

Bill Denton wrote:
> Let's restate the problem so we can see some absurdities and discover why
> lawyers have more money than the rest of us...
>
> It is illegal in our hypothetical state to carry passengers in a motor
> vehicle for compensation unless one has a chauffeur's license or a
> commercial driver's license.
>
> My girlfriend calls me and tells me her car has broken down. She asks me to
> come pick her up.
>
> I am otherwise occupied, so I ask my neighbor for assistance.
>
> My neighbor does not own a car. Normally, he rents or borrows one when he
> needs a car.
>
> My neighbor doesn't have a chauffeur's license or a commercial driver's
> license; he only has an ordinary driver's license.
>
> I ask my neighbor if he will take my car and go pick up my girlfriend.
>
> Is my neighbor's usage of my car "compensation", placing him in violation of
> the licensing laws?
>
>
>
> "Joe Johnson" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>Last week, as I returned to my rental FBO after an evening local flight,
>
> the
>
>>clerk on duty said an instructor and his student were stuck at an airport
>>about 40 minutes away. I spoke to the instructor on the phone and I
>
> agreed
>
>>to fly up and bring them back. He mentioned that, of course, I wouldn't
>>have to pay for the aircraft time. Did I violate the terms of my PPL by
>>accepting free time in the airplane as "compensation" for picking them up
>>and bringing them back? Should I therefore have paid a proportional share
>>of the costs?
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

James M. Knox wrote:

> Roger gave you the correct answer.

Hey, Roger: Any change that you could provide a reference to that letter
(ie. a place online from which I could print this out)? It's something I
think my club should see.

[...]
> So where *does* the rare action come from?

What about a case where an accident occurs during the "free" flight? Could
an insurance company use this to create additional problems?

- Andrew

[Newps]

Dave S wrote:

> Is your neighbor logging the driving time in his logbook for the
> furtherance of a commercial drivers license??

At the point where the needed hours are logged and any further hours
don't help in that regard does it suddenly get legal?

[C J Campbell]

Free flying time is compensation. You broke the rules. Don't do it any more.

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> Hey, Roger: Any change that you could provide a reference to that letter
> (ie. a place online from which I could print this out)? It's something I
> think my club should see.

Whhat Andrew said! I would really like a copy of this.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/2004

[Ash Wyllie]

Joe Johnson opined

>Last week, as I returned to my rental FBO after an evening local flight, the
>clerk on duty said an instructor and his student were stuck at an airport
>about 40 minutes away. I spoke to the instructor on the phone and I agreed
>to fly up and bring them back. He mentioned that, of course, I wouldn't
>have to pay for the aircraft time. Did I violate the terms of my PPL by
>accepting free time in the airplane as "compensation" for picking them up
>and bringing them back? Should I therefore have paid a proportional share
>of the costs?

You broke the rules.

A good quick test: Unless you are worse off financially after a flight, you
are doing something wrong.



-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[Dale]

In article . net>,
"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote:


> Whhat Andrew said! I would really like a copy of this.

Yeah, I'd like to see this letter also. I can't believe this guy was in
violation. If he was then anyone who uses a friends airplane would be
just as "guilty".

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dave S wrote:
>
>> Is your neighbor logging the driving time in his logbook for the
>> furtherance of a commercial drivers license??
>
> At the point where the needed hours are logged and any further hours don't
> help in that regard does it suddenly get legal?
>

I've pondered the same question. What is legal is a grey area and I think
the question is whether the FAA would try to prosecute under those
circumstances when you have the strong argument that the "free" time has no
commercial value to you. Perhaps if you *really* annoyed someone there they
would go after you but normally I would suspect something like this is well
under their radar.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
>
> A good quick test: Unless you are worse off financially after a flight,
> you
> are doing something wrong.
>

I know you meant this part humorously, but this cannot be right, since you
are allowed to fly "in furtherance of your business," which would leave you
financially ahead.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bill Denton wrote:
>
> Is my neighbor's usage of my car "compensation", placing him in violation of
> the licensing laws?

If your hypothetical State requires a certain number of hours driving cars like yours
to qualify for a chaffeur's license, yes.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Andrew Gideon]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Dave S wrote:
>>
>>> Is your neighbor logging the driving time in his logbook for the
>>> furtherance of a commercial drivers license??
>>
>> At the point where the needed hours are logged and any further hours
>> don't help in that regard does it suddenly get legal?
>>
>
> I've pondered the same question.

Using this reasoning, simply not logging the hours - or otherwise not
counting them towards anything - would convert this from illegal to legal.
Weird...but this is the FAA under discussion, recall <laugh>.

I'd really love to read this letter. If the issue is the counting of time
towards a rating, then not counting the time might be a loophole. If the
issue, though, is getting flight time - ie. time when we're enjoying
ourselves - for free, then no loophole.

Well...we could put in our log the comment "didn't have fun", or some such
<laugh>. But who'd believe that?

- Andrew

[Robert M. Gary]

"Joe Johnson" > wrote in message >...
> Last week, as I returned to my rental FBO after an evening local flight, the
> clerk on duty said an instructor and his student were stuck at an airport
> about 40 minutes away. I spoke to the instructor on the phone and I agreed
> to fly up and bring them back. He mentioned that, of course, I wouldn't
> have to pay for the aircraft time. Did I violate the terms of my PPL by
> accepting free time in the airplane as "compensation" for picking them up
> and bringing them back? Should I therefore have paid a proportional share
> of the costs?

The FAA has said in the past that flying for free is compensation and
requires a commercial. For CFIs its very easy since we already have a
commercial, we just need to keep up our class 2 medical. Most CFIs do
because it allows you to do the occasional local sight seeing pax too.

-Robert

[BllFs6]

>The FAA has said in the past that flying for free is compensation and
>requires a commercial. For CFIs its very easy since we already have a
>commercial, we just need to keep up our class 2 medical. Most CFIs do
>because it allows you to do the occasional local sight seeing pax too.
>
>-Robert
>
>

What if you did the "rescue" flight but you DID NOT log the hours?

Would that count? Or would you get in trouble for some OTHER rule violation for
not logging some hours you actually flew?

take care

Blll

[Roger Long]

Here is the letter:

http://baldeagleflyingclub.org/FAAopinion.pdf

I apologize for the crappy quality. AOPA faxed it to me while my cartridge
was on its last legs.

I wouldn't let your club get too worked up over this for the reasons
described above. You might want to ask your FSDO though as attitudes and
interpretations vary from district to district.

Basically, if you think you have found a cute way to interpret the rules
that lets you rack up a significant amount of free flying, you are probably
in violation; especially if your primary purpose would appear to a
reasonable person to be getting the free flying.

If it is fairly clear that an occasional violation of a non-safety related
rule like this one is incidental to another purpose, such as helping someone
out or getting a club airplane moved, it is very unlikely that the FAA would
take an interest. They can barely keep track of the airlines and the 135
operators.

The insurance company will probably follow the same dynamics but you should
check with them. I have had excellent experience discussing things like
this very frankly with Avemco. You get points with them for asking and
appearing to be concerned and attempting to do the right thing. They'll
remember that if there is an incident.
--

Roger Long



"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> James M. Knox wrote:
>
> > Roger gave you the correct answer.
>
> Hey, Roger: Any change that you could provide a reference to that letter
> (ie. a place online from which I could print this out)? It's something I
> think my club should see.
>
> [...]
> > So where *does* the rare action come from?
>
> What about a case where an accident occurs during the "free" flight?
Could
> an insurance company use this to create additional problems?
>
> - Andrew
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Roger Long wrote:

> Here is the letter:
>
> http://baldeagleflyingclub.org/FAAopinion.pdf

It really does say "to build flight time". So not using that time would
appear to be a loophole. Wild!

[...]
> The insurance company will probably follow the same dynamics but you
> should
> check with them. I have had excellent experience discussing things like
> this very frankly with Avemco. You get points with them for asking and
> appearing to be concerned and attempting to do the right thing. They'll
> remember that if there is an incident.

Thanks for the letter and the suggestion.

- Andrew

[Richard Russell]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:39:35 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Dave S wrote:
>
>> Is your neighbor logging the driving time in his logbook for the
>> furtherance of a commercial drivers license??
>
>At the point where the needed hours are logged and any further hours
>don't help in that regard does it suddenly get legal?

I'm shooting from the hip here, with no time to research this but I
was always under the impression that the flight time would not
represent any "value" to the pilot if it were not eligible to be used
toward a rating. It would be interesting to hear a full legal
interpretation of this issue. It seems kind of odd that an activity
could be legal if not logged and illegal if logged. The government
does work in strange ways at times.

Rich Russell

[Richard Russell]

On 20 Aug 2004 18:52:00 GMT, (BllFs6) wrote:

>>The FAA has said in the past that flying for free is compensation and
>>requires a commercial. For CFIs its very easy since we already have a
>>commercial, we just need to keep up our class 2 medical. Most CFIs do
>>because it allows you to do the occasional local sight seeing pax too.
>>
>>-Robert
>>
>>
>
>What if you did the "rescue" flight but you DID NOT log the hours?
>
>Would that count? Or would you get in trouble for some OTHER rule violation for
>not logging some hours you actually flew?
>
>take care
>
>Blll

Most of us log all of our hours but there is no requirement to do so.
You only have to log the hours that are to be used in pursuit of a
rating or certificate.

Rich Russell

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
.. .
> Here is the letter:
>
> http://baldeagleflyingclub.org/FAAopinion.pdf
>


Wait... IANAL, but the situations discussed in this letter are NOT the same
as the "rescue flight" discussed in this thread.

The FAA letter makes it clear that THE FLIGHT ITSELF must be non profit, not
just no pilot monetary compensation. Thus, if the organization receives
benefit (donations, either fixed or per flight) from the flight, it is a
"flight for hire" and must be flown as such. Part of this is to assure
higher standards for passengers who by the nature of the flight might have
the expectation of higher standards than a Private pilot has demonstrated.

The rescue flight is not a revenue flight. It is only the good will of the
FBO picking up stranded people in an expedient manner. They could just as
well have driven there and accomplished the same result, but this was a
win-win-win situation, you get a chance to fly and be a good guy, they get
the task done quickly at low cost (their hourly marginal operating cost is
relatively small, and the stranded people get back much quicker than if by
car. (I don't remember) but if this was a student-instructor being
stranded, effectively the return flight was done with the instructor on
board so the student did not have any higher apparent risk than a normal
training flight.

[Robert M. Gary]

(BllFs6) wrote in message >...
> >The FAA has said in the past that flying for free is compensation and
> >requires a commercial. For CFIs its very easy since we already have a
> >commercial, we just need to keep up our class 2 medical. Most CFIs do
> >because it allows you to do the occasional local sight seeing pax too.
> >
> >-Robert
> >
> >
>
> What if you did the "rescue" flight but you DID NOT log the hours?
>
> Would that count? Or would you get in trouble for some OTHER rule violation for
> not logging some hours you actually flew?
>
> take care

Its not the logging its the enjoying. You would have to prove that you
did not enjoy the flight, therefore its not compensation.

-Robert

[Roger Long]

That might be a hair properly split. IOWUEMWALWAH (I Only Wake Up Every
Morning With A Lawyer With A Headache) but the FSDO thought it supported the
idea of our "Club Time" flights being compensation even though they said not
to worry about it.

All I know at this point is that is really isn't worth worrying about. If
you set up some kind of arrangement that's getting you lost of flying that
you otherwise would have paid for, you should check it out more carefully.
Otherwise, don't worry, be happy.

--

Roger Long



"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Roger Long" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Here is the letter:
> >
> > http://baldeagleflyingclub.org/FAAopinion.pdf
> >
>
>
> Wait... IANAL, but the situations discussed in this letter are NOT the
same
> as the "rescue flight" discussed in this thread.
>
> The FAA letter makes it clear that THE FLIGHT ITSELF must be non profit,
not
> just no pilot monetary compensation. Thus, if the organization receives
> benefit (donations, either fixed or per flight) from the flight, it is a
> "flight for hire" and must be flown as such. Part of this is to assure
> higher standards for passengers who by the nature of the flight might have
> the expectation of higher standards than a Private pilot has demonstrated.
>
> The rescue flight is not a revenue flight. It is only the good will of
the
> FBO picking up stranded people in an expedient manner. They could just as
> well have driven there and accomplished the same result, but this was a
> win-win-win situation, you get a chance to fly and be a good guy, they get
> the task done quickly at low cost (their hourly marginal operating cost is
> relatively small, and the stranded people get back much quicker than if by
> car. (I don't remember) but if this was a student-instructor being
> stranded, effectively the return flight was done with the instructor on
> board so the student did not have any higher apparent risk than a normal
> training flight.
>
>

[Ash Wyllie]

Peter Gottlieb opined

>"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> A good quick test: Unless you are worse off financially after a flight,
>> you
>> are doing something wrong.
>>

>I know you meant this part humorously, but this cannot be right, since you
>are allowed to fly "in furtherance of your business," which would leave you
>financially ahead.

It's only semi-humorous :(.


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[Frode Berg]

All this seems like big BS!

Are you really this concerned with this in the US?????

Surely, war on terror is more important....?

hehe....

Seriously.

I am a hobby pilot. I do not intend ever to consider a CFI rating.
However, I log all my hours.

OK, say I'm really broke.
Honestly, I can't afford to fly 5 minutes, but a friend really wants a short
hop over town.
He says, he'll pay the 30 dollars or whatever it costs.

We do it, and nobody cares.

So what??????

Now, if i do this ever once in a while, and 15 years down the line, I figure
i don't wanna be a musician anymore, but a full time parachute jump
pilot....

OK, I get my CFI rating.

Would I have to confess to God for this, or take 40 beatings of the FAA
whip?

It doesn't make sense.

Isn't the idea that we should all be safe up there???

I'd say that it's far better that some geezer pay my 30 bucks and I get my
30 minutes of flying now and then rather then making the sky unsafe to all
the paying passengers of airliners caose I am not allowed to fly without
spending my own money.

Oh well, maybe US is different.....or I'm probably ignorant...(or too
drunk...hehe)

Here in my country we probably have the same rules.

However, most pilots bend them in this regard, but in my opinion, this makes
a safer sky.

This is one rule bent that actually makes it way safer to do this! Letting
someone else pay for you fyling them around, therefore beeing a better
pilot.

This must be the goal for all of us right?

Anyone who honestly thinks this is wrong, please convince me.
And please, no BS about commercial planes loosing gigs. Which commercial
firms would even start up their planes for 30 bucks???

Frode




"Robert M. Gary" > skrev i melding
om...
> (BllFs6) wrote in message
>...
> > >The FAA has said in the past that flying for free is compensation and
> > >requires a commercial. For CFIs its very easy since we already have a
> > >commercial, we just need to keep up our class 2 medical. Most CFIs do
> > >because it allows you to do the occasional local sight seeing pax too.
> > >
> > >-Robert
> > >
> > >
> >
> > What if you did the "rescue" flight but you DID NOT log the hours?
> >
> > Would that count? Or would you get in trouble for some OTHER rule
violation for
> > not logging some hours you actually flew?
> >
> > take care
>
> Its not the logging its the enjoying. You would have to prove that you
> did not enjoy the flight, therefore its not compensation.
>
> -Robert

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Frode Berg" > wrote in message
...
>
> Anyone who honestly thinks this is wrong, please convince me.


I think everyone here more or less agrees with you but the point of this
discussion is what the actual rules say and when the FAA might go after
someone for bending them.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Richard Russell wrote:
>
> I'm shooting from the hip here, with no time to research this but I
> was always under the impression that the flight time would not
> represent any "value" to the pilot if it were not eligible to be used
> toward a rating.

You are probably correct IMO, since the only prosecution cases I've heard of are ones
in which it was argued that the pilot intended to use the time as justification for
an additional rating.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Bob Martin]

> > Anyone who honestly thinks this is wrong, please convince me.
>
>
> I think everyone here more or less agrees with you but the point of this
> discussion is what the actual rules say and when the FAA might go after
> someone for bending them.

So in other words, if you're just an average guy with a PPL, have no
intention of going for a commercial rating (or even an instrument ticket,
since the aircraft you usually fly isn't equipped for such), and have spent
(and intend to spend) your flying time just buzzing around, doing
aerobatics, visiting friends, taking trips to fly-ins, and buying expensive
hamburgers, then they won't really care?

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Bob Martin" > wrote in message
...
>> > Anyone who honestly thinks this is wrong, please convince me.
>>
>>
>> I think everyone here more or less agrees with you but the point of this
>> discussion is what the actual rules say and when the FAA might go after
>> someone for bending them.
>
> So in other words, if you're just an average guy with a PPL, have no
> intention of going for a commercial rating (or even an instrument ticket,
> since the aircraft you usually fly isn't equipped for such), and have
> spent
> (and intend to spend) your flying time just buzzing around, doing
> aerobatics, visiting friends, taking trips to fly-ins, and buying
> expensive
> hamburgers, then they won't really care?
>

That seems to be the general consensus, yes.

However, get someone annoyed at you enough and something like this could
become an issue.

[Frode Berg]

To all in the group!

I did the unforgivable mistake last night of posting after a party....

Someone was probably insulted by my attempts at sarcasm (war on terror
etc...)

So here goes:

I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post


There....


Apologise to anyone offended.

Frode




"Frode Berg" > skrev i melding
...
> All this seems like big BS!
>
> Are you really this concerned with this in the US?????
>
> Surely, war on terror is more important....?
>
> hehe....
>
> Seriously.
>
> I am a hobby pilot. I do not intend ever to consider a CFI rating.
> However, I log all my hours.
>
> OK, say I'm really broke.
> Honestly, I can't afford to fly 5 minutes, but a friend really wants a
short
> hop over town.
> He says, he'll pay the 30 dollars or whatever it costs.
>
> We do it, and nobody cares.
>
> So what??????
>
> Now, if i do this ever once in a while, and 15 years down the line, I
figure
> i don't wanna be a musician anymore, but a full time parachute jump
> pilot....
>
> OK, I get my CFI rating.
>
> Would I have to confess to God for this, or take 40 beatings of the FAA
> whip?
>
> It doesn't make sense.
>
> Isn't the idea that we should all be safe up there???
>
> I'd say that it's far better that some geezer pay my 30 bucks and I get my
> 30 minutes of flying now and then rather then making the sky unsafe to all
> the paying passengers of airliners caose I am not allowed to fly without
> spending my own money.
>
> Oh well, maybe US is different.....or I'm probably ignorant...(or too
> drunk...hehe)
>
> Here in my country we probably have the same rules.
>
> However, most pilots bend them in this regard, but in my opinion, this
makes
> a safer sky.
>
> This is one rule bent that actually makes it way safer to do this! Letting
> someone else pay for you fyling them around, therefore beeing a better
> pilot.
>
> This must be the goal for all of us right?
>
> Anyone who honestly thinks this is wrong, please convince me.
> And please, no BS about commercial planes loosing gigs. Which commercial
> firms would even start up their planes for 30 bucks???
>
> Frode
>
>
>
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > skrev i melding
> om...
> > (BllFs6) wrote in message
> >...
> > > >The FAA has said in the past that flying for free is compensation and
> > > >requires a commercial. For CFIs its very easy since we already have a
> > > >commercial, we just need to keep up our class 2 medical. Most CFIs do
> > > >because it allows you to do the occasional local sight seeing pax
too.
> > > >
> > > >-Robert
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > What if you did the "rescue" flight but you DID NOT log the hours?
> > >
> > > Would that count? Or would you get in trouble for some OTHER rule
> violation for
> > > not logging some hours you actually flew?
> > >
> > > take care
> >
> > Its not the logging its the enjoying. You would have to prove that you
> > did not enjoy the flight, therefore its not compensation.
> >
> > -Robert
>
>

[Jack]

Frode Berg wrote:

> I did the unforgivable mistake last night of posting after a party....

Whatever.

Thing is, you are right. It is an overly restrictive regulation, and
only the wisdom (and workload) of most FAA types keeps it from being
applied as it might be.


Jack

[Julian Scarfe]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
.. .
> Yes, you were bad. You broke the rules and the FAA could suspend your
> license. I've seen the opinion letter.
>
> I went round and round on this since our club doesn't make members pay
when
> they move the plane for maintenance.
> I called up our local FSDO and asked if this kind of thing was a
violation.
> They said, "Of course not, that's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
> Who told you that?"
>
> I faxed them a copy of the FAA counsel's opinion letter and they called
back
> to say sheepishly that I was right. However they said that they have far
> too much to do to ever worry about something like that.

In what way do you believe that the scenarios described in the FAA counsel's
opinion letter relate to the scenario described by Joe Johnson, or in fact
to the scenario of accepting free flying for maintenance?

All the scenarios in the letter involve an explicit payment in respect of
the flight by an Organization B to an Organization A. The counsel's opinion
revolves around this payment.

"A private pilot may not get paid to carry passengers or cargo and, even if
he does not get paid, he may not carry paying passengers or cargo >>> if the
carriage has been paid to someone else.<<< It should be further noted that a
private pilot may not serve as pilot in command >>> of such an operation <<<
even when he/she elects to forego actual monetary compensation..." (my >>>
emphasis <<<)

The "operation" cannot be conducted by a private pilot only because one
organization has paid a carriage fee for those passengers to another
organization. To do so would violate the first part of 61.113(a). The
counsel's opinion (Answer 2) is that the circumstances of the flight are not
covered by the exemption of 61.113(d).

If no such payment takes place, the passengers are not being carried for
compensation or hire. The counsel offers no opinion on this scenario in his
letter. It's quite clear that the counsel note is reinforcing the principle
that a private pilot cannot act as PIC of an air transportation operation
even if the private pilot is not reimbursed.

This is not hair-splitting as you suggest in your response to Peter
Gottlieb, but reading the answers in the context of the questions.

Julian Scarfe

[C Kingsbury]

There's the regs as they're written and then there's the regs as they
are enforced. In order for the FAA to really go after you for this
you'd have to really tempt them in some way. If someone were "hanging
around the office and heard something" odds are you'd just get a
letter saying "don't do that anymore."

As for the insurance company (the regulatory agency that *really*
determines how many of us fly), it's a question of how they would
know? Let's say on your way up there, the engine quits and you put it
down in a field. Where I rent, I pay for the rental after I come back.
How does mister insurance man know I was breaking the rules?

Just remember a rule I learned when I was in a fraternity in college.
If you're doing something you shouldn't be, don't take pictures. It's
not the act that gets you in trouble, it's the paper trail. Stupid
laws mostly teach honest people how to break them.

-cwk.

[Julian Scarfe]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
om...
> There's the regs as they're written and then there's the regs as they
> are enforced. In order for the FAA to really go after you for this
> you'd have to really tempt them in some way. If someone were "hanging
> around the office and heard something" odds are you'd just get a
> letter saying "don't do that anymore."

If you're going to break the law, minimize your chances of getting caught.
Good advice, but surely it's useful to differentiate between that which is
illegal but not enforced, and that which is perfectly legal in the first
place?!

Julian