Commercial Ticket Endeavor

[three-eight-hotel]

I am currently IFR and have been giving some consideration into going
after the commercial rating. I have been studying the requirements and
wanted to post some questions to the group...

Please bear in mind that I don't typically cut corners when it comes to
safety, but am always looking to save a few $$$ where it makes sense.
After all, this hobby/passion is expensive enough as it is! (I
currently own a 172 and it's all I can do to cover the annual expenses
on it and still have enough left over to put gas in it from time to
time)

My bottom-line question is... How much is this going to cost me and
can I really afford it?

Aside from the 10 hours of complex time (plus the checkride in a
complex airplane) and the instructor costs for those 10 hours, it seems
like most of the requirements may have already been covered in the
instrument training or can be done on your own. For example: The 300
NM XCtry, 5 hr. night-VFR with 10 to's and lndgs. at a towered airport,
....

I know there are some new maneuvers, but those can be learned in the
172 and confirmed in the complex plane as part of the 10 hours.

It just seems to me that most of the requirements may have been met
during previous training and/or by getting out and flying?

Is it reasonable to think that I might be able to:
* Spend 4 or 5 hours in the 172, learning all the new maneuvers for
the checkride (at the cost of fuel and an instructor)
* Spend 10 hours in a complex plane (at the cost of the plane and
instructor), learning the plane and dialing in the maneuvers
* Take the checkride (cost of DE and plane)

If I flew a 2 hr. day XCtry and 2 hr. night XCtry, meeting the NM
requirements, with an instructor while working on the instrument
rating, would that carry-over? Is the requirement that a logbook entry
exist for those elements, or that they were done while training for the
commercial rating?

My ultimate goal is to get the CFI ticket, and let other help support
my habit! ;-)

I'm interested in hearing thoughts or experiences from others.

Best Regards,
Todd

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

three-eight-hotel wrote:
> If I flew a 2 hr. day XCtry and 2 hr. night XCtry, meeting the NM
> requirements, with an instructor while working on the instrument
> rating, would that carry-over? Is the requirement that a logbook entry
> exist for those elements, or that they were done while training for the
> commercial rating?


Any cross country you've done in the past for any reason is usable if it meets
the criteria. If you have a reasonably fresh instrument rating you're pretty
good to go. Learning the basics of the required maneuvers in a complex single
may be easier than in your C-172; you've got to burn up 10 hours somehow anyway.

I'd say go for it. I did the same thing myself not so I could earn a living so
much as to get people to ride with me. People who are reluctant to ride with a
private pilot often don't show the same reticence with a commercial one.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Steven Barnes]

"three-eight-hotel" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I am currently IFR and have been giving some consideration into going
> after the commercial rating. I have been studying the requirements and
> wanted to post some questions to the group...
>
> Please bear in mind that I don't typically cut corners when it comes to
> safety, but am always looking to save a few $$$ where it makes sense.
> After all, this hobby/passion is expensive enough as it is! (I
> currently own a 172 and it's all I can do to cover the annual expenses
> on it and still have enough left over to put gas in it from time to
> time)
>
> My bottom-line question is... How much is this going to cost me and
> can I really afford it?
>
> Aside from the 10 hours of complex time (plus the checkride in a
> complex airplane) and the instructor costs for those 10 hours, it seems
> like most of the requirements may have already been covered in the
> instrument training or can be done on your own. For example: The 300
> NM XCtry, 5 hr. night-VFR with 10 to's and lndgs. at a towered airport,
> ...
>
> I know there are some new maneuvers, but those can be learned in the
> 172 and confirmed in the complex plane as part of the 10 hours.
>
> It just seems to me that most of the requirements may have been met
> during previous training and/or by getting out and flying?
>
[snip]

I've been toying with this idea, too. I just got my IFR rating last August.
I'd have to look in my log book to see how far that one was. It wasn't at
night, though. Is it 300NM night XC? I've got 1.5 hours in an Arrow to get
my Complex endorsement. So, I'd only need another 8.5. Already had my HP.
Other than going for my CFI, what good does a Commercial do, other than
guarantee my AME a yearly visit, instead of every 3 years? Can I finally
charge a friend of mine for doing aerial photography?

[Peter Duniho]

"three-eight-hotel" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I am currently IFR and have been giving some consideration into going
> after the commercial rating.

You're IFR and you're posting? Shouldn't you be paying attention to the
instruments, and wait until you're back on the ground for Usenet?

> [...]
> My bottom-line question is... How much is this going to cost me and
> can I really afford it?

I don't know whether you can afford it. I can't even tell you how much it
will cost, though obviously you can calculate a minimum cost based on how
much airplanes and instructors cost in your area. The actual cost, likely
to be at least somewhat above the theoretical minimum, will depend on you,
your instructor, and sometimes circumstances beyond either of your control.

> Aside from the 10 hours of complex time (plus the checkride in a
> complex airplane) and the instructor costs for those 10 hours, it seems
> like most of the requirements may have already been covered in the
> instrument training or can be done on your own. For example: The 300
> NM XCtry, 5 hr. night-VFR with 10 to's and lndgs. at a towered airport,
> ...

It is true, for many pilots, their every day flying covers much of the basic
aeronautical experience requirements for the Commercial Pilot certificate.
FAR 61.129 has the details you need to know.

> I know there are some new maneuvers, but those can be learned in the
> 172 and confirmed in the complex plane as part of the 10 hours.

Can they? It really depends on the pilot and the instructor. In my own
case, I certainly spent more time learning the maneuvers than I expected to.
Things went more smoothly after I had some time off (medical problems) and
came back to a new instructor.

> It just seems to me that most of the requirements may have been met
> during previous training and/or by getting out and flying?

Yes, that may well be the case for you.

> Is it reasonable to think that I might be able to:
> * Spend 4 or 5 hours in the 172, learning all the new maneuvers for
> the checkride (at the cost of fuel and an instructor)

I would be surprised if you could learn all of the maneuvers in just 5
hours. There are five tasks in the PTS that are likely brand-new for the
typical Private Pilot, and several more that probably will require at least
some time revisiting to brush up on. It's theoretically possible that you
could learn each of the new maneuvers in 1 hour each, but it seems unlikely.

For what it's worth, I used a 172 to learn the maneuvers, but frankly I
found the complex airplane I intended to use for the checkride -- the
Cardinal RG -- to be much easier to fly. I wouldn't call either the 172 or
the 177RG "precise" airplanes, but the Cardinal certainly had better "feel"
to it, IMHO.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

> * Spend 10 hours in a complex plane (at the cost of the plane and
> instructor), learning the plane and dialing in the maneuvers
> * Take the checkride (cost of DE and plane)
>
> If I flew a 2 hr. day XCtry and 2 hr. night XCtry, meeting the NM
> requirements, with an instructor while working on the instrument
> rating, would that carry-over?

At a minimum, you would have to meet the VFR requirement as well. Reading
the Part 61 FAQ, Q&A 93 says that an instrument training flight done under
simulated instrument conditions does NOT qualify for the 2 hour XC
requirements, even if the VFR conditions requirement is met (apparently
because, even though the actual conditions are VFR, the pilot is still
flying under IMC...the fact that it's simulated IMC is irrelevant).

In another question, the FAQ does clarify that you can do simulated
instrument conditions in a given flight, and still count that flight for the
2 hours XC. But only if there are 2 hours NOT spent under simulated
instrument conditions for that flight. For example, if you had a 2.5 hour
training flight, meeting the distance requirements, during which you used a
view limiting device for less than half an hour (perhaps you only flew the
approaches under simulated instrument conditions), and for which the rest of
the flight was done under VFR conditions, that would be fine.

> Is the requirement that a logbook entry
> exist for those elements, or that they were done while training for the
> commercial rating?

You would certainly need a logbook entry for any aeronautical experience you
intend to use for the certificate. There is not, as far as I know, a
requirement that the training be done specifically for the Commercial Pilot
certificate. The training flight does, of course, need to include aspects
of piloting found in 61.127(b)(1), but there's nothing that says that
training has to happen after you have "officially" commenced on your
Commercial Pilot training.

> My ultimate goal is to get the CFI ticket, and let other help support
> my habit! ;-)

Then it's an investment. The real question would be, can you afford to NOT
get the Commercial Pilot certificate. Assuming you eventually make the cost
of the training back through your paid piloting duties, no amount for the
training would be too much, and once you've paid off the training,
everything else is gravy. Right? :)

Pete

[Peter R.]

three-eight-hotel > wrote:

> I know there are some new maneuvers, but those can be learned in the
> 172 and confirmed in the complex plane as part of the 10 hours.

I suspect that the decision on what aircraft to use for each part of the
exam is at the discretion of the individual examiner. I, too, have been
considering pursuing my commercial but my Bonanza has a newly rebuilt,
turbo-normalized engine in it. As much as I would like to learn and
demonstrate the maneuvers in the Bonanza, I have concerns about damaging
engine heat that might build up while practicing and flying them during the
exam.

A few instructors whom I asked about this did speculate that the examiner,
a certified A&P, would allow demonstrating the commercial maneuvers in a
C172, then demonstrating competency in the complex aircraft (gear, cowl
flaps, and adjustable prop in the Bo).

--
Peter

[Sylvain]

Steven Barnes wrote:

> Other than going for my CFI, what good does a Commercial do, other than
> guarantee my AME a yearly visit, instead of every 3 years? Can I finally
> charge a friend of mine for doing aerial photography?

you can get a commercial certificate on a Class-III medical,
no need to upgrade; you only need the higher class of
medical certificate to *exercise* the privileges of the
commercial certificate (i.e., get paid :-) --- as for
charging friends for this or that, you want to read very
carefully the relevant regulations, e.g., 14 CFR 119, etc.
a commercial certificate does not turn you into a commercial
operator...

There is nothing wrong in getting a commercial certificate
for its own sake, i.e., there is some satisfaction to gain
from achieving higher standards; it does not necessarily
translate into anything practical :-)

--Sylvain

[BTIZ]

except that the criteria states that it is a VFR cross country.. night and
day.. any work under the hood enroute or an approach at either end negates
the use of that cross country for the Commercial rating.

BT

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
om...
> three-eight-hotel wrote:
>> If I flew a 2 hr. day XCtry and 2 hr. night XCtry, meeting the NM
>> requirements, with an instructor while working on the instrument
>> rating, would that carry-over? Is the requirement that a logbook entry
>> exist for those elements, or that they were done while training for the
>> commercial rating?
>
>
> Any cross country you've done in the past for any reason is usable if it
> meets the criteria. If you have a reasonably fresh instrument rating
> you're pretty good to go. Learning the basics of the required maneuvers
> in a complex single may be easier than in your C-172; you've got to burn
> up 10 hours somehow anyway.
>
> I'd say go for it. I did the same thing myself not so I could earn a
> living so much as to get people to ride with me. People who are reluctant
> to ride with a private pilot often don't show the same reticence with a
> commercial one.
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:rdhEe.18897$Eo.5130@fed1read04...
> except that the criteria states that it is a VFR cross country.. night and
> day.. any work under the hood enroute or an approach at either end negates
> the use of that cross country for the Commercial rating.

Not true. As long as there are 2 hours of VFR flight, the rest of the time
can be under the hood. The presence of instrument training does not, in and
of itself, invalidate the flight from being used for that requirement.

[Doug]

Seems to me I obtained my Commercial Certificate in about 15 hours of
plane rental. Most of the time was spent doing those damn commercial
manuevers. Seems like everyone wants them done a little differently. It
was a pretty easy rating for me. LOTS easier than the IFR or the CFI.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Doug wrote:
> Seems to me I obtained my Commercial Certificate in about 15 hours of
> plane rental. Most of the time was spent doing those damn commercial
> manuevers. Seems like everyone wants them done a little differently. It
> was a pretty easy rating for me. LOTS easier than the IFR or the CFI.


It's the easiest ... although I'd put the multi engine in the same category, so
to speak. Certainly the private license is harder and the IFR rating the most
difficult. Frankly, I'd assume the private license to be tougher than the ATP,
if only because the learning curve is so steep. By the time you're taking an
ATP checkride you've been around for a while.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[BTIZ]

tell that to my CFI and the DE

BT

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> news:rdhEe.18897$Eo.5130@fed1read04...
>> except that the criteria states that it is a VFR cross country.. night
>> and day.. any work under the hood enroute or an approach at either end
>> negates the use of that cross country for the Commercial rating.
>
> Not true. As long as there are 2 hours of VFR flight, the rest of the
> time can be under the hood. The presence of instrument training does not,
> in and of itself, invalidate the flight from being used for that
> requirement.
>

[Peter Duniho]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:GTzEe.19057$Eo.6904@fed1read04...
> tell that to my CFI and the DE

Give me their names and phone numbers, and I will be happy to explain it to
them. I'll even fax them a copy of the Part 61 FAQ, since they and you are
apparently too lazy to bother with researching the issue directly. The FAQ
addresses this very issue, very specifically. It's hard to imagine the
issue explained any more clearly.

Pete

[xxx]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

>
> It's the easiest ... although I'd put the multi engine in the same category, so
> to speak. Certainly the private license is harder and the IFR rating the most
> difficult. Frankly, I'd assume the private license to be tougher than the ATP,
> if only because the learning curve is so steep. By the time you're taking an
> ATP checkride you've been around for a while.
>

That's funny, I thought instrument was easier than private. I certainly
was
ready for the checkride in a lot less hours.

Other than wow factor, reassuring potential passengers that you're a
real
pro hot stick, can you think of any reason for getting a commercial if
you don't intend to compete with 20-year-olds for non-existant entry-
level minimum wage jobs?

Maybe I'll do commercial next time I need a BFR if I somehow magically
get
all the night flying done by then. This seems unlikely, though, as I
haven't
logged a single night hour in years and don't have any plans to change
that.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

xxx wrote:
> Other than wow factor, reassuring potential passengers that you're a real pro
> hot stick, can you think of any reason for getting a commercial if you don't
> intend to compete with 20-year-olds for non-existant entry- level minimum
> wage jobs?


Not a one.



> Maybe I'll do commercial next time I need a BFR if I somehow magically get
> all the night flying done by then. This seems unlikely, though, as I haven't
> logged a single night hour in years and don't have any plans to change that.


Then again, maybe you won't. If you've been flying for years and haven't needed
it yet, you never will.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Peter R.]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> xxx wrote:
>> Other than wow factor, reassuring potential passengers that you're a real pro
>> hot stick, can you think of any reason for getting a commercial if you don't
>> intend to compete with 20-year-olds for non-existant entry- level minimum
>> wage jobs?
>
> Not a one.

Do insurance companies look favorably at those who have a commercial
certificate?

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Jose]

> Other than wow factor, reassuring potential passengers that you're a
> real
> pro hot stick, can you think of any reason for getting a commercial if
> you don't intend to compete with 20-year-olds for non-existant entry-
> level minimum wage jobs?

You can split costs any way you like under certain circumstances (i.e. a
passenger rents a plane, and hires you to fly them for costs).

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> You can split costs any way you like under certain circumstances (i.e. a
> passenger rents a plane, and hires you to fly them for costs).

Even so, you would want to be careful about how you arranged that. The FAA
would (if they got wind of it) probably look closely at whether your
passenger regularly rented a plane and hired various pilots, or if you were
in the habit of flying for people who just happened to rent an airplane from
the same place every time.

Of course, "fortunately" the FBO is likely to be trying to avoid this sort
of thing as well. That is, they probably won't rent to someone without
their own pilot certificate, unless a pilot on their staff is flying the
airplane, under the usual Part 135 rules.

It is theoretically possible for a plain old Commercial pilot to be paid to
fly someone in an airplane they neither own, nor have a long-term lease for,
but I've never heard of it happening with any regularity in practice.

Pete

[Jose]

> The FAA
> would (if they got wind of it) probably look closely at whether your
> passenger regularly rented a plane and hired various pilots, or if you were
> in the habit of flying for people who just happened to rent an airplane from
> the same place every time.

Why would this be an issue. You are a commercial pilot, you are being
paid to fly a plane, and since you are not arranging the plane, you
don't need to be a commercial =operator=.

Especially as you are essentially flying for costs, which is what a
private pilot is supposed to be able to do (and =was= able to do back
before the FAA did this "pro-rata" mess with the rules).

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> Why would this be an issue. You are a commercial pilot, you are being
> paid to fly a plane, and since you are not arranging the plane, you don't
> need to be a commercial =operator=.

If you habitually had customers rent an airplane from the same FBO, one of
your choosing, you would very likely be found to be holding out, engaging in
an illegal Part 135 operation. The fact that your customer was the renter
on paper would not hold water, once the FAA looks at the situation and
realizes that it's you who's actually putting together the whole deal,
airplane and all.

It would essentially be a holding out operation, which is the classic
example of what the holder of a Commercial Pilot certificate is NOT
permitted to do without meeting the other requirements found in Part 135.

> Especially as you are essentially flying for costs, which is what a
> private pilot is supposed to be able to do (and =was= able to do back
> before the FAA did this "pro-rata" mess with the rules).

A holder of a Private Pilot certificate was not, at least in the last 15
years, able to fly for costs. He was always required to share costs
equally, and those costs were always limited to direct operating costs,
which meant either rental costs, or fuel and oil (for an owned airplane).

For both the Commercial and Private pilot, it has been held by the FAA that
flight time in and of itself is compensation. Any situation in which the
pilot is not paying their fair share of the costs (and that has always meant
the pro-rated share among all passengers) has been found to be compensatory,
and thus not allowed without meeting the other common carriage rules.

Pete

[Jose]

> A holder of a Private Pilot certificate was not, at least in the last 15
> years, able to fly for costs. He was always required to share costs
> equally, and those costs were always limited to direct operating costs,
> which meant either rental costs, or fuel and oil (for an owned airplane).

Fifteen years ago I was on hiatus. Before that, a private pilot could
fly for costs. The old rule made sense to me. The new one does not.

> For both the Commercial and Private pilot, it has been held by the FAA that
> flight time in and of itself is compensation.

This further drains the sense out of the regs. But this is just my opinion.

> If you habitually had customers rent an airplane from the same FBO, one of
> your choosing, you would very likely be found to be holding out, engaging in
> an illegal Part 135 operation.

Perhaps. But if I did it only occasionally, and the FBO was only an
initial reccomendation (or one of several I'm checked out at), and I was
not taking any more than costs, only the FAA would see that as "holding
out an illegal part 135."

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> Fifteen years ago I was on hiatus. Before that, a private pilot could fly
> for costs. The old rule made sense to me. The new one does not.

I don't see why not. To me, the new rules make more sense than allowing a
Private pilot's entire costs to be paid by someone else. Any amount of
money a pilot spends less than his passengers is net profit. Net profit
means commercial enterprise. That's ignoring the fact that there is benefit
to the pilot above and beyond any benefit to his passengers.

In any case, whether the new rule makes sense to you or not, it is the new
rule.

> Perhaps. But if I did it only occasionally, and the FBO was only an
> initial reccomendation (or one of several I'm checked out at), and I was
> not taking any more than costs, only the FAA would see that as "holding
> out an illegal part 135."

The FAA's opinion is the only one that matters. Of course, you also added a
bunch of qualifications to the operation that weren't in the original
discussion.

All that said, I would still be surprised if there are many FBOs that would
be willing to be party to the kind of arrangement being discussed here. It
may well be that the FAA's opinion is entirely moot, since no one could
actually attempt this particular end-run around the regulations.

Pete

[Jose]

> I don't see why not. To me, the new rules make more sense than allowing a
> Private pilot's entire costs to be paid by someone else.

I see no reason that [the regs should say that] a private pilot's costs
should not be able to be paid by somebody else, and can think of quite a
few examples where it would make sense.

1: My friend who owns a plane flies me for free on a skiing trip. He
breaks his leg. I am prohibited from flying his plane home without
ponying up cash, even if he doesn't want the money. We'd have to hire a
commercial pilot to do this. (well, guess what - in the scenario under
discussion, I would =be= a commercial pilot and could therefore do it,
but a private pilot could not.)

2: My father thinks I should be instrument rated, and offers to pay for
flying lessons and flying time so that I can get my rating. Nixed by
the FAA.

3: I fly three people on Monday, and one person on Tuesday. We share
costs equally. I pay more on Tuesday for the same flight.

4: I'm a member of a ski group - we drive up and whoever is driving
gets free lodging. We've been doing this for years, but this year we
fly. Free lodging is compensation - nixed... though I asked an FAA
official about this and they see it as a separate transaction, so as
long as they don't pay for the =flight=, they can pay as much lodging as
they want and I'm in the clear. Nixed or not? Depends on who has a
burr up which part of whose anatomy that day.

You can argue that these examples are unlikely, but that is besides the
point. The "new" rule (IMEO :) makes no sense.

> Any amount of
> money a pilot spends less than his passengers is net profit. Net profit
> means commercial enterprise.

This is not the definition of net profit. Net profit is total intake
minus total outgo. The old rule meant "no net profit". The new rule
means something else. As for "net profit meaning commercial
enterprise", that's not true either. Granted a commercial enterprise
will need net profit to stay in business, and will need quite a bit of
net profit. But no commercial enterprise will stay in business (without
subsidy) if "net profit" means "loses as much as their customers", which
is what the new rule actually works out to.

> That's ignoring the fact that there is benefit
> to the pilot above and beyond any benefit to his passengers.

I like to fly. This joy is a benefit. But if you really mean it that
way then I'm a commercial enterprise when I fly solo.

I make a written record of what transpired, noting how long I was flying
and under what conditions, and keeping track of my flying experience.
This is a benefit inasmuch as I can use it for currency and future
ratings. I know the FAA has put its imprimateur on this twisting of the
meaning of words.

However I cannot =trade on= this "benefit". I can't trade my hours for
a new DG. I can't spend my logbook to buy a hamburger or pay my rent.
If you don't have enough hours for a rating, or lack recent night
landings, I can't "give you some of mine" in exchange for having you
paint my closet. I can't even trade my night landings for your
instrument approaches. The numbers in my logbook are merely a
historical record, they are =not= a medium of exchange.

Therefore, I do not see how the FAA can justify their stance that
logging time is "compensation" that makes one a "commercial operator"
under =any= circumstances (though I will agree that there may be =other=
circumstances which would do so by themselves).

> The FAA's opinion is the only one that matters.

Of course. That's why I said it. But that doesn't make the FAA's
opinion make sense. And I didn't add a bunch of qualifications that
weren't in the original. The original (post) simply stated that there
were some circumstances (that is to say, there are not NO circumstances)
in which the commercial ticket would be of use for a pilot who was not
aiming to be a commercial operator. They might be rare, just like
having three pilots log PIC time would be rare, but they are possible.

> All that said, I would still be surprised if there are many FBOs that would
> be willing to be party to the kind of arrangement being discussed here.

So would I. But an airplane owner might do this. In fact, I think it's
rather common in some circles (such as a company plane used for company
business under part 91).

> It
> may well be that the FAA's opinion is entirely moot, since no one could
> actually attempt this particular end-run around the regulations.

Well, I don't agree with this particular absolute. I'm not even sure
it's all that hard, though I agree that an ordinary FBO is not likely to
do this.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> I see no reason that [the regs should say that] a private pilot's costs
> should not be able to be paid by somebody else

Well, I do. It happens, oddly enough, that the FAA agrees with me today.
Tomorrow, who knows.

> and can think of quite a few examples where it would make sense.

Make sense to you, that is.

> 1: My friend who owns a plane flies me for free on a skiing trip. He
> breaks his leg. I am prohibited from flying his plane home without
> ponying up cash, even if he doesn't want the money. We'd have to hire a
> commercial pilot to do this. (well, guess what - in the scenario under
> discussion, I would =be= a commercial pilot and could therefore do it, but
> a private pilot could not.)

I see no reason you should be permitted to fly for free, just because your
friend broke his leg. If anything allowing this gives you incentive to
break your friends' leg :p . Regardless, the rules aren't about
compassion...they are about preventing pilots from being paid to fly (and
that includes paying less than anyone else in the airplane).

> 2: My father thinks I should be instrument rated, and offers to pay for
> flying lessons and flying time so that I can get my rating. Nixed by the
> FAA.

This obviously is NOT "nixed by the FAA", since plenty of student pilots are
being paid scholarship money used to finance their education.

> 3: I fly three people on Monday, and one person on Tuesday. We share
> costs equally. I pay more on Tuesday for the same flight.

So what? Why shouldn't you pay more for the same flight? If you don't, the
other guy has to pay three times what he paid on Monday. How is THAT fair?
This has to be one of the silliest so-called "examples" in your list.

> 4: I'm a member of a ski group - we drive up and whoever is driving gets
> free lodging. We've been doing this for years, but this year we fly.
> Free lodging is compensation - nixed... though I asked an FAA official
> about this and they see it as a separate transaction, so as long as they
> don't pay for the =flight=, they can pay as much lodging as they want and
> I'm in the clear. Nixed or not? Depends on who has a burr up which part
> of whose anatomy that day.

Presumably in the driving scenario, the riders don't pay gas and
maintenance? In this example, you simply share the cost of the flight with
your friends, rather than accepting the free lodging. In the end, you
should come out roughly the same. If not, then it seems to me that the deal
wasn't very fair to someone in the first place.

> You can argue that these examples are unlikely, but that is besides the
> point. The "new" rule (IMEO :) makes no sense.

I don't really care how likely or unlikely they are. I don't even see them
as "examples". If they are the best you can come up with, I don't even see
why YOU hold the belief you do, never mind am I swayed to change my own
position.

>> Any amount of money a pilot spends less than his passengers is net
>> profit. Net profit means commercial enterprise.
>
> This is not the definition of net profit. Net profit is total intake
> minus total outgo.

What isn't the definition?

I took it as granted I didn't have to throw the word "positive" in there for
you. And if you are complaining about the phrase "net profit means
commercial enterprise", you are willfully ignoring the correct
interpretation simply for the sake of being argumentative. That phrase is
obviously not intended to define "net profit". It describes what the
implication of a "[positive] net profit" is.

If the pilot's fair share of the flight is compensated for by any income,
that's profit. The legal way to compensate the pilot for the flight is for
the pilot to earn the money somewhere else, in a job unrelated to the
flight. The illegal way to compensate the pilot for the flight is for the
pilot to earn the money as part of the flight.

> The old rule meant "no net profit". The new rule means something else.

I disagree. I don't know what the exact wording of the old rule was, but
the current rule clearly means "no net profit".

> As for "net profit meaning commercial enterprise", that's not true either.

Of course it is. That is the FAA's definition of a pilot flying for
compensation. They have a net profit from the flight. That is, they
receive money offsetting their fair share of the cost of the flight.

> Granted a commercial enterprise will need net profit to stay in business,
> and will need quite a bit of net profit. But no commercial enterprise
> will stay in business (without subsidy) if "net profit" means "loses as
> much as their customers", which is what the new rule actually works out
> to.

First of all, the only way for the pilot to "lose as much as their customer"
is for the pilot to pay his fair share.

Secondly, the thing you keep missing is that the pilot is both pilot and
customer. As customer, he is required to pay his fair share of the flight.
As pilot, he is not permitted to receive ANY compensation for his
participation in the flight. If he pays less than his fair share of the
flight, then he is still paying his fair share as a customer, but receiving
compensation as a pilot.

>> That's ignoring the fact that there is benefit to the pilot above and
>> beyond any benefit to his passengers.
>
> I like to fly. This joy is a benefit. But if you really mean it that way
> then I'm a commercial enterprise when I fly solo.

I wrote "that's ignoring the fact". What's so hard about "ignoring the
fact" for you to get on board with? The FAA has conveniently ignored the
joy of flying for the purpose of this discussion; you would do well to do so
as well.

> I make a written record of what transpired, noting how long I was flying
> and under what conditions, and keeping track of my flying experience. This
> is a benefit inasmuch as I can use it for currency and future ratings. I
> know the FAA has put its imprimateur on this twisting of the meaning of
> words.
>
> However I cannot =trade on= this "benefit".

Of course you can. You may be the sole pilot who doesn't bother to, but
other pilots trade on their recorded flight time all the time:

* Lower insurance rates
* Qualified to fly new types of airplanes (often due to FBO or insurance
rules, not FAA rules)
* Qualified for new pilot certificates
* Being chosen over a lower-time pilot for a paid flying job

There are plenty of other examples where flight time translated directly
into a net gain to the pilot, either in privileges, income, or both.

> [...]
>> All that said, I would still be surprised if there are many FBOs that
>> would be willing to be party to the kind of arrangement being discussed
>> here.
>
> So would I. But an airplane owner might do this. In fact, I think it's
> rather common in some circles (such as a company plane used for company
> business under part 91).

It would be perfectly legal for an airplane owner to do that, for a pilot
who holds a Commercial Pilot certificate. I don't know what your point was
supposed to be, but you're just making mine for me.

>> It may well be that the FAA's opinion is entirely moot, since no one
>> could actually attempt this particular end-run around the regulations.
>
> Well, I don't agree with this particular absolute. I'm not even sure it's
> all that hard, though I agree that an ordinary FBO is not likely to do
> this.

"May well be" is an absolute? Um, okay. Whatever floats your boat.

Pete

[Jose]

> I see no reason you should be permitted to fly for free, just because your
> friend broke his leg.

Do you see any reason I should be able to ride for free? What's the
difference?

> [the rules] are about preventing pilots from being paid to fly (and
> that includes paying less than anyone else in the airplane).

Well, I disagree with you and with the FAA that "paying less..." is
"being paid to fly". Of course, you know that by now. :)

> This obviously is NOT "nixed by the FAA", since plenty of student pilots are
> being paid scholarship money used to finance their education.

What's the difference here? The instrument student IS being paid to
fly, and is logging the time to boot. Does it change if the father (who
is paying for the lessons) comes along on the flight? Why should it?

> So what? Why shouldn't you pay more for the same flight? If you don't, the
> other guy has to pay three times what he paid on Monday. How is THAT fair?
> This has to be one of the silliest so-called "examples" in your list.

It shows silly results from the rule. It should be up to us how to
split it, so long as the pilot isn't making a net profit. Alas, it isn't.

> Presumably in the driving scenario, the riders don't pay gas and
> maintenance?

Nope. Or yep. Doesn't matter, it would work either way. But it
doesn't become a commercial (driving) scenario unless the driver is
charging for the ride like a taxi. But in the flying scenario, it
becomes a commercial endeavor from the getgo.

As for not being fair, we rotate driving each trip. When it's my turn,
I drive my airplane instead.

>>> Any amount of money a pilot spends less than his passengers is net
>>> profit. Net profit means commercial enterprise.
>> This is not the definition of net profit. Net profit is total intake
>> minus total outgo.
> What isn't the definition?

The definition of "profit" is not "any amount of money a pilot spends
less than his passengers". It is "any amount the pilot receives, over
and above his costs". The pilot can receive exactly =all= of his costs
and not have a profit. If you reported "profits" the way you defined
them, and were running a publicly owned business outside of Hollywood,
the securities board would have a word with you.

> If the pilot's fair share of the flight is compensated for by any income,
> that's profit.

No. True, the FAA defines it that way, and we have to live with the
consequences. But no. And I don't think the FAA should tell me what my
"fair share" is.

> the thing you keep missing is that the pilot is both pilot and
> customer. As customer, he is required to pay his fair share of the flight.

No. "customers" are not required to pay anything. Only the pilot is
required to pay something.

> Of course you can [=trade on= this "benefit"]. You may be the sole pilot who doesn't bother to, but
> other pilots trade on their recorded flight time all the time:
>
> * Lower insurance rates
> * Qualified to fly new types of airplanes (often due to FBO or insurance
> rules, not FAA rules)
> * Qualified for new pilot certificates
> * Being chosen over a lower-time pilot for a paid flying job

I am not "trading on" this "benefit" when I get any of these things. I
am not surrendering my hours like I would cash. I get these benefits
not by trading in hours like frequent flier miles, but rather, because
of the historical fact that I have flown those hours. This is not
"compensation" in any sense I understand the term.

>>> All that said, I would still be surprised if there are many FBOs that
>>> would be willing to be party to the kind of arrangement being discussed
>>> here.
>> So would I. But an airplane owner might do this. In fact, I think it's
>> rather common in some circles (such as a company plane used for company
>> business under part 91).
> It would be perfectly legal for an airplane owner to do that, for a pilot
> who holds a Commercial Pilot certificate. I don't know what your point was
> supposed to be, but you're just making mine for me.

My point was supposed to be that while an FBO might be unlikely to do
so, the situation (of a commercial pilot being able to benefit from
having the rating outside of commercial operations) is far from
impossible, and probably far from improbable. An airplane owner could
rent an airplane to a passenger, who would then independently hire a
commercial pilot to fly him, and treat the flight as a private pilot
would, though if the FAA gets picky, (say, claiming that having dinner
together counts as compensation) the pilot could fall back on it being
legal as a commercial part 91 enterprise. The FAA's creative
definitions of "compensation" would make me reluctant to go on a date in
an airplane if I'm being treated.

>>> It may well be that the FAA's opinion is entirely moot, since no one
>>> could actually attempt this particular end-run around the regulations.
>> Well, I don't agree with this particular absolute. I'm not even sure it's
>> all that hard, though I agree that an ordinary FBO is not likely to do
>> this.
> "May well be" is an absolute?

No. "...no one could actually attempt..." is an absolute.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> I see no reason you should be permitted to fly for free, just because
>> your friend broke his leg.
>
> Do you see any reason I should be able to ride for free? What's the
> difference?

Of course I see a reason. The difference is obvious: the pilot isn't
receiving any compensation from you at all when you fly free. That makes it
very black & white clear that it's not a "for hire" operation.

> [...]
>> This obviously is NOT "nixed by the FAA", since plenty of student pilots
>> are being paid scholarship money used to finance their education.
>
> What's the difference here? The instrument student IS being paid to fly,
> and is logging the time to boot. Does it change if the father (who is
> paying for the lessons) comes along on the flight? Why should it?

I don't understand your question. As far as I know, it doesn't matter who
pays the scholarship money, it's still permitted.

As far as whether your father can come along on a lesson or not, I guess
you'd have to ask the FSDO. I don't know the answer. Passengers are not
prohibited on training flights, but the FAA certainly might start asking you
uncomfortable questions if it appeared your father was taking advantage of
your training in order to pay you to fly him around.

>> So what? Why shouldn't you pay more for the same flight? If you don't,
>> the other guy has to pay three times what he paid on Monday. How is THAT
>> fair? This has to be one of the silliest so-called "examples" in your
>> list.
>
> It shows silly results from the rule. It should be up to us how to split
> it, so long as the pilot isn't making a net profit. Alas, it isn't.

It IS up to you as to how to split the costs, so long as the pilot isn't
making a net profit. You just refuse to comprehend how the pilot makes a
net profit when paying less than his pro-rata share.

>> Presumably in the driving scenario, the riders don't pay gas and
>> maintenance?
>
> Nope. Or yep. Doesn't matter, it would work either way.

My point is that you can easily rectify the presumed imbalance if you just
split the airplane costs, rather than having everyone foot the bill. It
DOES matter, the FAA rules give you a perfectly reasonable alternative given
your current tradition.

If you were to change the tradition to make the passengers pay not only for
the room, but also the car expenses, then the FAA would not allow the
equivalent in flying. But then it's possible you'd be running afoul of the
commercial driving regulations too (I don't know, not having studied them,
and not having been in any situation where someone was even remotely close
to paying me to drive them somewhere).

> But it doesn't become a commercial (driving) scenario unless the driver is
> charging for the ride like a taxi. But in the flying scenario, it becomes
> a commercial endeavor from the getgo.

If your passengers are forced to pay you for your room, along with all of
the car expenses, that sure sounds to me like the driver is charging for the
ride.

> As for not being fair, we rotate driving each trip. When it's my turn, I
> drive my airplane instead.

So what?

> The definition of "profit" is not "any amount of money a pilot spends less
> than his passengers". It is "any amount the pilot receives, over and
> above his costs".

Well, fortunately for this discussion, while I am using "profit" differently
than you are, the real issue is "compensation", which is the term the FAA
uses. Whether you think the pilot is profiting or not, that is irrelevant.
Any money provided to the pilot beyond his fair share of the cost of the
flight is "compensation".

>> If the pilot's fair share of the flight is compensated for by any income,
>> that's profit.
>
> No. True, the FAA defines it that way, and we have to live with the
> consequences. But no. And I don't think the FAA should tell me what my
> "fair share" is.

Well, too bad. They do. They do so for very good reasons, mostly related
to other pilots abusing the more relaxed version of the rules. It may well
be you'd never abuse that version, but other pilots do and the FAA decided
it was more efficient to draw a very clear, dark line.

>> the thing you keep missing is that the pilot is both pilot and customer.
>> As customer, he is required to pay his fair share of the flight.
>
> No. "customers" are not required to pay anything. Only the pilot is
> required to pay something.

Customers are not required to pay anything? Gosh darnit...I've been doing
this whole "customer" thing all wrong. I keep handing my money over to
people in return for goods and services. And now you tell me I wasn't
required to pay anything. I sure feel dumb now.

> I am not "trading on" this "benefit" when I get any of these things. I am
> not surrendering my hours like I would cash.

You don't need to be able to "surrender" your hours for them to be a
benefit. Suppose that instead of money, your employer simply gave you food
for your work, but you were required to eat the food upon receipt. You
can't surrender that food (as food), but it is still compensation. Not all
compensation is tradable. Never has been.

Your requirement that you be able to "trade" your hours is unreasonable and
irrelevant.

> [...]
> My point was supposed to be that while an FBO might be unlikely to do so,
> the situation (of a commercial pilot being able to benefit from having the
> rating outside of commercial operations) is far from impossible, and
> probably far from improbable.

Any time a pilot is paid (ie compensated) for flying, that's a commercial
operation. Whether it's legal or not. By definition, if the pilot is
exercising the privileges of his Commercial Pilot certificate, he is
engaging in a commercial operation.

Not all commercial operations require adherence to Part 135, Part 121, etc.

> An airplane owner could rent an airplane to a passenger, who would then
> independently hire a commercial pilot to fly him, and treat the flight as
> a private pilot would,

Huh? How does the passenger treat the flight as a private pilot would?
What does that mean?

> though if the FAA gets picky, (say, claiming that having dinner together
> counts as compensation) the pilot could fall back on it being legal as a
> commercial part 91 enterprise. The FAA's creative definitions of
> "compensation" would make me reluctant to go on a date in an airplane if
> I'm being treated.

So you'd skip the date rather than going Dutch? That seems silly. Though,
I suppose it does depend on the girl.

In any case, my point was that if the pilot is arranging the airplane for
the customer, the FAA is likely to consider that an illegal Part 135
operation, even if the customer actually pays for the airplane themself.

> No. "...no one could actually attempt..." is an absolute.

It was an "absolute" preceded by a qualifier, one that disqualified it as
"absolute".

Again, you seem to be reading and interpreting selectively, simply for the
sake of being argumentative.

Pete

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Net profit means commercial enterprise.

I don't fly in the USA, so I don't really care. And I agree that neither
your nor my opinion matter. This said:

Profit doesn't mean commercial enterprise. There are commercial
enterprises without profit (although, supposedly, they won't exist very
long), and you can make a profit without being a commercial enterprize.
(Winning a lottery, for example.)

Where I fly, the regulation is very different. Here, commercial means
"as a profession". I agree that theoretically this opens a grey area,
but in real life, things are pretty clear.

So as a private pilot, I am not allowed to offer flights to the public.
Even not if I ask less money than their share. On the other hand, I'm
allowed to fly with a friend, even if he pays everything and the lunch.
The idea is, that the reason of the commercial ticket is to protect the
public. Makes much more sense to me.

Stefan

[Jose]

> The difference is obvious: the pilot isn't
> receiving any compensation from you at all when you fly free.

No, I mean any difference between flying and riding free. Of course
there is a difference, but is it one that should apply? My point is to
counter yours that "I see no reason you should be permitted to fly for
free, just because your friend broke his leg." I was already going to
=ride= for free, it just so happens I'm a pilot and qualified to fly his
plane home (even with him and his broken leg in it); I see no reason why
I should not be permitted to, or why the FAA gets to stick its nose in here.

> I don't understand your question. As far as I know, it doesn't matter who
> pays the scholarship money, it's still permitted.

On the one hand you are saying that if a pilot gets to fly for free,
that is compensation and makes it a commercial endavor. Well, when my
friend pays for the airplane, I am flying for free doing my instrument
training (or any other flight). The same is true when my father or my
fiancee pays. So why is one case commercial and the other not?

> You just refuse to comprehend how the pilot makes a
> net profit when paying less than his pro-rata share.

This new learning amazes me. Tell me again how the earth is banana
shaped. Profit is income minus outgo. Period.

> the real issue is "compensation", which is the term the FAA
> uses.

.... and with which I am taking issue. Of course I'm railing at the
wind, but this =is= Usenet, and there is plenty of wind. :)

> Any money provided to the pilot beyond his fair share of the cost of the
> flight is "compensation".

IOW if the pilot gets to fly for free, he is compensated. By what?
We're down to "joy of flying" and "historical record of experience".
Were this to be logically extended past the FAA (and that's my test of
reasonableness of word use), it would be compensation whenever I go to
the library and read a book. Now while I'd agree that I was
"enrichened" by the experience, any business that consideres itself to
have a profit whenever it learns something will not be in business long.

> If your [car] passengers are forced to pay you for your room, along with all of
> the car expenses, that sure sounds to me like the driver is charging for the
> ride.

Well, yes, but the taxi and livery commission doesn't seem to have a
problem with this (except in France).

> They do so for very good reasons, mostly related
> to other pilots abusing the more relaxed version of the rules.

I'd like to see some of this. Do you have any cites?

> So you'd skip the date rather than going Dutch? That seems silly.

I might not be able to afford to go dutch. And the pilot might be the
girl. Or the girl might be paying.

> In any case, my point was that if the pilot is arranging the airplane for
> the customer, the FAA is likely to consider that an illegal Part 135
> operation, even if the customer actually pays for the airplane themself.

Correct. But the passenger could arrange for the plane himself, for
example through his business which owns an airplane. He could then come
to me (a friend) to fly that plane with him in it, and split the costs.
We would be safe from prosecution since, viewed as a commercial
enterprise, it is legal. Viewed as a private enterprise it is too grey
for comfort.

> It was an "absolute" preceded by a qualifier, one that disqualified it as
> "absolute".

The point where the absolute was is absolute, sort of like "it might be
because it is impossible"... when "it" is actually not impossible at
all. But I'll drop it.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> So as a private pilot [licensed and operating outside the USA], I am not allowed to offer flights to the public. Even not if I ask less money than their share. On the other hand, I'm allowed to fly with a friend, even if he pays everything and the lunch. The idea is, that the reason of the commercial ticket is to protect the public. Makes much more sense to me.

That's the way it should be. Here in the US we've muddled things up.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Hilton]

Jose wrote:

> > So as a private pilot [licensed and operating outside the USA], I am not
allowed to offer flights to the public. Even not if I ask less money than
their share. On the other hand, I'm allowed to fly with a friend, even if he
pays everything and the lunch. The idea is, that the reason of the
commercial ticket is to protect the public. Makes much more sense to me.
>
> That's the way it should be. Here in the US we've muddled things up.

Define "friend" for us NG folk. Now define "friend" in a 'legal' sense as
you would like to see it written in the FARs.

Hilton

[Stefan]

Hilton wrote:

> Define "friend" for us NG folk. Now define "friend" in a 'legal' sense as
> you would like to see it written in the FARs.

I was expecting this. As I said: Theoretically a grey area, but in real
life, it works just fine. At least it does here, not sure whether it
would in the USA.

Stefan

[Gary Drescher]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Jose wrote:
>
>> > So as a private pilot [licensed and operating outside the USA], I am
>> > not
> allowed to offer flights to the public. Even not if I ask less money than
> their share. On the other hand, I'm allowed to fly with a friend, even if
> he
> pays everything and the lunch. The idea is, that the reason of the
> commercial ticket is to protect the public. Makes much more sense to me.
>>
>> That's the way it should be. Here in the US we've muddled things up.
>
> Define "friend" for us NG folk. Now define "friend" in a 'legal' sense as
> you would like to see it written in the FARs.

But the pro rata requirement doesn't obviate the need to distinguish friends
from the public. That distinction still comes up with regard to "holding
out", which private pilots can't do even if they pay their pro rata share of
the flight. So there'd be no additional complexity or ambiguity if the rules
permitted compensation of up to the full cost of the flight, rather than
arbitrarily insisting that the pilot pay a pro rata share.

--Gary

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 03:28:29 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>2: My father thinks I should be instrument rated, and offers to pay for
>flying lessons and flying time so that I can get my rating. Nixed by
>the FAA.

He could gift you up to $11,500 (I think that's the current gift
exemption) per year. Then you pay the school.

[Jose]

>> 2: My father thinks I should be instrument rated, and offers to pay for
>> flying lessons and flying time so that I can get my rating. Nixed by
>> the FAA.
>
> He could gift you up to $11,500 (I think that's the current gift
> exemption) per year. Then you pay the school.

That is a tax rule, and has nothing to do with the FAA. For that
matter, my neighbor could gift me $11,500 and pay the tax. Then I pay
the other tax and pay the school.

Does it then matter whether I get my instrument rating on this money, or
just fly my neighbor around for free?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:
>
> 2: My father thinks I should be instrument rated, and offers to pay for
> flying lessons and flying time so that I can get my rating. Nixed by
> the FAA.

Not at all. The FAA believes that in this case, you are being paid to *learn*,
not being paid to fly. The case is exactly equivalent to a pilot who has to go
to a business meeting and gets reimbursed by his company for flying there. He's
getting paid to attend the meeting, not to fly.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Jose wrote:
> 2: My father thinks I should be instrument rated, and offers to pay for
> flying lessons and flying time so that I can get my rating. Nixed by
> the FAA.


A sweet deal if your dad would cough up that much cash. I don't see where it
becomes any of the FAA's business where it came from. Would your dad give you
up?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Jose]

> Not at all. The FAA believes that in this case, you are being paid to *learn*, not being paid to fly.

But I am getting =compensation= in the form of hours I can use for
additional ratings, ratings I can use for additional flying and
insurance discounts, I'm getting free flying (which is "joy of flight"
as compensation)...

So...

Suppose some of the required flights I take for the instrument rating
are paid by my friends in the back seat? I'm being paid to learn, just
this time not by my father.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:
>> Not at all. The FAA believes that in this case, you are being paid to
>> *learn*, not being paid to fly.
>
> But I am getting =compensation= in the form of hours ...

*Not* for flying.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Jose]

> *Not* for flying.

What for then, if not for flying? Learning? I learn something every
time I fly.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> *Not* for flying.
>
> What for then, if not for flying? Learning? I learn something every time
> I fly.

It's the same reason that a primary instructor can work on a 3rd class
medical, even as they are being paid and are acting as PIC at the same time.
They are being paid to *teach*, not to fly.

I personally find the distinction odd, but it's the way the FAA has decided
to draw the line. Inasmuch as the line-drawing is arbitrary anyway, I don't
have any serious problem with their choice.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>> Net profit means commercial enterprise.
>
> I don't fly in the USA, so I don't really care. And I agree that neither
> your nor my opinion matter. This said:
>
> Profit doesn't mean commercial enterprise.

To the FAA, profiting as a result of your flying means it's a commercial
enterprise.

Perhaps it's because your native language isn't English...but honestly, it
didn't occur to me I should have to be so explicit about that statement.

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> To the FAA, profiting as a result of your flying means it's a commercial
> enterprise.
>
> Perhaps it's because your native language isn't English...but honestly, it
> didn't occur to me I should have to be so explicit about that statement.

Well, you wrote:

> To me, the new rules make more sense than allowing a Private pilot's
> entire costs to be paid by someone else. Any amount of money a pilot
> spends less than his passengers is net profit. Net profit means
> commercial enterprise.

If this means that it's only the FAA's opinion and not yours, then I
agree that I have a language problem.

Stefan

[Jose]

> I personally find the distinction odd, but it's the way the FAA has decided
> to draw the line. Inasmuch as the line-drawing is arbitrary anyway, I don't
> have any serious problem with their choice.

The oddness of the distinction is my point. I don't think line-drawing
needs to be arbitrary, the FAA seems to go out of its way to find odd
places to draw lines.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

>> Define "friend" for us NG folk. Now define "friend" in a 'legal' sense as
>> you would like to see it written in the FARs.

A "friend" is one with whom one has a prior personal relationship. I
would not define "friend" in a legal sense for the FARs, because I
believe that the private pilot privilage of flying somebody who pays for
the flight (but no more than the cost of the flight) should be extended
beyond friends, just like it is extended beyond friends in an automotive
sense. I also believe that a commercial operation should be reserved
for commercial pilots, just like automotive livery services are reserved
for licensed livery operators. The boundary is always fuzzy, moving the
boundary does not make it less fuzzy.

The important pieces are (IMHO):
1: Protection of the flying public from the perception that they are
receiving a greater degree of safety and oversight than they are. (this
is more of a disclosure issue - "I'm a private pilot, not a commercial
pilot, I have not been tested to the higher commercial standards and
neither has the aircraft.")

2: Protection of legitimate charter operations from fly-by-nights that
are really trying to undercut them by skimping on safety. This is more
of a business issue, and is primarily aimed at operations that are
intending to make a profit that they can take to the bank.

3: Protection of the freedom in this country to manage our own affairs
the way we wish, so long as it does not adversely and unfairly impact
others.

I believe that private pilots should be able to fly passengers, whether
they are friends, friends-of-friends, new-found acquantances, or cub
scouts they've never met. I believe they should be able to do so even
if the pilot doesn't have any independent reason to fly to the
passenger's destination. Joy of flight is reason enough to take off.

I believe that private pilots should be prohibited from running a
commercial operation in disguise, but should be able to recover all
costs of operating the aircraft for an individual flight. I believe
that posting on a college ride board in the same manner as an automotive
posting does not establish commercial intent.

My beliefs are more liberal than the FAA's present rules allow, and one
could rightly conclude that I disagree with the FAA's rules on this
matter. However, I think that the present rules draw a line that is
more arbitrary than the ones I would draw.

To address the question above, I would replace 61.113 (c) with something
like: "A private pilot may share the operating expenses of a flight
with his passengers in any mutually agreed upon manner. A private pilot
may not receive compensation for the flight over and above these
expenses. Except as otherwise provided in this part, a private pilot
may not operate in a manner resembling a commercial operation; this
resemblance being considered overall rather than flight by flight."

No, this is not a clear-cut division either, no rule (except an outright
ban) is. However, I believe the wording provides a clear enough picture
so that a judge is likely to interpret it the same way a pilot is likely
to have done (making a violation likely to be deliberate rather than a
trap), while preserving the maximum reasonable freedom for a private
pilot to operate.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Denny]

Lotsa luck...

denny