Illegal charters

[Bob Gardner]

Considering the number of threads we see discussing what a pilot can and
cannot get away with insofar as sharing costs and quasi-Part 135 operations
are concerned, today's Avweb article on increased FAA emphasis in this area
should be illuminating.

Bob Gardner

[JohnH]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> Considering the number of threads we see discussing what a pilot can
> and cannot get away with insofar as sharing costs and quasi-Part 135
> operations are concerned, today's Avweb article on increased FAA
> emphasis in this area should be illuminating.

I am still waiting to see a single example of someone punished by the FAA
for this. Unless the FAA is randomly calling pilots and asking them to fly
them somewhere, or eavesdropping on people who are actually exchanging
money, I can't imagine how they would ever know. I would certainly hope
they have more important things to do than "crack down" on this very grey
legality.

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, unless a charter company lost
business to it.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:31:33 -0400, "JohnH" >
wrote in >::

>
>Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, unless a charter company lost
>business to it.
>

It's a matter of standards for public safety mandated by the FAA.

[JohnH]

>> Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, unless a charter company
>> lost business to it.
>>
>
> It's a matter of standards for public safety mandated by the FAA.

You lost me there. Is a flight safer if a pilot pays for part of it?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"JohnH" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, unless a charter company
>>> lost business to it.
>>>
>>
>> It's a matter of standards for public safety mandated by the FAA.
>
> You lost me there. Is a flight safer if a pilot pays for part of it?
>

Well yes, a charter operator has much higher standards it must meet to be a
charter operator. Are you saying because there happens at this moment in
time to be no charter operators where I'm based I should be able to rent out
my PP-SEL R-H skills to those that would use the service if it were
available? I mean otherwise the people are going to drive and no charter
operator is going to be out any business.

[Jose]

>>You lost me there. Is a flight safer if a pilot pays for part of it?
> Well yes, a charter operator has much higher standards

Which is the answer to a different question. When a pilot pays for the
flight, it does not become safer.

> Are you saying because there happens at this moment in
> time to be no charter operators where I'm based I should be able to rent out
> my PP-SEL R-H skills

No, I don't think that's what he was saying. I also don't think that a
PP should be able to "rent out" one's skills just because there isn't a
charter operation out there. However, there's a large area between
"taking a friend on a flight that you would have made anyway, to a place
he was going anyway" and putting a shingle at the airport "I'll fly
anyone anywhere for money". For example, a college student who is a
pilot offers to fly people in his dorm for costs. I see no reason this
should be prohibited, nor where safety is enhanced by requiring the
pilot to subsidize the flight. In fact, overall safety is increased the
more the pilot flies.

The difference I see is in whether a pilot =represents himself= or
passively =allows= himself to be represented as a charter pilot of
sorts. Doing so is what I believe the FAA wants us to believe it is
going after with its "holding out" rule, but I think the FAA's holding
out rule is too stringent.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Gardner]

Think about it. A 135 pilot must take a checkride every six months, and a
physical every six months or a year, depending on whether s/he holds a first
or second class medical. The airplane must have 100 hour inspections in
addition to the required annual. The 135 operation as a whole is subject to
a load of regulations involving such things as financial stability and the
experience of management personnel. They are given Operations Specifications
by the FAA to which they must adhere.

These are just some of the many differences between an operation "for hire"
and just someone with a certificate in their pocket.

Bob Gardner

"JohnH" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, unless a charter company
>>> lost business to it.
>>>
>>
>> It's a matter of standards for public safety mandated by the FAA.
>
> You lost me there. Is a flight safer if a pilot pays for part of it?
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>You lost me there. Is a flight safer if a pilot pays for part of it?
>> Well yes, a charter operator has much higher standards
>
> Which is the answer to a different question. When a pilot pays for the
> flight, it does not become safer.
>
>> Are you saying because there happens at this moment in time to be no
>> charter operators where I'm based I should be able to rent out my PP-SEL
>> R-H skills
>
> No, I don't think that's what he was saying. I also don't think that a PP
> should be able to "rent out" one's skills just because there isn't a
> charter operation out there. However, there's a large area between
> "taking a friend on a flight that you would have made anyway, to a place
> he was going anyway" and putting a shingle at the airport "I'll fly anyone
> anywhere for money". For example, a college student who is a pilot offers
> to fly people in his dorm for costs. I see no reason this should be
> prohibited, nor where safety is enhanced by requiring the pilot to
> subsidize the flight. In fact, overall safety is increased the more the
> pilot flies.
>
> The difference I see is in whether a pilot =represents himself= or
> passively =allows= himself to be represented as a charter pilot of sorts.
> Doing so is what I believe the FAA wants us to believe it is going after
> with its "holding out" rule, but I think the FAA's holding out rule is too
> stringent.
>

I agree the rule is very stringent. BUT I don't see how you could loosen it
much without opening a ton of loopholes that will be quickly used and will
result in accidents that cause a whole new set of even more stringent rules
to be enacted.

Gig

[Michael]

> Which is the answer to a different question. When a pilot pays for the
> flight, it does not become safer.

True. But if the pilot must pay for the flight entirely out of his own
pocket, an unsafe flight is less likely to be made. The pilot lacks
the financial incentive to make the flight.

It's not that there are not other possible incentives that can cause a
pilot to make a less-than-ideal go/no-go decision, but as long as he is
not holding out nor accepting compensation, the only people at risk are
the pilot and his friends and family - presumably people who know him
well enough to make an informed decision as to whether the risk is
acceptable.

This is actually one of the few times the FAA got it right. The
regulation as written is totally unenforceable if the pilot and
passengers know each other and collude to violate the regulation. Make
the payment in cash behind closed doors, and it's totally impossible to
prove anything happened. However, in such a case the passenger knows
that regulations are being violated and that he is trusting his life to
a pilot deemed not qualified for the operation - and knows the pilot
well enough to decide if this is a good idea. Gotta tell you, this
goes on all the time.

Next step up is pilot services. If you own (or can lease or rent) an
airplane, you're presumed to be knowledgeable enough about what you're
getting into to be permitted to hire any random commercial pilot to fly
you. No charter rules apply. You can hire a 300 hour pilot with an
instrument rating and a commercial ticket who has never flown outside
the instructional environment and has zero actual IMC experience to fly
you and your family in your A-36 Bonanza at night in IMC over the
Rockies.

And then there's a member of the general public. You're not a pilot or
an owner. You are presumed not competent to make any decisions, and
your only option is a certified charter operation. Now the pilot will
need 1200 hours total time, 100 hours in make and model, an autopilot,
redundant electrical and gyro systems, a monitoring program for the
engine, an operating manual. regular checkrides - and of course it will
all cost a lot more. But it will be safer.

Michael

[Jose]

> BUT I don't see how you could loosen it
> much without opening a ton of loopholes that will be quickly used and will
> result in accidents that cause a whole new set of even more stringent rules
> to be enacted.

No rule is free of loopholes. I posted elsewhere (a week ago?) my
proposal; it was essentially to go back to what we had twenty years ago.
A private pilot may accept compensation up to the total amount of the
flight, but no more. He is not required to make any minimum payment,
but the passengers may not pay more (in sum) than the flight costs. The
pilot cannot make a profit (in the dictionary sense).

I would add that all passengers must be informed that the flight is
under the "private pilot" rules, not the "commercial pilot" rules which
are more stringent in regards to safety. (I don't think that it is
necessary to go into what the rules really are - the point is to prevent
mis-representation of the venue)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

>>Which is the answer to a different question. When a pilot pays for the
>> flight, it does not become safer.
> True. But if the pilot must pay for the flight entirely out of his own
> pocket, an unsafe flight is less likely to be made. The pilot lacks
> the financial incentive to make the flight.

The next flight will be made with a less experienced pilot, as will all
subsequent ones. This is the same argument I make for hand flying
rather than relying on the autopilot, and using pilotage rather than
just following the GPS. The more you use your skills, the more skilled
you'll become.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Gardner]

Go to http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/186346-1.html. Click on "Five traps
for the unwary private pilot." Read the case law citation contained therein.
Now you have heard of such a case.

Bob Gardner

"JohnH" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>> Considering the number of threads we see discussing what a pilot can
>> and cannot get away with insofar as sharing costs and quasi-Part 135
>> operations are concerned, today's Avweb article on increased FAA
>> emphasis in this area should be illuminating.
>
> I am still waiting to see a single example of someone punished by the FAA
> for this. Unless the FAA is randomly calling pilots and asking them to
> fly them somewhere, or eavesdropping on people who are actually exchanging
> money, I can't imagine how they would ever know. I would certainly hope
> they have more important things to do than "crack down" on this very grey
> legality.
>
> Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, unless a charter company lost
> business to it.
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> BUT I don't see how you could loosen it much without opening a ton of
>> loopholes that will be quickly used and will result in accidents that
>> cause a whole new set of even more stringent rules to be enacted.
>
> No rule is free of loopholes. I posted elsewhere (a week ago?) my
> proposal; it was essentially to go back to what we had twenty years ago. A
> private pilot may accept compensation up to the total amount of the
> flight, but no more. He is not required to make any minimum payment, but
> the passengers may not pay more (in sum) than the flight costs. The pilot
> cannot make a profit (in the dictionary sense).
>
> I would add that all passengers must be informed that the flight is under
> the "private pilot" rules, not the "commercial pilot" rules which are more
> stringent in regards to safety. (I don't think that it is necessary to go
> into what the rules really are - the point is to prevent
> mis-representation of the venue)
>


At which point every PP looking to be an ATP stands at the airport offering
rides like a cab driver in aircraft that isn't anywhere close to the Part
135 standards.

[Jose]

> At which point every PP looking to be an ATP stands at the airport offering
> rides like a cab driver in aircraft that isn't anywhere close to the Part
> 135 standards.

I don't think so. For many years the rule allowed a pilot to fly with
no restriction on having to pay a certain share of the flight. To my
knowledge, pilots weren't hawking themselves at the airport like that.

I did offer rides in my college dorm to people who wanted to fly. Made
some nice flights that way. It was a small college, we all pretty much
knew each other. Now it would be considered "holding out" even if I
paid the whole thing and I'd be in the hoosegow. Is this the problem?

Does anybody here know why the rule was changed?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Michael]

> The next flight will be made with a less experienced pilot

Yes, but these passengers won't be on the next flight - they will be on
this one. From the pilot's perspective, safety is indeed degraded by
these rules - but it's not the pilot the rules are intended to protect.

Michael

[grubertm]

How does FAR 61.113b work ?
Let's say I work for that widget company mentioned in the AvWeb article
and usually manufacture little widgets. For a trade show I am asked to
fly some sample parts using a rented airplane. It seems that the "no
compensation or hire" rule does not apply in this case and (given the
willingness of the CEO) I could charge the company 100% operating
expenses and "pilot bonus".
Now let's say the CEO wants to go to that trade show as well. He would
be a passenger and now 61.113b2 applies since he is a passenger and
therefore I may not collect any money at all, thus have to pay 100% of
operating expenses myself.
Yes, no, maybe ?

- Marco

[RST Engineering]

How does FAR 61.113b work ?
> Let's say I work for that widget company mentioned in the AvWeb article
> and usually manufacture little widgets. For a trade show I am asked to
> fly some sample parts using a rented airplane. It seems that the "no
> compensation or hire" rule does not apply in this case and (given the
> willingness of the CEO) I could charge the company 100% operating
> expenses and "pilot bonus".

You are not being employed as a pilot. You are being employed to make
widgets. The fact that you choose to use an airplane instead of an
automobile to get to your widget show is not the pivot point. Your company
can rent you the airplane and pay your normal salary or hourly wage on your
trip. HOWEVER, you cobbed the system up by saying "pilot bonus". Now you
ARE being employed as a pilot and without a commercial certificate, you
can't do that.



> Now let's say the CEO wants to go to that trade show as well. He would
> be a passenger and now 61.113b2 applies since he is a passenger and
> therefore I may not collect any money at all, thus have to pay 100% of
> operating expenses myself.

Nope, same argument. You are not being paid to fly the CEO to the widget
show. The company can pick up the entire cost of the airplane and your
normal widgetworker salary while on the trip.

That's the way I read the regulation.\


Jim

[Roger]

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 19:44:21 -0700, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>Considering the number of threads we see discussing what a pilot can and
>cannot get away with insofar as sharing costs and quasi-Part 135 operations
>are concerned, today's Avweb article on increased FAA emphasis in this area
>should be illuminating.

I liked the example of a primary student in a high performance,
complex, retract as being a charter. I know of a Doctor and his son
who both took their primary training in an A36 Bonanza and a musician
who did it in a Glasair III.

I wonder what their insurance rates were the first few years? <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Bob Gardner
>

[Jose]

> Yes, but these passengers won't be on the next flight - they will be on
> this one.

Other passengers will be on the next flight, and other people will be in
the houses below.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Aluckyguess]

Lets say I work for company A, company A has 4 factorys and I have to go to
all 4 factorys. I can charge the company my expences and if another employee
wanted to catch a ride this would be ok because I was going there anyhow?

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> How does FAR 61.113b work ?
>> Let's say I work for that widget company mentioned in the AvWeb article
>> and usually manufacture little widgets. For a trade show I am asked to
>> fly some sample parts using a rented airplane. It seems that the "no
>> compensation or hire" rule does not apply in this case and (given the
>> willingness of the CEO) I could charge the company 100% operating
>> expenses and "pilot bonus".
>
> You are not being employed as a pilot. You are being employed to make
> widgets. The fact that you choose to use an airplane instead of an
> automobile to get to your widget show is not the pivot point. Your
> company can rent you the airplane and pay your normal salary or hourly
> wage on your trip. HOWEVER, you cobbed the system up by saying "pilot
> bonus". Now you ARE being employed as a pilot and without a commercial
> certificate, you can't do that.
>
>
>
>> Now let's say the CEO wants to go to that trade show as well. He would
>> be a passenger and now 61.113b2 applies since he is a passenger and
>> therefore I may not collect any money at all, thus have to pay 100% of
>> operating expenses myself.
>
> Nope, same argument. You are not being paid to fly the CEO to the widget
> show. The company can pick up the entire cost of the airplane and your
> normal widgetworker salary while on the trip.
>
> That's the way I read the regulation.\
>
>
> Jim
>

[Roger]

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 17:17:59 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>How does FAR 61.113b work ?
>> Let's say I work for that widget company mentioned in the AvWeb article
>> and usually manufacture little widgets. For a trade show I am asked to
>> fly some sample parts using a rented airplane. It seems that the "no

A private pilot and part 91? They'd be out of their ever lovin'
minds. Now I can see them asking an employee such as an engineer or
sales staff who has a reason for going and who plans on flying to take
some parts along.

Most companies will not even let their employees fly their own plane
to business conferences. The company I retired from had that policy.
I still flew, but I'd take vacation the day before and the day after
the show, conference, or school so I could get there and back on my
own time. I heard a lot of grumbling, but no one ever said anything
to me about it directly. For "compensation" I was allowed to claim
the same for mileage as if I had been driving a car.

Most of the time I ended up going either commercial or on the company
plane. It was both cheaper and faster back then. Now I can usually
beat the jets on a radius of Michigan to Denver or central Florida.
Given the extended check in times and lay-overs (hardly anything flys
direct from here to any where) and weather that does not cause me to
have to stop for fuel, I can usually beat them by a comfortable
margin.

>> compensation or hire" rule does not apply in this case and (given the
>> willingness of the CEO) I could charge the company 100% operating
>> expenses and "pilot bonus".
>
>You are not being employed as a pilot. You are being employed to make
>widgets. The fact that you choose to use an airplane instead of an
>automobile to get to your widget show is not the pivot point. Your company
>can rent you the airplane and pay your normal salary or hourly wage on your
>trip. HOWEVER, you cobbed the system up by saying "pilot bonus". Now you
>ARE being employed as a pilot and without a commercial certificate, you
>can't do that.

It gets even more complicated depending on which auditor you draw.
<:-))
But the company is probably not going to want to rent an airplane for
one of their employees to fly to the show even if the boss rides
along. Insurance and liability issues aside, There limits as to how
much they can deduct and that varies with how they are set up and who
owns the airplane.

For me, the most I could deduct flying my own plane (or renting) was
the equivalent of a non discount, coach class airfare. The company
can do that per filled seat. Big multinational corporations can
afford to own flying offices and conference rooms as their execs are
worth more per hour than the airplane, but it'd be a very rare small
company of individual that could afford much more than a small plane.
Generally it's far more expensive to fly even a 172 than go commercial
unless paying a non discount airfare. Even then the 172 probably costs
more for a relatively long trip.

>
>
>
>> Now let's say the CEO wants to go to that trade show as well. He would
>> be a passenger and now 61.113b2 applies since he is a passenger and
>> therefore I may not collect any money at all, thus have to pay 100% of
>> operating expenses myself.
>
>Nope, same argument. You are not being paid to fly the CEO to the widget
>show. The company can pick up the entire cost of the airplane and your
>normal widgetworker salary while on the trip.

I'd hope the company was more liability savvy than that, but they
legally could do it.

>
>That's the way I read the regulation.\

Me too. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>Jim
>

[Morgans]

"Roger" > wrote

> I liked the example of a primary student in a high performance,
> complex, retract as being a charter. I know of a Doctor and his son
> who both took their primary training in an A36 Bonanza and a musician
> who did it in a Glasair III.
>
> I wonder what their insurance rates were the first few years? <:-))

That goes under the classification of "If you have to ask, you can't afford
it." <g>
--
Jim in NC

[RST Engineering]

Lissen, idiot. The person asked the LEGALITIES, not whether the company
would allow it

READ THE FREAKIN' POST before answering.

Jim



"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 17:17:59 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>How does FAR 61.113b work ?
>>> Let's say I work for that widget company mentioned in the AvWeb article
>>> and usually manufacture little widgets. For a trade show I am asked to
>>> fly some sample parts using a rented airplane. It seems that the "no
>
> A private pilot and part 91? They'd be out of their ever lovin'
> minds. Now I can see them asking an employee such as an engineer or
> sales staff who has a reason for going and who plans on flying to take
> some parts along.
>
> Most companies will not even let their employees fly their own plane
> to business conferences.

[Sylvain]

grubertm wrote:
> How does FAR 61.113b work ?
> Let's say I work for that widget company mentioned in the AvWeb article
> and usually manufacture little widgets. For a trade show I am asked to
> fly some sample parts using a rented airplane. It seems that the "no
> compensation or hire" rule does not apply in this case and (given the
> willingness of the CEO) I could charge the company 100% operating
> expenses and "pilot bonus".
> Now let's say the CEO wants to go to that trade show as well. He would
> be a passenger and now 61.113b2 applies since he is a passenger and
> therefore I may not collect any money at all, thus have to pay 100% of
> operating expenses myself.
> Yes, no, maybe ?

If I may have a go at this (correct me when/where I got it wrong):

If your employer, the CEO of Widgets-R-Us, asks you to go to
the trade show (without specifying *how*) and that you decide to
fly yourself there (assuming it doesn't go against Widgets-R-Us
corporate policies, as it often does...), as opposed to, say,
drive, or ride a bike, or a pogo stick or walk there, whatever,
then you are in the clear as far as I understand it, even if you
are a private pilot renting the aircraft from your local FBO or
flying club; the reasoning is that you would be going anyway,
flying is just incidental, and that you are paid by your employer
to go -- including expenses to cover your travel costs -- and
attend a trade show, and are not paid to fly. I reckon it
would be equally fine should the CEO comes along.

Things become a lot murkier if your boss specifically asks you to
*fly* there, and down right bad should you decide to charge a
'pilot bonus'... unless the aircraft is owned/leased/operated
by Widgets-R-Us and that you are a commercial pilot...

--Sylvain

[Peter R.]

RST Engineering > wrote:

> Lissen, idiot. The person asked the LEGALITIES, not whether the company
> would allow it
>
> READ THE FREAKIN' POST before answering.

Wow, was that viciousness of your attack on Roger Halstead, a very
experienced pilot who has done nothing but offer quality and kind advice in
this group over the years, really necessary?

Amazing how more and more of the regulars of this group have moved away
from sharing their experiences for the benefit of us less experienced pilot
and instead use it as a stage for their bloated egos.

Pompous ass.

--
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 =----

[grubertm]

> Your company
> can rent you the airplane and pay your normal salary or hourly wage on your
> trip. HOWEVER, you cobbed the system up by saying "pilot bonus". Now you
> ARE being employed as a pilot and without a commercial certificate, you
> can't do that.

So 100% reimbursement for operating expenses would be okay, but more
than 100% is not ?
61.113b states that a private pilot may act as PIC for compensation or
hire in connection with a business as long as the flight is only
incidental to that business. Where does it define compensation to be
limited to operating expenses ? Your interpretation makes sense, but I
don't see any legal restrictions on the amount/type of compensation in
61.113b.

> > Now let's say the CEO wants to go to that trade show as well. He would
> > be a passenger and now 61.113b2 applies since he is a passenger and
> > therefore I may not collect any money at all, thus have to pay 100% of
> > operating expenses myself.
>
> Nope, same argument. You are not being paid to fly the CEO to the widget
> show. The company can pick up the entire cost of the airplane and your
> normal widgetworker salary while on the trip.

Why ? The 61.113b excpetion only applies if both 61.113.b.1 and
61.113.b.2 are met. If we consider the CEO to be a passenger then
61.113.b.2 is not met, thus 61.113.b is not applicable any more.
Therefore the PIC would have to either pay 100% or 50% depending on
whether 61.113.c apply.

- Marco

[Jose]

> If we consider the CEO to be a passenger then
> 61.113.b.2 is not met

Why?

61.113.b.2 says "... the aircraft does not carry passengers or property
for compensation or hire." The CEO who is also going to the trade show
is a "passenger" but is not a "passenger for compensation or hire". The
business is not being compensated for carrying its own CEO. The clause
would apply if, say, the flight carried somebody who paid the company to
be on that flight, as if it were an air taxi.

Look at it this way - you can take the the sales display with you. You
would be carrying property, and the flight would still be "for
compensation or hire", but you would not be carrying "property for
compensation or hire".

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roger]

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:14:35 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>Lissen, idiot. The person asked the LEGALITIES, not whether the company
>would allow it
>
>READ THE FREAKIN' POST before answering.
>
>Jim
>
>
One of us must be having a bad day.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:06:00 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote
>
>> I liked the example of a primary student in a high performance,
>> complex, retract as being a charter. I know of a Doctor and his son
>> who both took their primary training in an A36 Bonanza and a musician
>> who did it in a Glasair III.
>>
>> I wonder what their insurance rates were the first few years? <:-))
>
>That goes under the classification of "If you have to ask, you can't afford
>it." <g>

I'm retired, on a pension and SS and I don't have to ask<:-)) They
probably paid more for insurance than I do for my entire operating
cost per year.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Aluckyguess]

"grubertm" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Your company
>> can rent you the airplane and pay your normal salary or hourly wage on
>> your
>> trip. HOWEVER, you cobbed the system up by saying "pilot bonus". Now
>> you
>> ARE being employed as a pilot and without a commercial certificate, you
>> can't do that.
>
> So 100% reimbursement for operating expenses would be okay, but more
> than 100% is not ?
> 61.113b states that a private pilot may act as PIC for compensation or
> hire in connection with a business as long as the flight is only
> incidental to that business. Where does it define compensation to be
> limited to operating expenses ? Your interpretation makes sense, but I
> don't see any legal restrictions on the amount/type of compensation in
> 61.113b.
>
>> > Now let's say the CEO wants to go to that trade show as well. He would
>> > be a passenger and now 61.113b2 applies since he is a passenger and
>> > therefore I may not collect any money at all, thus have to pay 100% of
>> > operating expenses myself.
>>
>> Nope, same argument. You are not being paid to fly the CEO to the widget
>> show. The company can pick up the entire cost of the airplane and your
>> normal widgetworker salary while on the trip.
>
> Why ? The 61.113b excpetion only applies if both 61.113.b.1 and
> 61.113.b.2 are met. If we consider the CEO to be a passenger then
> 61.113.b.2 is not met, thus 61.113.b is not applicable any more.
> Therefore the PIC would have to either pay 100% or 50% depending on
> whether 61.113.c apply.

This is the part thats baffeling.

>
> - Marco
>

[Jose]

>> [(]Why ? The 61.113b excpetion only applies if both 61.113.b.1 and
>> 61.113.b.2 are met. [)]

>> If we consider the CEO to be a passenger then
>> 61.113.b.2 is not met, thus 61.113.b is not applicable any more.
>> Therefore the PIC would have to either pay 100% or 50% depending on
>> whether 61.113.c apply.
>
> This is the part thats baffeling.

We'd need to consider the CDO not "just" a passenger, but a "passenger
for compensation or hire", iow somebody who paid the company in order to
be on the flight. That would make the flight "look like" air taxi to
him. (or her).

If the CEO is "just" a passenger, that is not sufficient for 61.113.b.2
to not be met.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Michael]

> Other passengers will be on the next flight, and other people will be in
> the houses below.

Those other passengers will presumably be people who know the pilot,
and can asess the risk accordingly. The risk to the people in the
houses below from private pilots flying overhead is negligible. In
fact, I don't believe I've ever heard of a private pilot crashing into
a house and killing people. They all seem to have higher ratings.

If you're arguing that this particular safety rule has an overall
negative effect on safety in the long term, I won't argue with you. Of
course it does. All safety rules do. However, this rule does protect
the innocent - those who don't fly, don't have friends who do, and thus
know nothing about GA and can't make an intelligent risk asessment.

Michael

[Jose]

> Those other passengers will presumably be people who know the pilot,
> and can asess the risk accordingly.

.... but what does this have to do with how much the pilot pays?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Michael]

>> Those other passengers will presumably be people who know the pilot,
>> and can asess the risk accordingly.
>... but what does this have to do with how much the pilot pays?

Because if the pilot has to pay for the flight himself, he won't be
carrying complete strangers (no incentive) and thus exposing them to
risk. Therefore, to take away the pilot's incentive, he's made to bear
the entire cost. It really does make sense.

Michael

[Jose]

> Because if the pilot has to pay for the flight himself, he won't be
> carrying complete strangers (no incentive) and thus exposing them to
> risk. Therefore, to take away the pilot's incentive, he's made to bear
> the entire cost. It really does make sense.

Not to me.

Take away the pilot's incentive to fly, and he flies less. He becomes
less safe. He is more likely to fly down a runway into the face of a
152 coming the other way.

The incentive for carrying complete strangers isn't the money. It is
the sharing of the joy of flying. If the point is to save complete
strangers from risk, then private pilots should simply not be allowed to
fly complete strangers. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to carry
passengers at all.

A person who knows the pilot but does not know aviation is really not in
a much better position to assess the risk. It's not about (or shouldn't
be about) assessing risk that way, so much as presenting a flight as if
it were a commercial endeavor, with commercial safety standards.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.