The Most Expensive Ironing Boards in the World...

[Jay Honeck]

We received notification of a Ramada Inn that was selling everything to
the bare walls, in preparation for demolition. Although our hotel is
unique in many ways, we *all* use blow dryers, lamps, end tables --
and, yes, ironing boards -- so this seemed like a great opportunity to
find some real bargains.

Problem: This Ramada Inn happened to be located in Columbia, Missouri,
some 245 miles -- and almost 5 hours -- away.

Solution: General Aviation! Atlas, our Cherokee Pathfinder, with his
1460 pound useful load and 140 knot speed, was the perfect tool to
shrink this awful drive into an 80-minute flight.

The weather couldn't have been better today in Iowa, but a few pesky
1500-foot ceilings awaited us in Missouri. However, with a gigantic
Canadian high pressure system sagging to the south, conditions were
predicted to improve throughout the day -- so off we went.

The flight was utterly uneventful. The fall colors were lovely to
behold, and my landing on Columbia's gigantic Runway 2 was a piece of
cake. We taxied to where all the "little planes" were parked, and were
met by a very friendly line guy, who uttered those most horrible of all
words:

"Is all that oil normal?"

With a sinking feeling, I hopped off the wing to behold a mess of epic
proportions. Oil was EVERYWHERE on Atlas' right flank, dripping
steadily out the lower cowling. This obviously wasn't anything to be
ignored, so we de-cowled the engine, and stared numbly at the God-awful
mess that was our beautiful, low-time O-540.

Interestingly, we were only 1/2 quart down on the dipstick.
Nevertheless, we were unable to see where ANYTHING was coming from
(although it was clearly confined to the right firewall, near our
Airwolf remote mounted oil filter). Joe, the head of maintenance,
offered to pull it in the shop, and within minutes, Cliff -- his senior
A&P -- was meticulously spraying the engine down with degreasing
solvent. All of the mechanics were suspecting the hoses and fittings
going to the Airwolf, but I had my doubts. Those things were stainless
steel-wrapped and extremely high quality; it *had* to be something
else.

Standing a safe distance away, Mary and I pondered our sorry fate. The
kids were out of school in five hours (but, luckily, my son had one of
our cars), and my daughter had a volleyball game that we were supposed
to attend. AND it was parent-teacher conference night. In short, this
was a really BAD day to be stuck in the wrong state, with a broken
airplane. My thoughts turned darker as the mechanics started up the
newly cleaned engine...

Cliff stood in the howling propwash, poking around with a mirror and a
flashlight. Within seconds, he had found what he was looking for, and
signaled to his cohort to cut the engine. The news was not good -- our
oil cooler was leaking at a seam in the metal (not at a fitting), and
would need to be replaced.

Dejected, I asked about parts availability, and Joe, the head of
maintenance, just shrugged. He'd have to make some calls, and who
knows if anyone had one of them available? Rebuilding ours might be an
option, too. Either way, we weren't going anywhere today...

So, what to do? How to get home? We had talked about renting a truck
and hauling all the stuff back to Iowa that we might find at the hotel
sale -- but that was a plan to be executed AFTER we looked at the
stuff. If everything there was junk, there was no need for a truck.

Who did we know that could come rescue us?

After a few minutes of thought, our friend, Doug, came to mind. He had
recently gone from sole ownership of a Cherokee 180, into a 3-way
partnership on a nice, older Mooney. Being a loan officer, business
had been relatively slow lately, due to the housing slump -- and I knew
he had been looking for any excuse to fly that new hot-rod Mooney -- so
I gave him a call. Did he feel like flying for free today?

The answer was "Hell, yes!", and we soon had it arranged for Doug to
zip down from Iowa to rescue us. In his plane, it would take something
like 70 minutes, and his only limitation was that he had to be back for
a 5:30 meeting. We realized that we had plenty of time in the interim
to go to the sale -- so we borrowed the FBO's courtesy car and headed
off in search of that old Ramada Inn...

As I drove out of the lot, feeling crappy about leaving our plane at a
strange FBO far from home, I thought to call Keith, our A&P and good
friend -- mostly for a shoulder to cry on. (But also to see what he
thought about the local shop's diagnosis.) So I gave him a jingle and
we chatted for a bit, when he dropped the bomb shell: "You know, I
think I may have one of those coolers here in the shop."

Dumbfounded, I couldn't help but ask incredulously, "Why?" Keith runs
a very small, part-time shop, and he rarely keeps parts in stock. He
CERTAINLY doesn't keep major stuff like oil coolers laying around --
especially not ones made specifically for a Lycoming O-540 B4B5 model
engine. Yet, inexplicably, miraculously, he had the perfect match
laying on a shelf? I simply couldn't believe it.

He promised he would call Joe, the head of maintenance at the Columbia
FBO, just to make sure the part numbers matched -- and we hung up. I
couldn't stop laughing, and Mary and I enjoyed a much happier lunch
than we had thought possible just minutes earlier.

When I hadn't heard from either Keith or Joe after lunch, I called
Keith back. It seemed that their lunch hours were over-lapping, and
they couldn't find the other -- so I relayed the part numbers and
messages between them. The oil cooler *was* an exact match -- this was
going to work!

So, I made a quick call to Doug, and his plan was no longer a rescue
mission -- but a parts delivery mission! On his way to his plane he
would simply stop at Keith's shop, grab the new oil cooler (and the
all-important yellow tag), and fly off to Missouri. Bada-bing --
problem solved.

Meanwhile, we found the Ramada, and spent over an hour wandering the
eerily silent halls of this once proud hotel. With hundreds of rooms,
gigantic banquet halls, and a kitchen that could easily handle ANY
wedding crowd, it was like wandering the set of "The Shining". We
could easily have spent thousands there, but we simply couldn't figure
out an economical way to ship large stuff (like end-tables and desks)
back to Iowa -- so we resolved to only purchase stuff that would fit
inside Atlas.

Thus, we ended up with a dozen absolutely brand-new wall-mount blow
dryers, and four new hanging ironing boards and irons. We packed the
stuff into the courtesy car, and hustled back to the airport, pulling
in the parking lot literally as Doug's Mooney taxied in.

Carefully carrying the oil cooler like the precious cargo it was, Doug
handed it to me -- and I handed it to Joe. He, in turn, handed it to
Cliff, who instantly set about installing it in the hole left where our
old, cracked cooler once lived.

A few tense minutes passed, as we uncomfortably shifted our weight from
one foot to the other. In my experience, there is ALWAYS the chance
that some holes won't line up, or the fittings won't be the same, or
some other such nonsense -- and I simply still could not believe our
good fortune that the part had been available AND delivered in such a
short span of time. I just EXPECTED it not to fit, and glumly waited
for confirmation of my fears.

It never came. Within minutes, Cliff and his helper were test-running
the plane, once again braving the slip-stream with his trusty mirror.
After a nice, long run at various power settings, he pronounced it
oil-tight and airworthy -- we were saved!

Doug quickly departed for his meeting (there's simply not enough beer
in the world to pay for what he did for us today), and we set about
loading Atlas with irons, ironing boards, and blow dryers. From stem
to stern, his whole underside was dripping with oil, but it was nothing
a few rolls of paper towels (and my son's elbow grease) wouldn't cure
-- and we sure wouldn't have to worry about any corrosion for a while!

After settling up the bill -- and profusely thanking Joe, Cliff, and
all the guys at Central Missouri Aviation -- we climbed into the cool,
crystal-clear sky, amazed at our good fortune. A potentially
disastrous oil leak (possibly the minor one that has bedeviled us for
the past year, gone bad?) turned into nothing but a cosmetic problem,
the parts we needed to fix it turned out to be readily available (from
a friend, no less!), and we happened to be at an FBO with the mechanics
and the time to do the job right when the part broke.

Of course, there *were* a few downsides. I'm not fond of launching on
90-minute cross-country flights with untested new engine parts on board
(the engine was totally dry when we arrived back in Iowa City), and we
REALLY don't want to think about how much those ironing boards cost us
in real terms -- but if things must break (and we know they will) --
*THIS* is the way you want things to go down when they do.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[No Spam]

On 10/5/06 21:30, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> We received notification of a Ramada Inn that was selling everything to
> the bare walls, in preparation for demolition. Although our hotel is
> unique in many ways, we *all* use blow dryers, lamps, end tables --
> and, yes, ironing boards -- so this seemed like a great opportunity to
> find some real bargains.
>
> Problem: This Ramada Inn happened to be located in Columbia, Missouri,
> some 245 miles -- and almost 5 hours -- away.
>
> Solution: General Aviation! Atlas, our Cherokee Pathfinder, with his
> 1460 pound useful load and 140 knot speed, was the perfect tool to
> shrink this awful drive into an 80-minute flight.
>
> The weather couldn't have been better today in Iowa, but a few pesky
> 1500-foot ceilings awaited us in Missouri. However, with a gigantic
> Canadian high pressure system sagging to the south, conditions were
> predicted to improve throughout the day -- so off we went.
>
> The flight was utterly uneventful. The fall colors were lovely to
> behold, and my landing on Columbia's gigantic Runway 2 was a piece of
> cake. We taxied to where all the "little planes" were parked, and were
> met by a very friendly line guy, who uttered those most horrible of all
> words:
>
> "Is all that oil normal?"
>
> With a sinking feeling, I hopped off the wing to behold a mess of epic
> proportions. Oil was EVERYWHERE on Atlas' right flank, dripping
> steadily out the lower cowling. This obviously wasn't anything to be
> ignored, so we de-cowled the engine, and stared numbly at the God-awful
> mess that was our beautiful, low-time O-540.
>
> Interestingly, we were only 1/2 quart down on the dipstick.
> Nevertheless, we were unable to see where ANYTHING was coming from
> (although it was clearly confined to the right firewall, near our
> Airwolf remote mounted oil filter). Joe, the head of maintenance,
> offered to pull it in the shop, and within minutes, Cliff -- his senior
> A&P -- was meticulously spraying the engine down with degreasing
> solvent. All of the mechanics were suspecting the hoses and fittings
> going to the Airwolf, but I had my doubts. Those things were stainless
> steel-wrapped and extremely high quality; it *had* to be something
> else.
>
> Standing a safe distance away, Mary and I pondered our sorry fate. The
> kids were out of school in five hours (but, luckily, my son had one of
> our cars), and my daughter had a volleyball game that we were supposed
> to attend. AND it was parent-teacher conference night. In short, this
> was a really BAD day to be stuck in the wrong state, with a broken
> airplane. My thoughts turned darker as the mechanics started up the
> newly cleaned engine...
>
> Cliff stood in the howling propwash, poking around with a mirror and a
> flashlight. Within seconds, he had found what he was looking for, and
> signaled to his cohort to cut the engine. The news was not good -- our
> oil cooler was leaking at a seam in the metal (not at a fitting), and
> would need to be replaced.
>
> Dejected, I asked about parts availability, and Joe, the head of
> maintenance, just shrugged. He'd have to make some calls, and who
> knows if anyone had one of them available? Rebuilding ours might be an
> option, too. Either way, we weren't going anywhere today...
>
> So, what to do? How to get home? We had talked about renting a truck
> and hauling all the stuff back to Iowa that we might find at the hotel
> sale -- but that was a plan to be executed AFTER we looked at the
> stuff. If everything there was junk, there was no need for a truck.
>
> Who did we know that could come rescue us?
>
> After a few minutes of thought, our friend, Doug, came to mind. He had
> recently gone from sole ownership of a Cherokee 180, into a 3-way
> partnership on a nice, older Mooney. Being a loan officer, business
> had been relatively slow lately, due to the housing slump -- and I knew
> he had been looking for any excuse to fly that new hot-rod Mooney -- so
> I gave him a call. Did he feel like flying for free today?
>
> The answer was "Hell, yes!", and we soon had it arranged for Doug to
> zip down from Iowa to rescue us. In his plane, it would take something
> like 70 minutes, and his only limitation was that he had to be back for
> a 5:30 meeting. We realized that we had plenty of time in the interim
> to go to the sale -- so we borrowed the FBO's courtesy car and headed
> off in search of that old Ramada Inn...
>
> As I drove out of the lot, feeling crappy about leaving our plane at a
> strange FBO far from home, I thought to call Keith, our A&P and good
> friend -- mostly for a shoulder to cry on. (But also to see what he
> thought about the local shop's diagnosis.) So I gave him a jingle and
> we chatted for a bit, when he dropped the bomb shell: "You know, I
> think I may have one of those coolers here in the shop."
>
> Dumbfounded, I couldn't help but ask incredulously, "Why?" Keith runs
> a very small, part-time shop, and he rarely keeps parts in stock. He
> CERTAINLY doesn't keep major stuff like oil coolers laying around --
> especially not ones made specifically for a Lycoming O-540 B4B5 model
> engine. Yet, inexplicably, miraculously, he had the perfect match
> laying on a shelf? I simply couldn't believe it.
>
> He promised he would call Joe, the head of maintenance at the Columbia
> FBO, just to make sure the part numbers matched -- and we hung up. I
> couldn't stop laughing, and Mary and I enjoyed a much happier lunch
> than we had thought possible just minutes earlier.
>
> When I hadn't heard from either Keith or Joe after lunch, I called
> Keith back. It seemed that their lunch hours were over-lapping, and
> they couldn't find the other -- so I relayed the part numbers and
> messages between them. The oil cooler *was* an exact match -- this was
> going to work!
>
> So, I made a quick call to Doug, and his plan was no longer a rescue
> mission -- but a parts delivery mission! On his way to his plane he
> would simply stop at Keith's shop, grab the new oil cooler (and the
> all-important yellow tag), and fly off to Missouri. Bada-bing --
> problem solved.
>
> Meanwhile, we found the Ramada, and spent over an hour wandering the
> eerily silent halls of this once proud hotel. With hundreds of rooms,
> gigantic banquet halls, and a kitchen that could easily handle ANY
> wedding crowd, it was like wandering the set of "The Shining". We
> could easily have spent thousands there, but we simply couldn't figure
> out an economical way to ship large stuff (like end-tables and desks)
> back to Iowa -- so we resolved to only purchase stuff that would fit
> inside Atlas.
>
> Thus, we ended up with a dozen absolutely brand-new wall-mount blow
> dryers, and four new hanging ironing boards and irons. We packed the
> stuff into the courtesy car, and hustled back to the airport, pulling
> in the parking lot literally as Doug's Mooney taxied in.
>
> Carefully carrying the oil cooler like the precious cargo it was, Doug
> handed it to me -- and I handed it to Joe. He, in turn, handed it to
> Cliff, who instantly set about installing it in the hole left where our
> old, cracked cooler once lived.
>
> A few tense minutes passed, as we uncomfortably shifted our weight from
> one foot to the other. In my experience, there is ALWAYS the chance
> that some holes won't line up, or the fittings won't be the same, or
> some other such nonsense -- and I simply still could not believe our
> good fortune that the part had been available AND delivered in such a
> short span of time. I just EXPECTED it not to fit, and glumly waited
> for confirmation of my fears.
>
> It never came. Within minutes, Cliff and his helper were test-running
> the plane, once again braving the slip-stream with his trusty mirror.
> After a nice, long run at various power settings, he pronounced it
> oil-tight and airworthy -- we were saved!
>
> Doug quickly departed for his meeting (there's simply not enough beer
> in the world to pay for what he did for us today), and we set about
> loading Atlas with irons, ironing boards, and blow dryers. From stem
> to stern, his whole underside was dripping with oil, but it was nothing
> a few rolls of paper towels (and my son's elbow grease) wouldn't cure
> -- and we sure wouldn't have to worry about any corrosion for a while!
>
> After settling up the bill -- and profusely thanking Joe, Cliff, and
> all the guys at Central Missouri Aviation -- we climbed into the cool,
> crystal-clear sky, amazed at our good fortune. A potentially
> disastrous oil leak (possibly the minor one that has bedeviled us for
> the past year, gone bad?) turned into nothing but a cosmetic problem,
> the parts we needed to fix it turned out to be readily available (from
> a friend, no less!), and we happened to be at an FBO with the mechanics
> and the time to do the job right when the part broke.
>
> Of course, there *were* a few downsides. I'm not fond of launching on
> 90-minute cross-country flights with untested new engine parts on board
> (the engine was totally dry when we arrived back in Iowa City), and we
> REALLY don't want to think about how much those ironing boards cost us
> in real terms -- but if things must break (and we know they will) --
> *THIS* is the way you want things to go down when they do.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Great story, Jay. It's nice to hear ones that turn out like that.

-> Don
Any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life
worthwhile... Can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction,
"I served in the United States Navy." - President John F. Kennedy

[Gene Seibel]

More than once we've flown 2 hours to "save" $15 shipping on an Ebay
purchase and thought it made perfect sense. ;) ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.





Jay Honeck wrote:
> Of course, there *were* a few downsides. I'm not fond of launching on
> 90-minute cross-country flights with untested new engine parts on board
> (the engine was totally dry when we arrived back in Iowa City), and we
> REALLY don't want to think about how much those ironing boards cost us
> in real terms -- but if things must break (and we know they will) --
> *THIS* is the way you want things to go down when they do.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[NW_Pilot]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> We received notification of a Ramada Inn that was selling everything to
> the bare walls, in preparation for demolition. Although our hotel is
> unique in many ways, we *all* use blow dryers, lamps, end tables --
> and, yes, ironing boards -- so this seemed like a great opportunity to
> find some real bargains.
>
> Problem: This Ramada Inn happened to be located in Columbia, Missouri,
> some 245 miles -- and almost 5 hours -- away.
>
> Solution: General Aviation! Atlas, our Cherokee Pathfinder, with his
> 1460 pound useful load and 140 knot speed, was the perfect tool to
> shrink this awful drive into an 80-minute flight.
>
> The weather couldn't have been better today in Iowa, but a few pesky
> 1500-foot ceilings awaited us in Missouri. However, with a gigantic
> Canadian high pressure system sagging to the south, conditions were
> predicted to improve throughout the day -- so off we went.
>
> The flight was utterly uneventful. The fall colors were lovely to
> behold, and my landing on Columbia's gigantic Runway 2 was a piece of
> cake. We taxied to where all the "little planes" were parked, and were
> met by a very friendly line guy, who uttered those most horrible of all
> words:
>
> "Is all that oil normal?"
>
> With a sinking feeling, I hopped off the wing to behold a mess of epic
> proportions. Oil was EVERYWHERE on Atlas' right flank, dripping
> steadily out the lower cowling. This obviously wasn't anything to be
> ignored, so we de-cowled the engine, and stared numbly at the God-awful
> mess that was our beautiful, low-time O-540.
>
> Interestingly, we were only 1/2 quart down on the dipstick.
> Nevertheless, we were unable to see where ANYTHING was coming from
> (although it was clearly confined to the right firewall, near our
> Airwolf remote mounted oil filter). Joe, the head of maintenance,
> offered to pull it in the shop, and within minutes, Cliff -- his senior
> A&P -- was meticulously spraying the engine down with degreasing
> solvent. All of the mechanics were suspecting the hoses and fittings
> going to the Airwolf, but I had my doubts. Those things were stainless
> steel-wrapped and extremely high quality; it *had* to be something
> else.
>
> Standing a safe distance away, Mary and I pondered our sorry fate. The
> kids were out of school in five hours (but, luckily, my son had one of
> our cars), and my daughter had a volleyball game that we were supposed
> to attend. AND it was parent-teacher conference night. In short, this
> was a really BAD day to be stuck in the wrong state, with a broken
> airplane. My thoughts turned darker as the mechanics started up the
> newly cleaned engine...
>
> Cliff stood in the howling propwash, poking around with a mirror and a
> flashlight. Within seconds, he had found what he was looking for, and
> signaled to his cohort to cut the engine. The news was not good -- our
> oil cooler was leaking at a seam in the metal (not at a fitting), and
> would need to be replaced.
>
> Dejected, I asked about parts availability, and Joe, the head of
> maintenance, just shrugged. He'd have to make some calls, and who
> knows if anyone had one of them available? Rebuilding ours might be an
> option, too. Either way, we weren't going anywhere today...
>
> So, what to do? How to get home? We had talked about renting a truck
> and hauling all the stuff back to Iowa that we might find at the hotel
> sale -- but that was a plan to be executed AFTER we looked at the
> stuff. If everything there was junk, there was no need for a truck.
>
> Who did we know that could come rescue us?
>
> After a few minutes of thought, our friend, Doug, came to mind. He had
> recently gone from sole ownership of a Cherokee 180, into a 3-way
> partnership on a nice, older Mooney. Being a loan officer, business
> had been relatively slow lately, due to the housing slump -- and I knew
> he had been looking for any excuse to fly that new hot-rod Mooney -- so
> I gave him a call. Did he feel like flying for free today?
>
> The answer was "Hell, yes!", and we soon had it arranged for Doug to
> zip down from Iowa to rescue us. In his plane, it would take something
> like 70 minutes, and his only limitation was that he had to be back for
> a 5:30 meeting. We realized that we had plenty of time in the interim
> to go to the sale -- so we borrowed the FBO's courtesy car and headed
> off in search of that old Ramada Inn...
>
> As I drove out of the lot, feeling crappy about leaving our plane at a
> strange FBO far from home, I thought to call Keith, our A&P and good
> friend -- mostly for a shoulder to cry on. (But also to see what he
> thought about the local shop's diagnosis.) So I gave him a jingle and
> we chatted for a bit, when he dropped the bomb shell: "You know, I
> think I may have one of those coolers here in the shop."
>
> Dumbfounded, I couldn't help but ask incredulously, "Why?" Keith runs
> a very small, part-time shop, and he rarely keeps parts in stock. He
> CERTAINLY doesn't keep major stuff like oil coolers laying around --
> especially not ones made specifically for a Lycoming O-540 B4B5 model
> engine. Yet, inexplicably, miraculously, he had the perfect match
> laying on a shelf? I simply couldn't believe it.
>
> He promised he would call Joe, the head of maintenance at the Columbia
> FBO, just to make sure the part numbers matched -- and we hung up. I
> couldn't stop laughing, and Mary and I enjoyed a much happier lunch
> than we had thought possible just minutes earlier.
>
> When I hadn't heard from either Keith or Joe after lunch, I called
> Keith back. It seemed that their lunch hours were over-lapping, and
> they couldn't find the other -- so I relayed the part numbers and
> messages between them. The oil cooler *was* an exact match -- this was
> going to work!
>
> So, I made a quick call to Doug, and his plan was no longer a rescue
> mission -- but a parts delivery mission! On his way to his plane he
> would simply stop at Keith's shop, grab the new oil cooler (and the
> all-important yellow tag), and fly off to Missouri. Bada-bing --
> problem solved.
>
> Meanwhile, we found the Ramada, and spent over an hour wandering the
> eerily silent halls of this once proud hotel. With hundreds of rooms,
> gigantic banquet halls, and a kitchen that could easily handle ANY
> wedding crowd, it was like wandering the set of "The Shining". We
> could easily have spent thousands there, but we simply couldn't figure
> out an economical way to ship large stuff (like end-tables and desks)
> back to Iowa -- so we resolved to only purchase stuff that would fit
> inside Atlas.
>
> Thus, we ended up with a dozen absolutely brand-new wall-mount blow
> dryers, and four new hanging ironing boards and irons. We packed the
> stuff into the courtesy car, and hustled back to the airport, pulling
> in the parking lot literally as Doug's Mooney taxied in.
>
> Carefully carrying the oil cooler like the precious cargo it was, Doug
> handed it to me -- and I handed it to Joe. He, in turn, handed it to
> Cliff, who instantly set about installing it in the hole left where our
> old, cracked cooler once lived.
>
> A few tense minutes passed, as we uncomfortably shifted our weight from
> one foot to the other. In my experience, there is ALWAYS the chance
> that some holes won't line up, or the fittings won't be the same, or
> some other such nonsense -- and I simply still could not believe our
> good fortune that the part had been available AND delivered in such a
> short span of time. I just EXPECTED it not to fit, and glumly waited
> for confirmation of my fears.
>
> It never came. Within minutes, Cliff and his helper were test-running
> the plane, once again braving the slip-stream with his trusty mirror.
> After a nice, long run at various power settings, he pronounced it
> oil-tight and airworthy -- we were saved!
>
> Doug quickly departed for his meeting (there's simply not enough beer
> in the world to pay for what he did for us today), and we set about
> loading Atlas with irons, ironing boards, and blow dryers. From stem
> to stern, his whole underside was dripping with oil, but it was nothing
> a few rolls of paper towels (and my son's elbow grease) wouldn't cure
> -- and we sure wouldn't have to worry about any corrosion for a while!
>
> After settling up the bill -- and profusely thanking Joe, Cliff, and
> all the guys at Central Missouri Aviation -- we climbed into the cool,
> crystal-clear sky, amazed at our good fortune. A potentially
> disastrous oil leak (possibly the minor one that has bedeviled us for
> the past year, gone bad?) turned into nothing but a cosmetic problem,
> the parts we needed to fix it turned out to be readily available (from
> a friend, no less!), and we happened to be at an FBO with the mechanics
> and the time to do the job right when the part broke.
>
> Of course, there *were* a few downsides. I'm not fond of launching on
> 90-minute cross-country flights with untested new engine parts on board
> (the engine was totally dry when we arrived back in Iowa City), and we
> REALLY don't want to think about how much those ironing boards cost us
> in real terms -- but if things must break (and we know they will) --
> *THIS* is the way you want things to go down when they do.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Hey, Jay go talk to your tax man see if the expenses of getting the stuff
including the repairs can be used as a business expense?

[Greg B]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Of course, there *were* a few downsides. I'm not fond of launching on
> 90-minute cross-country flights with untested new engine parts on board
> (the engine was totally dry when we arrived back in Iowa City), and we
> REALLY don't want to think about how much those ironing boards cost us
> in real terms -- but if things must break (and we know they will) --
> *THIS* is the way you want things to go down when they do.
> --

Hope your oil leak problem is finally resolved! Sounds like you're living
right, everything worked out well.

Quarter of an AMU per ironing board? ;-)

-Greg B.

[Larry Dighera]

On 5 Oct 2006 19:30:40 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in . com>:

>Did he feel like flying for free today?

Not that I wouldn't have done something similar in your predicament,
but do you think it's wise to invite your friend to violate FAR, and
then publish on a public forum what a FSDO inspector might construe as
a violation of FAR?


§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in
command.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this
section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act
as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for
compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in
command of an aircraft in connection with any business or
employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment;
and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for
compensation or hire.

(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of
the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the
expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental
fees.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>> Did he feel like flying for free today?
>
> Not that I wouldn't have done something similar in your predicament,
> but do you think it's wise to invite your friend to violate FAR, and
> then publish on a public forum what a FSDO inspector might construe as
> a violation of FAR?


Since when is it a violation of FAR to come pick up a stranded friend? Or
deliver a needed part for a friend? For that matter, how do you even know
whether the pilot is a private pilot or not? And if he is or isn't, what
difference does that make?

What makes you think the FAA gives a rat's ass what anybody posts here?


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Quilljar]

Jay,
Do you write for Reader's Digest? Because I have read worse titles and worse
stories in that mag. I wd think they would be grateful to publish -
brilliant! Thanks

Quilljar

Never trust anybody who is too sophisticated to own a rubber chicken.

[cjcampbell]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> With a sinking feeling, I hopped off the wing to behold a mess of epic
> proportions. Oil was EVERYWHERE on Atlas' right flank, dripping
> steadily out the lower cowling. This obviously wasn't anything to be
> ignored, so we de-cowled the engine, and stared numbly at the God-awful
> mess that was our beautiful, low-time O-540.
>
> Interestingly, we were only 1/2 quart down on the dipstick.

A very little oil sure goes a long way, eh? Amazing, isn't it?

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

[snip]
> we
> REALLY don't want to think about how much those ironing boards cost us
> in real terms

Those ironing boards cost almost nothing. You found and fixed a problem
with your airplane. And what better way to find out about a failed
oil cooler than on a SHORT trip?

btw - instead of launching back to IOW, you could have orbited the field
for 30-45 minutes as an extra test, landed, rechecked everything,
and then RTB.

And, of course, I'm glad Atlas is fixed.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On 5 Oct 2006 19:30:40 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
> in . com>:
>
> >Did he feel like flying for free today?
>
> Not that I wouldn't have done something similar in your predicament,
> but do you think it's wise to invite your friend to violate FAR, and
> then publish on a public forum what a FSDO inspector might construe as
> a violation of FAR?

What we don't know is whether or not any money exchanged hands or
bartering occurred.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Denny]

Jay, just goes to show, ya gotta have friends!

denny

[Jay Honeck]

> Not that I wouldn't have done something similar in your predicament,
> but do you think it's wise to invite your friend to violate FAR, and
> then publish on a public forum what a FSDO inspector might construe as
> a violation of FAR?

I guess I didn't make it clear, but that part about "there's not enough
beer in the world to pay Doug back for what he did for us today" meant
that he refused to accept gas money for his flight.

Which FAR will I be violating by buying him beers for the next year?

More significantly, he is one of our few friends who actually *prefer*
light "beer", which means that we will be operating in violation of the
German Purity Laws of 1516 -- an act punishable by death in some
circles. See http://www.brewingmuseum.org/purity_law.htm for details.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Hope your oil leak problem is finally resolved! Sounds like you're living
> right, everything worked out well.

If that pesky, nagging, maddening, un-traceable little oil leak is
finally fixed, I will kiss Atlas' spinner right on the lips, and all
will be forgiven. I've wasted more hours trying to figure out where
that drip was coming from than you can imagine.

The oil cooler leaked right at a seam between two metal segments, which
made seeing the leak impossible without a mirror. And before it let go
enough to actually produce a series of active drips, it just looked
oily like everything else in that general area.

I'm just really, REALLY glad that it didn't "let go" more than it did.
Large parts of Missouri between Iowa City and Columbia are not great
for forced landings...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[real_name]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > Hope your oil leak problem is finally resolved! Sounds like you're living
> > right, everything worked out well.
>
> If that pesky, nagging, maddening, un-traceable little oil leak is
> finally fixed, I will kiss Atlas' spinner right on the lips, and all
> will be forgiven.

and post pictures of it on your gallery?

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

Sounds like Coumbia, MO ranks right up there with Dalhart, TX for service
and accommodating people!

Great story, glad everything worked out well. The last time I was in
Columbia MO, I got spanked for walking across the ramp towards an exit
gate.... which was on the other side of the yellow line that designated the
Air National Guard base.

Does your oil cooler "hang" from one side with the opposite side free to
vibrate and rattle around in the wind? If so, you might want to talk to
your A&P about fashioning a support brace for the unsupported side. Next
time we get together, I'll show you what we have on ours.

Jim

[Jose[_1_]]

> Since when is it a violation of FAR to come pick up a stranded friend? Or
> deliver a needed part for a friend?

Ever since they came up with the stupid "pro-rata" rule, and the
"interpretation" (which I consider erzats rulemaking) that "holding out"
equals "commercial" (i.e. telling your college dorm you're open to
flying people) and "logging time" is "compensation.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[rps]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> ...
> As I drove out of the lot, feeling crappy about leaving our plane at a
> strange FBO far from home, I thought to call Keith, our A&P and good
> friend -- mostly for a shoulder to cry on. (But also to see what he
> thought about the local shop's diagnosis.) So I gave him a jingle and
> we chatted for a bit, when he dropped the bomb shell: "You know, I
> think I may have one of those coolers here in the shop."
>
> Dumbfounded, I couldn't help but ask incredulously, "Why?" Keith runs
> a very small, part-time shop, and he rarely keeps parts in stock. He
> CERTAINLY doesn't keep major stuff like oil coolers laying around --
> especially not ones made specifically for a Lycoming O-540 B4B5 model
> engine. Yet, inexplicably, miraculously, he had the perfect match
> laying on a shelf? I simply couldn't believe it.
> ...

That's one heck of a lucky coincidence. By any chance, did your a&p
acquire the part after you visited him about the oil problem or an
annual? (Not that I'm a conspiracist, or anything...) Most people in
aviation are true gems, but one does run into questionable characters
from time to time.

[Newps]

NW_Pilot wrote:


>>
>
>
> Hey, Jay go talk to your tax man see if the expenses of getting the stuff
> including the repairs can be used as a business expense?

It's all a write off.

[Doug[_1_]]

The quickest repairs I've EVER had have been on the road. That would
have taken a week back at home base! I considered taking my airplane up
to Casper Wyoming and "breaking down" when I want something fixed
pronto, but never did it.

[Jay Honeck]

> > ...That's one heck of a lucky coincidence. By any chance, did your a&p
> acquire the part after you visited him about the oil problem or an
> annual? (Not that I'm a conspiracist, or anything...) Most people in
> aviation are true gems, but one does run into questionable characters
> from time to time.

I just asked him, and it turned out that it belonged to a customer (who
owned a Skybolt) who had sent his oil cooler out for refurb after he
replaced his. When it came back, he made the deal with my A&P that he
could sell it and make a little profit on it, someday.

"Someday" arrived yesterday!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 04:29:08 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> Did he feel like flying for free today?
>>
>> Not that I wouldn't have done something similar in your predicament,
>> but do you think it's wise to invite your friend to violate FAR, and
>> then publish on a public forum what a FSDO inspector might construe as
>> a violation of FAR?
>
>
>Since when is it a violation of FAR to come pick up a stranded friend?

Since the FAA interpreted the FAR that way. It is my understanding,
that the pilot needs to have been planning on making the trip, and
invite his passengers to share the expense. It would appear that Jay
offered to foot the ENTIRE COST if the flight HE invited his friend to
make, and then posted it publicly.

>Or deliver a needed part for a friend?

If the flight is at the bidding of another, it mandates part 135
operation, I believe.

>For that matter, how do you even know whether the pilot is a private
>pilot or not?

Granted, that is a presumption. However, if it wasn't a part 135
charter flight, nothing is changed.

>And if he is or isn't, what difference does that make?

If it makes no difference, why do you ask the question?

>What makes you think the FAA gives a rat's ass what anybody posts here?

Oh, I would hazard a guess, that some segment of the readership of
this newsgroup is employed by the FAA, given the assumption that only
about 10% of the readership actually posts articles. Given the fact,
that prospective employers now routinely search the Internet for
information about prospective employees before hiring them, it seems
reasonable to assume that something similar might occur in this
instance. Given the facts provided, it shouldn't be too difficult to
deduce Doug's identity. So it is now possible that the FAA may become
aware of the possible FAR violation. Hopefully, the FSDO inspector
won't be of the ilk of those overzealous individuals involved in the
Bob Hoover emergency revocation incident.

At any rate, there is the information, now permanently a part of the
publicly accessible newsgroup archive. I know I would prefer not to
have had Jay publicly disclose my participation in such a ferrying
operation, and I presume Doug would be similarly inclined.

But hey, what are friends for? :-)

[Jose[_1_]]

> It is my understanding,
> that the pilot needs to have been planning on making the trip, and
> invite his passengers to share the expense.

It is my further understanding that there has to be a "unity of
purpose". You both have to have the same reason for going to the
destination. It can't be one wants to go to a museum in Boston, and the
pilot just wants to see fall colors from the air and doesn't care where
he flies.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On 6 Oct 2006 08:34:01 -0500, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> do you think it's wise to invite your friend to violate FAR, and
>>then publish on a public forum what a FSDO inspector might construe as
>>a violation of FAR?
>
>My first thought when reading the excellent story was that I
>was soon going to read an FAR/private pilot compensation
>post referencing § 61.113. (Triggered by this sentence:
>"Did he feel like flying for free today?")
>
>My second thought was that I hoped no one would make that
>comment.

Why? Would you prefer that Mr. Honeck remain ignorant of the
regulations?

>What's the point of having a rating if you can't
>help out a friend in distress?

I agree, but I'm just the messenger.

>My third was that this rule is still stupid and reminders of
>the stupidity are probably needed.

Ah, we do agree after all.

>A PP is not endangering
>anyone if he carries property, and he ought to at least be
>able to carry such property for friends and family if he's
>not holding himself out to do that job and he isn't
>receiving compensation other than time and reimbursement.

That sounds reasonable to me, as long as he isn't compensated.

>I don't suppose we'll ever get this rule changed, but I still
>dislike it.

It is my understanding, that all it takes to begin a rule change is a
letter to the FAA. Perhaps the AOPA might take up the cause. Or
perhaps we newsgroup participants could draft a more reasonably worded
regulation, and submit it to the FAA.

[Larry Dighera]

On 6 Oct 2006 05:49:57 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in om>:

>> Not that I wouldn't have done something similar in your predicament,
>> but do you think it's wise to invite your friend to violate FAR, and
>> then publish on a public forum what a FSDO inspector might construe as
>> a violation of FAR?
>
>I guess I didn't make it clear, but that part about "there's not enough
>beer in the world to pay Doug back for what he did for us today" meant
>that he refused to accept gas money for his flight.
>
>Which FAR will I be violating by buying him beers for the next year?
>
>More significantly, he is one of our few friends who actually *prefer*
>light "beer", which means that we will be operating in violation of the
>German Purity Laws of 1516 -- an act punishable by death in some
>circles. See http://www.brewingmuseum.org/purity_law.htm for details.
>
>:-)

You obviously don't even understand the issue.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:03:31 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>> It is my understanding,
>> that the pilot needs to have been planning on making the trip, and
>> invite his passengers to share the expense.
>
>It is my further understanding that there has to be a "unity of
>purpose". You both have to have the same reason for going to the
>destination. It can't be one wants to go to a museum in Boston, and the
>pilot just wants to see fall colors from the air and doesn't care where
>he flies.
>
>Jose

Right. I wish I could find the link to that interpretation. Then Mr.
Honeck might begin to understand the issue.

[Jose[_1_]]

> It is my understanding, that all it takes to begin a rule change is a
> letter to the FAA.

My fear is that once the wheels are rolling, others in the FAA will use
it as an opportunity to tighten the noose even further. The rule was
once much looser. The pilot could accept reimbursement up to the total
cost of the flight (but no more than that) there was no "holding out"
rule (so one could post a message on the college dorm bulletin board),
there was no "unity of purpose" rule, so the pilot could take somebody
to a destination he didn't care about, just for the sheer fun of flying
and sharing that joy...

Somehow that all was changed to the present abomination. IT would be
useful to know why.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[David Lesher]

Did you bring the old one back? If fixable, a spare never hurts...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:44:54 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> On 5 Oct 2006 19:30:40 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>> in . com>:
>>
>> >Did he feel like flying for free today?
>>
>> Not that I wouldn't have done something similar in your predicament,
>> but do you think it's wise to invite your friend to violate FAR, and
>> then publish on a public forum what a FSDO inspector might construe as
>> a violation of FAR?
>
>What we don't know is whether or not any money exchanged hands or
>bartering occurred.

Which AFAIK doesn't matter any more. The way I understand it, logging
time is also considered compensation, so if the friend logged the
flight it's for compensation or hire and is a violation. Plus there's
no common cause here - the flight wouldn't have taken place without
his request to be rescued.

The way it was explained to me is that as long as there was no
money/barter/beer and the other pilot didn't log the flight, it's
cool.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Since when is it a violation of FAR to come pick up a stranded friend? Or
> > deliver a needed part for a friend?
>
> Ever since they came up with the stupid "pro-rata" rule, and the
> "interpretation" (which I consider erzats rulemaking) that "holding out"
> equals "commercial" (i.e. telling your college dorm you're open to
> flying people) and "logging time" is "compensation.

who has been "convicted" of this?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Since the FAA interpreted the FAR that way. It is my understanding,
> that the pilot needs to have been planning on making the trip, and
> invite his passengers to share the expense. It would appear that Jay
> offered to foot the ENTIRE COST if the flight HE invited his friend to
> make, and then posted it publicly.

so what? What FAR did Jay violate?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Peter Clark > wrote:

> >What we don't know is whether or not any money exchanged hands or
> >bartering occurred.
>
> Which AFAIK doesn't matter any more. The way I understand it, logging
> time is also considered compensation, so if the friend logged the
> flight it's for compensation or hire and is a violation. Plus there's
> no common cause here - the flight wouldn't have taken place without
> his request to be rescued.
>
> The way it was explained to me is that as long as there was no
> money/barter/beer and the other pilot didn't log the flight, it's
> cool.

excuse me? If Jay didn't pay for the flight, how is his friend logging time
considered compensation? Remember, according to Jay's post he only
OFFERED to pay for the flight. No where does Jay's original post indicate
that he actually provided money or even beer. So, his friend used his own
airplane and his own gas to fly. How is logging time compensation when
his friend paid for the time?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:21:06 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> Since the FAA interpreted the FAR that way. It is my understanding,
>> that the pilot needs to have been planning on making the trip, and
>> invite his passengers to share the expense. It would appear that Jay
>> offered to foot the ENTIRE COST if the flight HE invited his friend to
>> make, and then posted it publicly.
>
>so what?

Do I really need to explain it to you? Or are you just fishin'?

>What FAR did Jay violate?

The issue is more a matter of Mr. Honeck's friend's violation if what
Mr. Honeck reported is accurate.

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:28:53 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Peter Clark > wrote:
>
>> >What we don't know is whether or not any money exchanged hands or
>> >bartering occurred.
>>
>> Which AFAIK doesn't matter any more. The way I understand it, logging
>> time is also considered compensation, so if the friend logged the
>> flight it's for compensation or hire and is a violation. Plus there's
>> no common cause here - the flight wouldn't have taken place without
>> his request to be rescued.
>>
>> The way it was explained to me is that as long as there was no
>> money/barter/beer and the other pilot didn't log the flight, it's
>> cool.
>
>excuse me? If Jay didn't pay for the flight, how is his friend logging time
>considered compensation? Remember, according to Jay's post he only
>OFFERED to pay for the flight. No where does Jay's original post indicate
>that he actually provided money or even beer. So, his friend used his own
>airplane and his own gas to fly. How is logging time compensation when
>his friend paid for the time?

Ask the FAA. I don't think it makes any sense either.

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:03:31 GMT, Jose >
> wrote in >:
>
>>> It is my understanding,
>>> that the pilot needs to have been planning on making the trip, and
>>> invite his passengers to share the expense.
>>
>>It is my further understanding that there has to be a "unity of
>>purpose". You both have to have the same reason for going to the
>>destination. It can't be one wants to go to a museum in Boston, and the
>>pilot just wants to see fall colors from the air and doesn't care where
>>he flies.
>>
>>Jose
>
> Right. I wish I could find the link to that interpretation. Then Mr.
> Honeck might begin to understand the issue.

Sorry Larry and Jose, but there's at least one case which is similar in
facts to that which transpired between Jay and his friend and the FAA lost
the case on appeal:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4791.PDF

P.S. The damn NTSB web site keeps changing its URLs (they moved the case
law docs under "alj/alj"). But at least now they provide a page that allows
searches of their collection of case law (maybe they had this before and I
missed it):

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/query.asp

[Peter Duniho]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> My first thought when reading the excellent story was that I
> was soon going to read an FAR/private pilot compensation
> post referencing § 61.113. (Triggered by this sentence:
> "Did he feel like flying for free today?")
>
> My second thought was that I hoped no one would make that
> comment. [...]

I just want to say, for the record, that I had the same thought as Larry and
succeeded for once in resisting the urge to post about it. :)

I also refrained from posting about the other FAR violation described in the
post. I'm on a roll!

> What's the point of having a rating if you can't
> help out a friend in distress?

For what it's worth, you can help a friend out without violating the FARs.
You just can't be compensated for it.

I've flown my airplane on a number of "rescue" missions to help friends,
with no violation of the FARs. The key is that I offered my help gratis.
It's pretty easy to avoid running afoul of the "compensation" rules as long
as you handle the flight like any other solo flight (whether or not you wind
up carrying someone with you).

Pete

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 16:46:50 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>The key is that I offered my help gratis.
>It's pretty easy to avoid running afoul of the "compensation" rules as long
>as you handle the flight like any other solo flight (whether or not you wind
>up carrying someone with you).

Did you hear they were stuck somewhere and say "Hey, what can I do?"
or did the phone ring with them asking you for help? I think that's
the first test they use when examining this isn't it?

[Sylvain]

Bob Noel wrote:

> so what? What FAR did Jay violate?
>

Possibly 14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b) -- though we do not know
what certificate said friend has -- as well as 119.33(b)(2)
to boot.

However, it can boil down to how Jay phrased the thing as
far as I understand it; if Jay calls his friend, ask him
to please deliver the part, and offer to pay his expenses;
and then the friend decides to fly there rather than drive,
cycle, use a pogostick or public transportation, i.e., if
flying is incidental to the business of delivering the part,
then Jay is in the clear; if however Jay asks the friend
to specifically *fly* the part there, then he is potentially
in trouble....

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> I've flown my airplane on a number of "rescue" missions to help friends,
> with no violation of the FARs. The key is that I offered my help gratis.

I am not even sure that offering to do so gratis puts you in the clear;
I am trying to find the reference, but there was an incident where
an helicopter pilot helped some friends pro bono in a similar situation
and got himself in trouble...

--Sylvain

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Sorry Larry and Jose, but there's at least one case which is similar in
> facts to that which transpired between Jay and his friend and the FAA lost
> the case on appeal:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4791.PDF

While an interesting and gratifying read (nice to see the Board overturn an
FAA action once in awhile), I don't see how it's relevant here. The only
point being made here is that *if* compensation is given to the pilot, that
would be a violation.

In the case you're showing us, the outcome very much hinged on the pilot's
ability to show *not only that he had not received compensation*, but also
that he convinced the Board that he had made very clear that the flight was
not a revenue flight, and that he would accept no compensation, not even
payment for the fuel.

If you look at the references to other cases in the decision you posted,
you'll notice that a pilot flying a revenue flight, even if he did not
personally get compensated, also runs afoul of the rules (since the flight
is "for hire", even though the pilot is not). In those cases, however, the
pilot was found to have done so knowingly. In the case you posted, even
though someone received compensation, the pilot himself not only did not, he
also made it very clear at the time that no payment would be required for
the flight, nor accepted.

This was why he was eventually found innocent, and frankly it was hardly a
slam-dunk for him even so. If they'd been having a bad day, I could easily
see the NTSB having taken a slightly different interpretation of the events
and upholding the original charges.

(Why Keenan was willing to pay the invoice sent to him by the other guy
later is an entirely different matter, but only because there was no dispite
about whether the pilot thought the flight was a revenue flight or not).

John Yodice wrote in AOPA Pilot a few years back about a pilot who carried
passengers who merely shared expenses, and who was found guilty of the
compensation rules, simply because those passengers were not traveling for
the same reason as the pilot (if I recall correctly, one or some were going
to a football game, and others or one were not). That may be the case that
Larry and Jose are recalling as well.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> However, it can boil down to how Jay phrased the thing as
> far as I understand it; if Jay calls his friend, ask him
> to please deliver the part, and offer to pay his expenses;
> and then the friend decides to fly there rather than drive,
> cycle, use a pogostick or public transportation, i.e., if
> flying is incidental to the business of delivering the part,
> then Jay is in the clear; if however Jay asks the friend
> to specifically *fly* the part there, then he is potentially
> in trouble....

I don't see how Jay is in trouble at all, either way (for this particular
aspect of the adventure, anyway). It's his friend that may or may not have
violated the FARs, not Jay. And that hinges on whether his friend was
compensated...how and when Jay offered compensation is irrelevant.

Whether compensation occurred is the only issue, and there's no way that his
friend can argue that flying was incidental to the business of transporting
the part. Not only would the friend have to already HAVE a business
transporting things, he would not successfully be able to argue that in the
course of transporting a part by airplane, the action of transporting that
part was incidental to the business.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> Did you hear they were stuck somewhere and say "Hey, what can I do?"
> or did the phone ring with them asking you for help? I think that's
> the first test they use when examining this isn't it?

Nope. In all cases, I was specifically asked. And it's perfectly legal for
me to help. What I can't do is receive any compensation.

[Peter Duniho]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> I am not even sure that offering to do so gratis puts you in the clear;

It does, and I am sure that it does.

> I am trying to find the reference, but there was an incident where
> an helicopter pilot helped some friends pro bono in a similar situation
> and got himself in trouble...

The only cases like that which I'm aware of involve a pilot who (may or may
not have) thought they were operating without compensation, but in which
someone else (such as their employer or an FBO or something like that) did
receive compensation. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of.

It's important to keep in mind that the "for hire" element of the
no-compensation rules don't just apply to the pilot. They apply to the
entire operation. A Private Pilot may not operate an airplane in any
operation that is "for hire", whether or not that pilot is compensated.
This is a more subtle distinction than the question of the pilot himself
being compensated, and one that trips up someone every now and then. Even
if the pilot isn't himself compensated, as long as *someone* has been
compensated the pilot is in violation.

Thankfully, the FAA hasn't quite gotten so twisted in their logic that the
person being helped is considered to have been "compensated", thus
eliminating any possibility of free help. :)

Pete

[LWG]

I have a slight reservation about flying "gratis" as a complete defense. I
recall a case with a tow plane pilot who was prosecuted for not having his
commercial. He received not a penny for towing gliders all day, but the
flight time he was logging was found (or contended, I'm not entirely sure)
to be compensation, because he could use the time for an additional rating.
Of course, the distinction is that here it's the pilot's plane and gas, but
he is still logging time.

This is a good example of how ridiculous the rules are, and the mischief
created when one agency can be prosecuting attorney and executioner, and
direct the judge and jury exactly what to do. Just another reason I would
never let my children pursue a career in aviation without one helluva good
back-up plan.



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Sylvain" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I am not even sure that offering to do so gratis puts you in the clear;
>
> It does, and I am sure that it does.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:44:04 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >:

>
>Sorry Larry and Jose, but there's at least one case which is similar in
>facts to that which transpired between Jay and his friend and the FAA lost
>the case on appeal:
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4791.PDF

So it would seem.

However Mr. Honeck offered his friend a free flight. That would have
been a violation of FAR 61.113, if the friend had accepted the
compensation Mr. Honeck had offered.

[Peter Duniho]

"LWG" > wrote in message
...
>I have a slight reservation about flying "gratis" as a complete defense.

I don't. Not in the context in which I presented it.

> I recall a case with a tow plane pilot who was prosecuted for not having
> his commercial. He received not a penny for towing gliders all day, but
> the flight time he was logging was found (or contended, I'm not entirely
> sure) to be compensation, because he could use the time for an additional
> rating.

Did he pay for the use of the airplane himself? If not, that's entirely
consistent with the FAA's finding of "compensation". Even if he did pay for
the airplane, there is of course the issue of whether the sailplane pilots
were paying someone (anyone, whether the tow pilot or not) for the tow.
That would also be consistent with the FAA's regulation against a Private
pilot flying in an operation "for hire".

I would be surprised -- VERY surprised -- if you could show me an FAA
judgment where the pilot covered all of the expenses, received no
compensation directly or indirectly, and no one else received any
compensation directly or indirectly, and yet was still found to be in
violation of the "no compensation" rules. (Note, of cou

> Of course, the distinction is that here it's the pilot's plane and gas,
> but he is still logging time.

To my knowledge, the FAA has only ever found "logging time" to be
compensation when the pilot did not otherwise pay the expenses related to
the logging of that time.

Jim Logajan posted the URL to the search page for finding various NTSB
rulings, so if you disagree it should not be hard to find a case
contradicting that understanding.

> This is a good example of how ridiculous the rules are, and the mischief
> created when one agency can be prosecuting attorney and executioner, and
> direct the judge and jury exactly what to do. Just another reason I would
> never let my children pursue a career in aviation without one helluva good
> back-up plan.

That's good advice in any case, especially in aviation but for any career.
It's true that the application of the rules and findings in the environment
of aviation is a bit non-intuitive, but in reality the FAA appears to be
targeting pilots who appear to actively be getting "something for nothing".
Whether that something is flight time, actual money, bartered goods,
whatever, they are very hardcore about it. But as long as an operation
involves zero payment from any third party to anyone else, I've yet to hear
of the FAA taking action in that case.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:22:09 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

> I wish I could find the link to that interpretation.

John Lynch's Part 61 FAQ is here now:
http://www.lanierflightcenter.com/resources/pt61_FAQ.doc

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >> Since the FAA interpreted the FAR that way. It is my understanding,
> >> that the pilot needs to have been planning on making the trip, and
> >> invite his passengers to share the expense. It would appear that Jay
> >> offered to foot the ENTIRE COST if the flight HE invited his friend to
> >> make, and then posted it publicly.
> >
> >so what?
>
> Do I really need to explain it to you? Or are you just fishin'?

ain't fishing.

>
> >What FAR did Jay violate?
>
> The issue is more a matter of Mr. Honeck's friend's violation if what
> Mr. Honeck reported is accurate.

So the answer to "What FAR did Jay violate?" is: None.

Anyway, Jay reported an offer. Jay's original post did NOT indicate that his
friend received any compensation - unless you think Jay gave him
beer.

So, there is NO evidence of a FAR being violated.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:32:40 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>
>Anyway, Jay reported an offer.

Mr. Honeck made the offer he reported. That was a tacit offer for his
friend to violate FAR 61.113. That offer, although reasonable, was an
invitation for his friend to potentially become involved in an FAA
enforcement action. Because Mr. Honeck reported his offer in a public
forum, it indicates to me, that he didn't understand what he was
doing. That is my point.

[LWG]

I specifically pointed out the distinction that here, the pilot was
providing his own airplane at his own expense. I was just trying to tell
you that in some cases, the FAA has interpreted the logging of time as
compensation in and of itself. I think that's just nuts, and subject to all
manner of abuse. I didn't say that the tow pilot case was controlling, just
that it made me have some reservations about concluding there was no
possibility of prosecution simply because no money was received by the
pilot. The argument that someone, somewhere is paying money to someone else
is a red herring, to me. In the soaring operation I was involved in, other
than yelling out the altitude of the last release, the tow pilot had nothing
to do with invoicing, billing or collecting a dime from anyone. If the
simple acquisition of time is compensation, then any other transaction is
not necessary for a violation.

> Did he pay for the use of the airplane himself? If not, that's entirely
> consistent with the FAA's finding of "compensation". Even if he did pay
> for the airplane, there is of course the issue of whether the sailplane
> pilots were paying someone (anyone, whether the tow pilot or not) for the
> tow. That would also be consistent with the FAA's regulation against a
> Private pilot flying in an operation "for hire".

I have seen my share of occupations and professions, and I have never seen
anything that approaches the arbitrariness and malevolence, without the
right of meaningful appeal, that is in aviation.

> That's good advice in any case, especially in aviation but for any career.
> It's true that the application of the rules and findings in the
> environment of aviation is a bit non-intuitive, but in reality the FAA
> appears to be targeting pilots who appear to actively be getting
> "something for nothing". Whether that something is flight time, actual
> money, bartered goods, whatever, they are very hardcore about it. But as
> long as an operation involves zero payment from any third party to anyone
> else, I've yet to hear of the FAA taking action in that case.

I don't see how that tow pilot was "getting something for nothing."

[Jay Honeck]

> Did you bring the old one back? If fixable, a spare never hurts...

Yep -- but my A&P wants it for the core value. That was part of the
price he charged for the new one.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> Sorry Larry and Jose, but there's at least one case which is similar in
> facts to that which transpired between Jay and his friend and the FAA lost
> the case on appeal:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4791.PDF

The fact that it had to be appealed in the first place makes my point.
Since each case is always different, the FAA can convict the next pilot
(since it "interprets" its own rules, and we now know how it will
attempt to do so), and it will be up to that pilot to appeal too. Maybe
he'll win, maybe not. He will definately pay in time and trouble, and
probably money unless his lawyers work for free.

It should never have come up in the first place. What we need is a way
to appeal a case and trounce the FAA at the same time, so they never do
something like that again.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> but the
> flight time he was logging was found (or contended, I'm not entirely sure)
> to be compensation, because he could use the time for an additional rating.
> [...]
> This is a good example of how ridiculous the rules are

More to the point, this isn't even in the rules. The FAA made it up out
of whole cloth.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>> Since when is it a violation of FAR to come pick up a stranded friend? Or
>>> deliver a needed part for a friend?
>> Ever since they came up with the stupid "pro-rata" rule, and the
>> "interpretation" (which I consider erzats rulemaking) that "holding out"
>> equals "commercial" (i.e. telling your college dorm you're open to
>> flying people) and "logging time" is "compensation.
>
> who has been "convicted" of this?

I don't know. The database has recently been posted. It may be that
nobody has been convicted of this exact thing. However, the FAA has
made it clear to me on several occasions that this very thing would be a
violation and that were they to get wind of it they would prosecute with
vigor.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Logajan]

Jose > wrote:
>> Sorry Larry and Jose, but there's at least one case which is similar
>> in facts to that which transpired between Jay and his friend and the
>> FAA lost the case on appeal:
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4791.PDF
>
> The fact that it had to be appealed in the first place makes my point.
> Since each case is always different, the FAA can convict the next
> pilot (since it "interprets" its own rules, and we now know how it
> will attempt to do so), and it will be up to that pilot to appeal too.
> Maybe he'll win, maybe not. He will definately pay in time and
> trouble, and probably money unless his lawyers work for free.

Just FYI: the "Equal Access to Justice Act" (EAJA)[1] provides an
(admittedly remote) opportunity for a pilot in certain circumstances to
recover legal costs from the government when it brings a case that is not
"reasonable in law and fact." So not all hope is lost. Some individuals
have recovered costs from the government via this mechanism; search for
either EAJA or Equal Access to Justice Act in the "Words and Phrases" field
of this link:
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/query.asp

> It should never have come up in the first place. What we need is a
> way to appeal a case and trounce the FAA at the same time, so they
> never do something like that again.

No argument! I'm open to suggestions.

[1] http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/AGC400/Civil_Penalty/Rules/view/dsp_EAJA.pdf

[Peter Duniho]

"LWG" > wrote in message
. ..
>I specifically pointed out the distinction that here, the pilot was
> providing his own airplane at his own expense.

My inference from that is that you are confirming that the towing case
you're referring to involved no direct costs to the pilot. That's a very
important difference, and prevents the case from being relevant to my
comments at all.

> I was just trying to tell
> you that in some cases, the FAA has interpreted the logging of time as
> compensation in and of itself.

I am already quite aware of that, thank you. I am just trying to tell YOU
that in those cases, the logging in and of itself is not compensation. It's
the logging paid for by someone else.

> I think that's just nuts, and subject to all
> manner of abuse. I didn't say that the tow pilot case was controlling,
> just
> that it made me have some reservations about concluding there was no
> possibility of prosecution simply because no money was received by the
> pilot.

I never once said that "there was no possibility of prosecution SIMPLY
BECAUSE [emphasis mine] no money was received by the pilot".

> The argument that someone, somewhere is paying money to someone else
> is a red herring, to me.

You don't fully understand the FAA's position then.

> In the soaring operation I was involved in, other
> than yelling out the altitude of the last release, the tow pilot had
> nothing
> to do with invoicing, billing or collecting a dime from anyone.

The tow pilot's involvement in billing, etc. is irrelevant.

> If the
> simple acquisition of time is compensation, then any other transaction is
> not necessary for a violation.

You are mixing up two different issues. One is the acquisition of flight
time at no cost to the pilot. The other is acting as PIC on a flight taking
place "for hire".

> I have seen my share of occupations and professions, and I have never seen
> anything that approaches the arbitrariness and malevolence, without the
> right of meaningful appeal, that is in aviation.

And? How does that relate to the actual rules?

> I don't see how that tow pilot was "getting something for nothing."

Well, that depends on the situation. So far, you've passed on two
opportunities to actually explain the details of the situation. But the
implication you've given so far is that the tow pilot was not paying for the
costs of operating the airplane. Unless you think that flying is nothing,
he got something (that is, the flying itself) for nothing.

Whether you agree with it or not, the FAA's position on that is very clear.
Flight time is in and of itself compensation.

Pete

[Jim Logajan]

"LWG" > wrote:
> I recall a case with a tow plane pilot who was prosecuted
> for not having his commercial.

That's unlikely because 61.113(g) specifically exempts qualified tow plane
pilots holding only private pilot privileges from the "no compensation"
rule of 61.113(a).

[JJS]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message oups.com...
>> Hope your oil leak problem is finally resolved! Sounds like you're living
>> right, everything worked out well.
>
> If that pesky, nagging, maddening, un-traceable little oil leak is
> finally fixed, I will kiss Atlas' spinner right on the lips, and all
> will be forgiven. I've wasted more hours trying to figure out where
> that drip was coming from than you can imagine.
>
> The oil cooler leaked right at a seam between two metal segments, which
> made seeing the leak impossible without a mirror. And before it let go
> enough to actually produce a series of active drips, it just looked
> oily like everything else in that general area.
>
> I'm just really, REALLY glad that it didn't "let go" more than it did.
> Large parts of Missouri between Iowa City and Columbia are not great
> for forced landings...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

Hi Jay,
I had the same thing happen to me in 1999 on the way to Oshkosh. I noticed oil on the wing while in flight and
quickly looked at the oil pressure and temperature. We were very close to our first fuel stop so we landed as
planned and when I got out I found the same situation you described. Only a few quarts of oil remained in the
engine. Another cooler was rounded up from a nearby airport and we went on our merry way a few hours later. When I
got to Osh, I looked up the Pacific Oil Coolers, Inc. booth and talked to them about getting my old cooler repaired.
They cautioned me about the unknown origin of the installed oil cooler and suggested that since it was used, and if
it hadn't been cleaned thoroughly, it might have contained some congealed oil and debris from the aircraft from
whence it came. That gunk could be circulating in my engine. Needless to say, that concerned me. I checked up on
Pacific and found several good references. They had a good reputation. When I got home, I sent my leaking cooler to
them and they repaired, cleaned, and yellow tagged it. I pulled the other cooler and reinstalled the yellow tagged
unit.

If the cooler you installed was used and hadn't been cleaned, (and I don't mean flushed with solvent), then I
recommend you consider doing it.

Here's a link to their website and procedure:

http://www.oilcoolers.com/howwell.htm

Joe Schneider
Cherokee 8437R



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-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[_1_]]

> Unless you think that flying is nothing,
> he got something (that is, the flying itself) for nothing.
>
> Whether you agree with it or not, the FAA's position on that is very clear.
> Flight time is in and of itself compensation.

.... and this can be extended to flight training too. Suppose I pay for
your instrument rating... plane, instructor, everything. Is that ok?
You are getting free flight time, free instruction, logged time that can
be (and in fact will be) used for an additional rating.

According to the FAA's position, this would be not ok, unless I missed
something very subtle.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Why? Would you prefer that Mr. Honeck remain ignorant of the
> regulations?

The regulation is stupid... I shouldn't need a commercial drivers license if
a friend wants me to pick up something and take it across town for them with
the understanding that they'll pay my costs... Same thing should apply for
aircraft...

> It is my understanding, that all it takes to begin a rule change is a
> letter to the FAA. Perhaps the AOPA might take up the cause. Or
> perhaps we newsgroup participants could draft a more reasonably worded
> regulation, and submit it to the FAA.

Replace it with something like, "Friends help friends. Friends sometimes
even reimburse friends for their trouble."???

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> No argument! I'm open to suggestions.

http://grumman581.googlepages.com/lawyer-problem-solution

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:15:53 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>I don't see how Jay is in trouble at all, either way (for this particular
>aspect of the adventure, anyway). It's his friend that may or may not have
>violated the FARs, not Jay. And that hinges on whether his friend was
>compensated...how and when Jay offered compensation is irrelevant.
>
>Whether compensation occurred is the only issue, and there's no way that his
>friend can argue that flying was incidental to the business of transporting
>the part. Not only would the friend have to already HAVE a business
>transporting things, he would not successfully be able to argue that in the
>course of transporting a part by airplane, the action of transporting that
>part was incidental to the business.

I've been following pretty well right up to this paragraph.

Back when I was allegedly maintaining GA aircraft, we had a hangar
rental & maintenance customer Pt 91 plane/pilot that was always
looking for any excuse to fly anywhere.

He a had a couple regular routes that he flew literally every day that
he was able and the weather was fit.

If I needed a ride to ferry parts, tools, whatever- all I had to do
was call him and he was ready-to-go.

He paid all expenses, there was never ANY compensation, none.

How does the FAA prove that there was no "common purpose" in this
case? When the pilot literally "wants" to go
anywhere/everywhere/anytime?

TC

[Jay Honeck]

> If the cooler you installed was used and hadn't been cleaned, (and I don't mean flushed with solvent), then I
> recommend you consider doing it.

Thanks, Joe, but no worries. This was a yellow-tagged, overhauled oil
cooler that we installed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Do you write for Reader's Digest? Because I have read worse titles and worse
> stories in that mag. I wd think they would be grateful to publish -
> brilliant! Thanks

Thanks for the compliment. I haven't measured -- is my story about the
length of time it takes for a "morning constitutional"? (That *is*
the standard story length for Reader's Digest, BTW...)

That's also why the Digest is the size it is. It's designed to fit
perfectly on the toilet tank lid.

(And I'm a life-long subscriber, BTW... ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Eduardo K.[_1_]]

In article >,
Grumman-581 > wrote:
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> Why? Would you prefer that Mr. Honeck remain ignorant of the
>> regulations?
>
>The regulation is stupid... I shouldn't need a commercial drivers license if
>a friend wants me to pick up something and take it across town for them with
>the understanding that they'll pay my costs... Same thing should apply for
>aircraft...
>

It's not the only place it happens. Down here, if you drive a
friend to the airport, don't park and just drop him off
at the terminal, cops can detain you and impound your car for 'performing
taxi duties in a non commercially registered vehicle'



--
Eduardo K. |
http://www.carfun.cl | Freedom's just another word
http://e.nn.cl | for nothing left to lose.
|

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Jay,

After you overhauled your engine did you get a dynamic prop balance?

When accessories or their mounting brackets start cracking that's a good
place to start looking.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Eduardo K." > wrote in message
...
> It's not the only place it happens. Down here, if you drive a
> friend to the airport, don't park and just drop him off
> at the terminal, cops can detain you and impound your car for 'performing
> taxi duties in a non commercially registered vehicle'

Awh, they're just looking for a bribe... Does donuts work down there or do
you have to offer them an alfajor? I was picking Grace up at IAH last
night from a commercial flight from Toronto and the ****in' TSA idiots
wouldn't even let me wait for her to cross from the doorway to pickup
area... They made me make another loop through the maze of terminals...

[Newps]

>> Unless you think that flying is nothing, he got something (that is,
>> the flying itself) for nothing.
>>
>> Whether you agree with it or not, the FAA's position on that is very
>> clear. Flight time is in and of itself compensation.
>
>
> ... and this can be extended to flight training too. Suppose I pay for
> your instrument rating... plane, instructor, everything. Is that ok?
> You are getting free flight time, free instruction, logged time that can
> be (and in fact will be) used for an additional rating.
>
> According to the FAA's position, this would be not ok, unless I missed
> something very subtle.


You guys worry about the stupidest ****. If the FAA really cared they
could go to any airport on any day and soon be flooded with these types
of cases. People give rides to people or come and deliver a part to a
guy like Jay or just come and pick him up every day. If it was such a
hot button with the FAA it wouldn't be like this.
As for paying for somebody's flying I am paying while my kid gets his
private. You think I am the slightest bit concerned about that? He
wants to go to UND or Purdue and be an airline pilot. There is a trust
fund set up for college. It will not cost him, and more importantly me,
a nickel for his education. And he'll come out of there with several
hundred hours of flight time and all the ratings he'll need. Agagin you
think this is a concern? Or even unique?

[Newps]

wrote:


>
> Back when I was allegedly maintaining GA aircraft, we had a hangar
> rental & maintenance customer Pt 91 plane/pilot that was always
> looking for any excuse to fly anywhere.
>
> He a had a couple regular routes that he flew literally every day that
> he was able and the weather was fit.
>
> If I needed a ride to ferry parts, tools, whatever- all I had to do
> was call him and he was ready-to-go.
>
> He paid all expenses, there was never ANY compensation, none.
>
> How does the FAA prove that there was no "common purpose" in this
> case? When the pilot literally "wants" to go
> anywhere/everywhere/anytime?


That exact situation got a private pilot hammered by the FAA. I believe
it was in Alaska. A charter companies plane makes an emergency landing
on some gravel bar. Company needs to get a part to the pilot who is
also a mechanic. A friend of the company owner who owns a plane offers
to fly the part to the downed plane and does do. FAA hammers the friend
for flying an illegal charter. What he did was help a part 135
operation and he wasn't a part 135 operation himself. The owner of the
company got big fine for running a 135 operation with an unapproved
plane and pilot.

[Jose[_1_]]

> You guys worry about the stupidest ****. If the FAA really cared...

I don't know whether the FAA "really cares" or not. But I don't want to
get Hoovered, and the FAA is making it very easy to selectively enforce
the rules.

I don't see the difference between my paying for your instrument rating,
and my paying for your tow plane activity, except that in the towplane
case the glider tows were (presumably) part of a profit making endavor,
and thus a commercial activity for which the flying is not incidental,
and thus would require a commercial certificate. However, my
understanding is that that was =not= the rationale used by the FAA.
Rather, the rationale was that "logging time" was "compensation".

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[RST Engineering]

Perhaps he was towing them from Boston to Chicago???

{;-)


Jim



"LWG" > wrote in message
...
>I have a slight reservation about flying "gratis" as a complete defense. I
>recall a case with a tow plane pilot who was prosecuted for not having his
>commercial.

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
> I've been following pretty well right up to this paragraph.

I think you've missed other things that I wrote.

> [...]
> If I needed a ride to ferry parts, tools, whatever- all I had to do
> was call him and he was ready-to-go.
>
> He paid all expenses, there was never ANY compensation, none.
>
> How does the FAA prove that there was no "common purpose" in this
> case? When the pilot literally "wants" to go
> anywhere/everywhere/anytime?

That's my point. The "common purpose" test doesn't matter, because no one
was compensated. Or at least, you haven't mentioned anyone being
compensated. The lack of any compensation avoids having to deal with any of
the other stuff, and the flights you describe are perfectly legal.

Note that if your shop had charged your own customers for delivery,
transportation, etc. then even if your customer didn't accept compensation
himself, he would still be flying a "for hire" flight, and that would be
illegal. But I didn't see anything in your post to suggest that's what was
happening.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> That exact situation got a private pilot hammered by the FAA. I believe
> it was in Alaska. A charter companies plane makes an emergency landing on
> some gravel bar. Company needs to get a part to the pilot who is also a
> mechanic. A friend of the company owner who owns a plane offers to fly
> the part to the downed plane and does do. FAA hammers the friend for
> flying an illegal charter. What he did was help a part 135 operation and
> he wasn't a part 135 operation himself. The owner of the company got big
> fine for running a 135 operation with an unapproved plane and pilot.

Got a reference? I suspect you're leaving something out, as the Part 135
customers aren't paying for parts delivery. The operation you've described
isn't illegal under the rules the FAA have been using.

I suspect it's more likely that what happened in that case is that the pilot
delivering the parts *also* picked up stranded passengers or cargo and flew
them back. That *would* be illegal under the FAA's interpretation of the
rules.

Pete

[mike regish]

The CAP has determined that a pilot can fly orientation flights, whicha re
funded by the Air Force as long as he doesn't log them. There used to be an
exclusion from the regs permitting a private pilot to fly these funded
flights AND log them, but a couple of years ago somebody in the FAA decided
that the exclusion didn't count, so the compromise was that you could fly
the flights, get reimbursed, but not log them.

mike

"LWG" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is a good example of how ridiculous the rules are, and the mischief
> created when one agency can be prosecuting attorney and executioner, and
> direct the judge and jury exactly what to do. Just another reason I would
> never let my children pursue a career in aviation without one helluva good
> back-up plan.
>
>

[Jose[_1_]]

> The "common purpose" test doesn't matter, because no one
> was compensated.

Well, the FAA has taken the (ridiculous) POV that logging time counts as
compensation.

Well, maybe it only "sometimes" counts as compensation, with the
"sometimes" entirely up to the FAA.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> The "common purpose" test doesn't matter, because no one was compensated.
>
> Well, the FAA has taken the (ridiculous) POV that logging time counts as
> compensation.

Please, don't make the same mistake several others have by ignoring my other
comments about compensation.

As I've already stated, I am well aware that logging is considered
compensation. However, even the FAA does not consider logging IN AND OF
ITSELF to be compensation. If it did, no Private certificate holder could
ever fly anywhere, with or without anyone, without violating 61.113.. It is
time logged when the costs of the flight are otherwise covered by someone
else (such as the owner of the airplane) that is a problem. That is, a
pilot getting to log time that they themselves did not pay for.

When I write "compensation", I am obviously including ALL legitimate
meanings of that word, including logging time when applicable. That's why I
*use* the word "compensation" rather than "being paid" or some other more
specific phrase. It covers all of the FAA's concept of "compensation", not
just direct monetary benefit.

> Well, maybe it only "sometimes" counts as compensation, with the
> "sometimes" entirely up to the FAA.

Frankly, given the fine and easily-equivocated line between being paid for a
flight that one did pay for and simply not having to pay for a flight at
all, I don't find the FAA's position to be entirely unreasonable.

Yes, I find it annoying that the rest of us have to suffer under silly rules
just because a few other pilots are always trying to get their free lunch.
But I have not found the compensation rules to be onerous or restrictive in
the way I use my airplane. Any pilot that isn't qualified to operate as a
commercial entity (and that includes a lot more than just having a
Commercial pilot certificate) should expect to have to fund their own flight
time, even when that flight time is for the benefit of someone else (or
possibly *especially* when that flight time is for the benefit of someone
else). I don't see any reason that the rules should be expected to be
all-encompassing (in the sense that they allow exceptions for every
conceivably reasonable case), especially given the nature of bureaucracy.

Of all the useless restrictions that most of us operate under as pilots, the
"no compensation" rules are among the most trivial, easiest-to-comply-with.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> After you overhauled your engine did you get a dynamic prop balance?
>
> When accessories or their mounting brackets start cracking that's a good
> place to start looking.

Interesting point. We *have* noticed some vibration in the yoke (most
visible on the yoke-mounted GPS) lately, and have discussed getting the
prop balanced (like we did on our old Warrior) -- but when IT started
leaking, we kind of put that on hold.

Now, of course, the prop has STOPPED leaking of its own accord, just to
**** me off...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> As I've already stated, I am well aware that logging is considered
> compensation. However, even the FAA does not consider logging IN AND OF
> ITSELF to be compensation. If it did, no Private certificate holder could
> ever fly anywhere, with or without anyone, without violating 61.113.. It is
> time logged when the costs of the flight are otherwise covered by someone
> else (such as the owner of the airplane) that is a problem. That is, a
> pilot getting to log time that they themselves did not pay for.

.... which means that logging time when I'm paying for your rating counts
as compensation.

I really don't understand how the FAA comes up with it's contention that
a true record of events that actually transpired is compensation, other
than that they want it to.

> Frankly, given the fine and easily-equivocated line between being paid for a
> flight that one did pay for and simply not having to pay for a flight at
> all, I don't find the FAA's position to be entirely unreasonable.

I don't understand what that means.

> But I have not found the compensation rules to be onerous or restrictive in
> the way I use my airplane.

I find them chilling. They are certainly restrictive in how I would
have (and in fact did) use the airplane when I was in college. It
affects how I use the airplane now in terms of sharing costs, and it
gives the FAA another hook to hang people on when they don't have a
legitimate hook to begin with.

> Any pilot that isn't qualified to operate as a
> commercial entity [...] should expect to have to
> fund their own flight time...

Even my son, going for his instrument rating? It's actually not that
difficult to write the rules in such a way that it allows most things
that should be allowed, and forbids most things that should be forbidden.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>That exact situation got a private pilot hammered by the FAA. I believe
>>it was in Alaska. A charter companies plane makes an emergency landing on
>>some gravel bar. Company needs to get a part to the pilot who is also a
>>mechanic. A friend of the company owner who owns a plane offers to fly
>>the part to the downed plane and does do. FAA hammers the friend for
>>flying an illegal charter. What he did was help a part 135 operation and
>>he wasn't a part 135 operation himself. The owner of the company got big
>>fine for running a 135 operation with an unapproved plane and pilot.
>
>
> Got a reference?

It was in AOPA Pilot ass one of those cases they talk about every month,
several years back.

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:


> As I've already stated, I am well aware that logging is considered
> compensation. However, even the FAA does not consider logging IN AND OF
> ITSELF to be compensation.

Of course not because if I already have enough time to get my
Instrument, commercial, ATP, whatever then logging a few more hours is
irrelavant to me.

[Eduardo K.[_1_]]

In article >,
Grumman-581 > wrote:
>"Eduardo K." > wrote in message
...
>> It's not the only place it happens. Down here, if you drive a
>> friend to the airport, don't park and just drop him off
>> at the terminal, cops can detain you and impound your car for 'performing
>> taxi duties in a non commercially registered vehicle'
>
>Awh, they're just looking for a bribe... Does donuts work down there or do
>you have to offer them an alfajor? I was picking Grace up at IAH last
>night from a commercial flight from Toronto and the ****in' TSA idiots
>wouldn't even let me wait for her to cross from the doorway to pickup
>area... They made me make another loop through the maze of terminals...
>

If you try to bribe a cop in Chile you'll go to jail fast, they are
for all reasonable purposes, unbribable. What they are looking for
is filling a quota and keeping illegal taxis at bay but they go WAY
overboard in doing so... just as the FAA does in trying to fence
non commercial pilots from doing air taxi dutys...






--
Eduardo K. |
http://www.carfun.cl | Freedom's just another word
http://e.nn.cl | for nothing left to lose.
|

[Jay Honeck]

>What they are looking for
> is filling a quota and keeping illegal taxis at bay but they go WAY
> overboard in doing so... just as the FAA does in trying to fence
> non commercial pilots from doing air taxi dutys...

The quota part makes sense -- but who cares about "illegal" taxi cabs?
What constitutes an "illegal" cab?

Oh, wait, I know -- someone who isn't beholden to pay the gummint a
cut, right?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> As I've already stated, I am well aware that logging is considered
>> compensation. However, even the FAA does not consider logging IN AND OF
>> ITSELF to be compensation. If it did, no Private certificate holder
>> could ever fly anywhere, with or without anyone, without violating
>> 61.113.. It is time logged when the costs of the flight are otherwise
>> covered by someone else (such as the owner of the airplane) that is a
>> problem. That is, a pilot getting to log time that they themselves did
>> not pay for.
>
> ... which means that logging time when I'm paying for your rating counts
> as compensation.

I don't think so. When you are being given training in an aircraft, the
instructor is acting as PIC, assuming they are qualified to do so. The
student is not acting as PIC, and so even if the student is being
compensated, could not be found to be in violation of "nor may that person,
for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft" (the only
relevant part of 61.113 in that case).

Have there been any enforcement actions in which a pilot was charged when
all that happened was someone else paid for their training? I don't see how
something like that could happen. Compensation in and of itself does not
mean a violation of 61.113. 61.113 has exceptions, and even ignoring those
exceptions limits the application of the "compensation" concept to specific
situations (that is, acting as PIC).

As long as the pilot is not acting as PIC, none of 61.113 applies.

> I really don't understand how the FAA comes up with it's contention that a
> true record of events that actually transpired is compensation, other than
> that they want it to.

Why not? Flight time has intrinsic value. That said, to my knowledge the
FAA has only applied that standard in situations in which someone else
benefited from the flight. If a pilot manages to get a situation in which
they get to fly an airplane at no cost to them, for their own purposes at
their own whim, I would be surprised if the FAA would apply 61.113 in that
case. I've never heard of anything like that. Have you? If so, please
provide a reference.

>> Frankly, given the fine and easily-equivocated line between being paid
>> for a flight that one did pay for and simply not having to pay for a
>> flight at all, I don't find the FAA's position to be entirely
>> unreasonable.
>
> I don't understand what that means.

What is the difference between me paying the FBO for an hour of flight time
when you are flying the airplane, releasing you from the obligation to pay
for that flight time, and paying you directly for an hour of flight time
when you are flying the airplane and then you turning around and paying that
to the FBO?

The net effect is the same. And a particular example of why the FAA is
concerned that pilots NOT be able to make a distinction is that a Private
pilot may decide to operate a charter in which the only payment made is by
the customer to an FBO to pay for the rental of an airplane. That would be
no different than the pilot accepting payment directly from the customer in
the exact same amount as the rental cost, which would be illegal.

>> But I have not found the compensation rules to be onerous or restrictive
>> in the way I use my airplane.
>
> I find them chilling. They are certainly restrictive in how I would have
> (and in fact did) use the airplane when I was in college.

For example? I didn't fly in college, so I can't relate personally.
Perhaps you can explain what being in college has to do with the
compensation rules.

> It affects how I use the airplane now in terms of sharing costs,

For example? I have found the sharing costs rules to be straightforward and
simple to follow. Of course, I don't mind paying for the flight entirely
when I'm asked to help a friend out. I hardly ever bother to try to share
costs anymore anyway, but even when I did on a regular basis, I only did so
when the flight was my idea.

IMHO, it's important for laws to be applied on a basis of fact, not on a
basis of intent. Unfortunately, not all laws are like that, but it happens
that in the case of 61.113, the factual is MUCH more relevant than the
intent, and this is a good thing. The FAA doesn't make a distinction
between someone intending to skirt the rules for commercial operations and
someone who just happens to have friends who like to suggest places to go.
They just look at what happened and who got paid (or didn't get paid, as the
case may be).

Yes, it means that you cannot make a flight in which the factual nature of
the flight would be similar to the factual nature of a commercial operation.
But I find the alternative -- for the FAA to be making assumptions about my
intent -- to be less desirable.

>> Any pilot that isn't qualified to operate as a commercial entity [...]
>> should expect to have to fund their own flight time...
>
> Even my son, going for his instrument rating?

You are well within your rights to pay for your son's instrument training.

> It's actually not that difficult to write the rules in such a way that it
> allows most things that should be allowed, and forbids most things that
> should be forbidden.

Perhaps that's true. But since that's not the FAA's goal, it's irrelevant.
They want to forbid ALL things that should be forbidden. Doing that while
still allowing all things that should be allowed is much more difficult, and
perhaps impossible. As things stand now, I disagree that "most things that
should be allowed" are not, but that's a matter of opinion and I don't see
the point in debating the exact degree to which some things that should be
allowed are not.

Pete

[Jose[_1_]]

> Of course not because if I already have enough time to get my Instrument, commercial, ATP, whatever then logging a few more hours is irrelavant to me.

Well, no. You may not have enough to satisfy insurance requirments for
certain aircraft, applications, or policies, for example. You may not
have enough to satisfy a job entry requirement. You may get a higher
starting salary if you have logged more hours.

But even so, I don't see it as compensation. Logged hours is merely
evidence of skills (gained from experience), and weak evidence in any
case. But the experience happened, whether it's logged or not.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> The quota part makes sense -- but who cares about "illegal" taxi cabs?
> What constitutes an "illegal" cab?

You only don't know because you've never gone anywhere in which there were a
lot of them.

In the US, and elsewhere, taxis are regulated. Ignore for a moment whether
this regulation is based on safety or on revenue. The fact remains, they
are regulated. An illegal taxi operates without a license, just as an
illegal air transportation service operates without a license.

Some consumer benefits that theoretically are assigned when using a legal
taxi:

* Standardized fares
* Minimum standards for drivers
* A government agency to which to complain (whether due to a violation
of fares, driver competence, or some other driver behavior -- offensive or
otherwise rude treatment of a passenger, for example)

In many foreign countries, the number of unlicensed taxis is huge, and they
can be a major hazard to visiting tourists (of course, as with all other
unregulated things, they can also be a major boon...it just depends on which
unlicensed taxi you get).

> Oh, wait, I know -- someone who isn't beholden to pay the gummint a
> cut, right?

I'll grant that in many cases, regulation may amount only to a surcharge on
the taxi service. But in theory, it's quite a bit more than that. In most
major cities of the US, it is in reality as well.

I can't speak for Chile.

Pete

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> After you overhauled your engine did you get a dynamic prop balance?
>>
>> When accessories or their mounting brackets start cracking that's a good
>> place to start looking.
>
> Interesting point. We *have* noticed some vibration in the yoke (most
> visible on the yoke-mounted GPS) lately, and have discussed getting the
> prop balanced (like we did on our old Warrior) -- but when IT started
> leaking, we kind of put that on hold.
>
> Now, of course, the prop has STOPPED leaking of its own accord, just to
> **** me off...

Sounds like it is time to have the prop balanced.

You got off easy, with a warning failure, in a good place, and a good time,
without jeopardizing your safety. Next time, who knows?

You usually don't get off so easy, the second time.
--
Jim in NC

[Jose[_1_]]

> When you are being given training in an aircraft, the
> instructor is acting as PIC, assuming they are qualified to do so.

No, that's not true. The student can most definately be =acting= as
PIC, and can even =log= PIC time, if the student is qualified (i.e. a
current private pilot being trained under the hood).

> Have there been any enforcement actions in which a pilot was charged when
> all that happened was someone else paid for their training?

I doubt it. That would point out how ridiculous the rule is. However
the FAA has gone after other cases (being discussed here already) which
does not so easily show the idiocy of their policy.

> Flight time has intrinsic value.

So? Anything one enjoys has intrinsic value. If I didn't like to fly,
is it less valuable? Besides, if it had so much intrinsic value, we
wouldn't be paying commercial pilots anything at all. (Granted, some
may argue that already is the case :)

> If a pilot manages to get a situation in which
> they get to fly an airplane at no cost to them, for their own purposes at
> their own whim, I would be surprised if the FAA would apply 61.113 in that
> case.

Three friends and I, on a whim, go for a hundred-twenty dollar
hamburger. They each put $40 in the pot, I pay nothing.

> What is the difference between me paying the FBO for an hour of flight time
> when you are flying the airplane, releasing you from the obligation to pay
> for that flight time, and paying you directly for an hour of flight time
> when you are flying the airplane and then you turning around and paying that
> to the FBO?

None, in essence (I'm presuming the amounts yield no profit to the
pilot). And none should be made.

> And a particular example of why the FAA is
> concerned that pilots NOT be able to make a distinction is that a Private
> pilot may decide to operate a charter in which the only payment made is by
> the customer to an FBO to pay for the rental of an airplane. That would be
> no different than the pilot accepting payment directly from the customer in
> the exact same amount as the rental cost, which would be illegal.

Didn't used to be illegal. Shouldn't be illegal. There's no more
reason that it should be illegal for a pilot to be able to fly for free
than it should be illegal for a pilot to fly at a discount.

> Perhaps you can explain what being in college has to do with the
> compensation rules.

Having gotten my license and being eager to fly, anywhere, I made it
known that if people wanted to fly, I'd be happy to take them. Nowadays
this is called "holding out". In a college dorm it is exceptionally
easy to do, and there is no reason not to (so long as you are not
misrepresnting yourself as a commercial pilot).

> I have found the sharing costs rules to be straightforward and
> simple to follow.

Sure, it's easy to follow. It was easier to follow when there wasn't
the "pro-rata" stuff to it. Let's say I lost my job and am rather tight
financially. You want to cheer me up, so you and I go in Atlas on a
hundred dollar hamburger, for which you are treating. While leaving the
restaurant, you injure yourself and end up with your arm in a sling, and
drugged out. No problem, I can fly you home. I'm rated, current, and
competent.

The only problem is, I can't pay for it. So I can't fly us home.

> I hardly ever bother to try to share
> costs anymore anyway...

Maybe you don't, but many people do. Many people have to.

> IMHO, it's important for laws to be applied on a basis of fact, not on a
> basis of intent.

Well, I disagree with you here too, at least partly. The laws have to
be well written so that the law does reflect the intent. This is not
the case with FAA regs, whose intent seems to be to make it easy to give
the FAA discretion against the pilot.

> You are well within your rights to pay for your son's instrument training.

Why is my son within his rights to accept this compensation and log the
training? What if it wasn't my son, but rather, my neighbor's best
friend's cousin Max?

> But since that's not the FAA's goal, it's irrelevant.
> They want to forbid ALL things that should be forbidden.

Actually, I don't think that's the FAA's goal either, though that may be
the goal of the DMV. The FAA, at least when I started out, counted on
pilot judgement.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Eduardo K.[_1_]]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>What they are looking for
>> is filling a quota and keeping illegal taxis at bay but they go WAY
>> overboard in doing so... just as the FAA does in trying to fence
>> non commercial pilots from doing air taxi dutys...
>
>The quota part makes sense -- but who cares about "illegal" taxi cabs?
> What constitutes an "illegal" cab?

In Chile cab numbers are frozen for pollution and congestion reasons, so
the only legal way to get a new cab is to buy the plate from an old one.

Before that, the number of taxis was so incredibly high you NEVER EVER
had to wait to get one. You could step out of your house and a minute
later a cab would be passing in fron of you. Downtown entire street blocks
were full of them, all empty, all doing 2mph to get a fare.

>
>Oh, wait, I know -- someone who isn't beholden to pay the gummint a
>cut, right?

As I said, there is very little low level corruption in Chile. There have
been a couple of mega-big-bucks scandals, but in everyday life you
can more or less count on cops and civil servants to be unbribable. Is
much, much easier to get a favor from a mutual friend, but thats another
story.

Cops do have to fill ticket quotas periodicallyy and are always hated by
drivers near national holidays and near year ends, but get used to that.


--
Eduardo K. |
http://www.carfun.cl | Freedom's just another word
http://e.nn.cl | for nothing left to lose.
|

[Eduardo K.[_1_]]

In article >,
Peter Duniho > wrote:
>
>I'll grant that in many cases, regulation may amount only to a surcharge on
>the taxi service. But in theory, it's quite a bit more than that. In most
>major cities of the US, it is in reality as well.
>
>I can't speak for Chile.
>

Once you get a taxi license, its actually much cheaper to operate that an
unlicensed one. You pay less taxes. You do have to get a harder to get
drivers license and you car need to get an inspecion every 4 or 6 months,
depending on age.

There is no rear regulation on taxi fares, except for the basic taxis
that roam downtown...

--
Eduardo K. |
http://www.carfun.cl | Freedom's just another word
http://e.nn.cl | for nothing left to lose.
|

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> No, that's not true. The student can most definately be =acting= as PIC,
> and can even =log= PIC time, if the student is qualified (i.e. a current
> private pilot being trained under the hood).

Sorry. I thought it was understood we were talking about the typical case,
not the exceptional ones. If the student is acting as PIC, then 61.113
applies. So what? The point is that it IS possible for someone to pay for
someone else's training without violating 61.113.

>> Have there been any enforcement actions in which a pilot was charged when
>> all that happened was someone else paid for their training?
>
> I doubt it. That would point out how ridiculous the rule is.

So your position is that the rule stipulates something, in spite of no
indication that it does, and in spite of no actual enforcement action even
attempting to claim it does?

That's rich.

> However the FAA has gone after other cases (being discussed here already)
> which does not so easily show the idiocy of their policy.

I've yet to see an example of an enforcement action in which the application
of the policy was obviously idiotic. There is certainly room for
disagreement as to where to draw the line, but IMHO the FAA has been
consistent in focusing on pilot activities that are in at least some
respects similar to commercial operations.

>> Flight time has intrinsic value.
>
> So? Anything one enjoys has intrinsic value. If I didn't like to fly, is
> it less valuable? Besides, if it had so much intrinsic value, we wouldn't
> be paying commercial pilots anything at all. (Granted, some may argue
> that already is the case :)

I'm not talking about the value in the instantaneous experience of the
flight time. I'm talking about a marketable, valuable long-term asset. In
any case, you've already recognized for me the fallacy in your logic. So
even if I was talking about the instantaneous value, you've covered that
too.

>> If a pilot manages to get a situation in which they get to fly an
>> airplane at no cost to them, for their own purposes at their own whim, I
>> would be surprised if the FAA would apply 61.113 in that case.
>
> Three friends and I, on a whim, go for a hundred-twenty dollar hamburger.
> They each put $40 in the pot, I pay nothing.

Bad example, and I suspect you know it is, since you took the time to trim
the portion of my post that makes clear it is.

In your example, you are not flying solely for your own purpose. To
translate that example into something relevant to what I wrote, you'd have
to have three friends chip in for a flight in which you went by yourself for
a $120 hamburger.

>> What is the difference between me paying the FBO for an hour of flight
>> time when you are flying the airplane, releasing you from the obligation
>> to pay for that flight time, and paying you directly for an hour of
>> flight time when you are flying the airplane and then you turning around
>> and paying that to the FBO?
>
> None, in essence (I'm presuming the amounts yield no profit to the pilot).
> And none should be made.

Then you *do* understand what I wrote means.

>> And a particular example of why the FAA is concerned that pilots NOT be
>> able to make a distinction is that a Private pilot may decide to operate
>> a charter in which the only payment made is by the customer to an FBO to
>> pay for the rental of an airplane. That would be no different than the
>> pilot accepting payment directly from the customer in the exact same
>> amount as the rental cost, which would be illegal.
>
> Didn't used to be illegal.

When wasn't it illegal? When, and under what rule, did the FAA allow the
holder of a Private pilot certificate operate a charter in which the
passenger simply paid the FBO for the use of the airplane?

> Shouldn't be illegal.

Why not?

> There's no more reason that it should be illegal for a pilot to be able to
> fly for free than it should be illegal for a pilot to fly at a discount.

You think it should be legal for a pilot to operate a charter outside the
existing rules governing commercial operations, by flying a passenger
wherever they want to go, as long as that passenger is the one who pays
directly for the airplane?

I certainly don't. If you do, then you have a basic philosophical
difference with the FAA that is far greater than the simple question of how
to interpret the rules.

>> Perhaps you can explain what being in college has to do with the
>> compensation rules.
>
> Having gotten my license and being eager to fly, anywhere, I made it known
> that if people wanted to fly, I'd be happy to take them. Nowadays this is
> called "holding out".

Yup, that's true. I don't see how that's specific to college though. It's
true no matter where you are.

> In a college dorm it is exceptionally easy to do, and there is no reason
> not to (so long as you are not misrepresnting yourself as a commercial
> pilot).

Your parenthetical statement is part of the problem. The FAA does not want
the general public to have the impression that non-commercially certificated
pilots and operations are a suitable replacement for the air travel
industry. By restricting pilots from holding themselves out as generally
willing to fly wherever and whenever a person asks them to, the FAA is
attempting to make clear the distinction between an on-demand commercial
operation and a pilot inviting a friend for a recreational flight.

Frankly, they are not so much concerned with the person who is genuinely
just willing to carry his friends about, than they are with the person who
crosses the line and effectively creates an illegal business out of a
situation disguised as the former. But the legal standard for defining a
"friend" is not well-established. The FAA has chosen to address the general
characteristics of such flights, rather than trying to enforce a much more
vague standard of who should or should not be permitted to suggest a flight
destination to a pilot.

I'm sorry that you don't understand this, but it's a pretty clear
distinction to me.

>> I have found the sharing costs rules to be straightforward and simple to
>> follow.
>
> Sure, it's easy to follow. It was easier to follow when there wasn't the
> "pro-rata" stuff to it.

It was also a lot easier to abuse.

> Let's say I lost my job and am rather tight financially. You want to
> cheer me up, so you and I go in Atlas on a hundred dollar hamburger, for
> which you are treating. While leaving the restaurant, you injure yourself
> and end up with your arm in a sling, and drugged out. No problem, I can
> fly you home. I'm rated, current, and competent.
>
> The only problem is, I can't pay for it. So I can't fly us home.

Yup. Oh, darn. There's all sorts of reason you might have been stranded
away from home without transportation. This just happens to be one of them.
If you are unprepared to take the risk of that happening, you have no
business going on the trip in the first place.

If anything, that example is one of the more benign ways to get stranded.
If your friend really wanted to help out, he could just hire someone else to
fly the plane back, with you aboard. It's not like the situation is
impossible. If you really want to be able to cover a situation like that,
get your Commercial pilot certificate and keep your 2nd class medical
current.

>> I hardly ever bother to try to share costs anymore anyway...
>
> Maybe you don't, but many people do. Many people have to.

No one has to. It may be that they have to do less flying without sharing
costs, but no one has to.

>> IMHO, it's important for laws to be applied on a basis of fact, not on a
>> basis of intent.
>
> Well, I disagree with you here too, at least partly. The laws have to be
> well written so that the law does reflect the intent. This is not the
> case with FAA regs, whose intent seems to be to make it easy to give the
> FAA discretion against the pilot.

You are confusing intent of the rule with intent of the actor. I'm talking
about the latter, not the former. Your own opinion as to the intent of the
FAR, apparent or actual, is not relevant to what I wrote.

>> You are well within your rights to pay for your son's instrument
>> training.
>
> Why is my son within his rights to accept this compensation and log the
> training?

Because he is not acting as PIC.

> What if it wasn't my son, but rather, my neighbor's best friend's cousin
> Max?

Same thing.

It is not at all hard for a person to find an instructor who can and will
act as PIC. The FAA in fact assumes that a qualified instructor is acting
as PIC. In every case that I have ever read (including some recent ones
posted here), an instructor on board qualified to act as PIC was held to be
PIC. Usually this comes up in a situation where the PIC is being charged
with a violation, but the same thing applies when deciding whether someone
else in the place is NOT acting as PIC.

>> But since that's not the FAA's goal, it's irrelevant. They want to forbid
>> ALL things that should be forbidden.
>
> Actually, I don't think that's the FAA's goal either, though that may be
> the goal of the DMV. The FAA, at least when I started out, counted on
> pilot judgement.

You believe that the FAA does NOT want to forbid all things that SHOULD be
forbidden?

That's an odd viewpoint. What evidence do you have from the FAA that
suggests there are things that SHOULD be forbidden than they do NOT want to
forbid?

Pete

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> Of all the useless restrictions that most of us operate under as pilots,
the
> "no compensation" rules are among the most trivial,
easiest-to-comply-with.

It all boils down to, "Well, I won't tell if you don't tell"... If a friend
needs help moving his plane and want to pay for the fuel, I'll move it for
him... I might log the hours, I might not... Not because I'm worried about
any stupid ass FAA rule though... More likely because I've got more than
enough hours to go for any advance rating that I might ever want to get, but
I'm unlikely to ever go for them anyway...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Eduardo K." > wrote in message
...
> If you try to bribe a cop in Chile you'll go to jail fast, they are
> for all reasonable purposes, unbribable. What they are looking for
> is filling a quota and keeping illegal taxis at bay but they go WAY
> overboard in doing so...

So they've already been bribed by the 'legal' taxi operator associations...
Gotta admire someone who once bribed, stays bribed... Maybe they call it
something different... City transportation operator license fees, perhaps?

[Jose[_1_]]

> I thought it was understood we were talking about the typical case,
> not the exceptional ones.

A private pilot going for an instrument rating is a typical case.

> The point is that it IS possible for someone to pay for
> someone else's training without violating 61.113.

61.113 is not the issue (or at least not the only issue). The FAA's
interpretation of 61.113 is. The interpretation I glean from trying to
make something consistant out of the cases we're talking about implies
that in this case, the pilot is getting free flying, free logging, and
therefore is being "compensated" for flying. And he's having fun to boot.

> So your position is that the rule stipulates something, in spite of no
> indication that it does, and in spite of no actual enforcement action even
> attempting to claim it does?
>
> That's rich.

Not so rich as you seem to make it. The rule says X. The FAA says, in
a certain case, "X means Y", without saying "only in this case does X
mean Y". Therefore, one is vulnerable if one violates Y. It is an
idiotic vulnerability, but it is one nonetheless.

> I've yet to see an example of an enforcement action in which the application
> of the policy was obviously idiotic.

The tow pilot case is one that comes to mind. Maybe the pilot should
have been busted FOR THE REASON that he was flying in a for-profit
situation (the glider company was getting compensation). Instead he was
butsed FOR THE REASON that he was =personally= getting compensation, the
definition being stretched to include "making a permanent record of
certain events which actually occured".

> but IMHO the FAA has been
> consistent in focusing on pilot activities that are in at least some
> respects similar to commercial operations.

Maybe, but the use stated reasoning that does not follow this.

> In your example, you are not flying solely for your own purpose. To
> translate that example into something relevant to what I wrote, you'd have
> to have three friends chip in for a flight in which you went by yourself for
> a $120 hamburger.

Does it matter that the three friends aren't really interested in a
hamburger or in flying, but they go along anyway to keep the pilot
company, or because they want to protect an investment (the pilot flies
to a musical gig, using (for free) equipmenet owned by those three
friends, who would just as soon not let the pilot just take off with it
all.)

Sure it's a bit contrived, so is your limitation.

> Then you *do* understand what I wrote means.

Yes. I fully understand what you wrote. I disagree with some of it; we
are exploring exactly where that disagreement originates. (at least
that's what I think we're doing).

> When wasn't it illegal? When, and under what rule, did the FAA allow the
> holder of a Private pilot certificate operate a charter in which the
> passenger simply paid the FBO for the use of the airplane?

Back when I was taking flying lessons, in 1980. The rule was that a
private pilot could share expenses. There was no pro-rata rule. It was
the opinion of my ground instructor (and apparantly quite a number of
others) that this meant that that the amount of sharing was up to the
pilot's discretion; he could share =all= the expenses to the passengers,
so long as they paid "not a penny more". The rental costs $120, I take
three passengers, they each chip in $40, I pay the FBO $120, it's all
ok. As you point out, it makes no difference if they pay me in cash or
check, and it makes no difference whether or not I actually hold the
cash and hand it to the FBO, or the passengers hand the money to the FBO
for me.

>>Shouldn't be illegal.
> Why not?

For the same reason it shouldn't be illegal for me to do the same in a car.

> You think it should be legal for a pilot to operate a charter outside the
> existing rules governing commercial operations, by flying a passenger
> wherever they want to go, as long as that passenger is the one who pays
> directly for the airplane?
>
> I certainly don't. If you do, then you have a basic philosophical
> difference with the FAA that is far greater than the simple question of how
> to interpret the rules.

Why do you call it a charter, when you don't call a shared flight a
charter? After all, the pilot gets a benefit out of a shared flight too.

I think it should be perfectly legal for a private pilot to say to his
classmates that he loves to fly, and if somebody wants to fly somewhere,
he'd be happy to do it, as a private pilot, for expenses. It should not
be legal for him to =misrepresent= himself as a commercial operator
(with the attendent safety and regulatory illusions it would give the
passenger). But I see nothing wrong with somebody from my wife's church
asking me if I'd be willing to fly him to Boston. I see nothing wrong
with it if I'm going to Boston anyway for a different reason, I see
nothing wrong with it if I'm going to Cape Cod and I could drop him off,
and I see nothing wrong with it if I just like to fly and would enjoy
the trip, and I don't really care where I fly. Boston's a good a
destination as any.

Why do you see a problem with it?

That you are calling it a "charter" is telling, because it's not a
charter at all.

>>Nowadays this is
>> called "holding out".
> Yup, that's true. I don't see how that's specific to college though. It's
> true no matter where you are.

It's not specific to college. But college is one place where I think
it's quite appropriate to "hold out" in this manner, so long as a pilot
is not =misrepresnting= the flight as a commercial operation. It's
equally appropriate to "hold out" for car pools too come Spring Break,
and not be prosecuted for "operating an illegal taxi".

> Your parenthetical statement is part of the problem. The FAA does not want
> the general public to have the impression that non-commercially certificated
> pilots and operations are a suitable replacement for the air travel
> industry. By restricting pilots from holding themselves out as generally
> willing to fly wherever and whenever a person asks them to, the FAA is
> attempting to make clear the distinction between an on-demand commercial
> operation and a pilot inviting a friend for a recreational flight.

I think this is a poor way to do it. It points to the wrong
differences, it addresses the wrong issues, and it sets traps for what
would otherwise be an innocent operation.

> Frankly, they are [more concerned with] with the person who
> crosses the line and effectively creates an illegal business out of a
> situation disguised as the former.

I agree with that concern. I think they've gone about it wrong.

> I'm sorry that you don't understand this, but it's a pretty clear
> distinction to me.

I do understand it.

> If your friend really wanted to help out, he could just hire someone else to
> fly the plane back, with you aboard.

It's not my friend that's concerned (about me). Rather, I want to (be
able to) do a favor for my friend and fly him and his airplane back. I
shouldn't need a commercial certificate to do this.

> No one has to. It may be that they have to do less flying without sharing
> costs, but no one has to.

Ok, I'll be more specific. They "have to in order to...". Of course
they could choose not to fly as much. That would be an undesirable side
effect.

> You are confusing intent of the rule with intent of the actor.

I think both intents are important. Rules should be written to convey
the intent of (i.e. the reason for) the rule. The reason for the rule
should take into account the intent of the actor as well as the action
itself.

>>Why is my son within his rights to accept this compensation and log the
>> training?
> Because he is not acting as PIC.

Sure he is. He's a fully qualified private pilot, and he's receiving
instruction under the hood. This is fairly typical.

> In every case that I have ever read (including some recent ones
> posted here), an instructor on board qualified to act as PIC was held to be
> PIC.

This is somewhat silly too. And though I can see why the FAA may want
to apply this rule, it has nothing to do with compensation, and to hang
the compensation thing on this is weak.

> You believe that the FAA does NOT want to forbid all things that SHOULD be
> forbidden?

Yes. Flying in thunderstorms is not forbidden. It's incredibly stupid
though. Flying beyond one's competence is not forbidden (though flying
beyond one's currency is). Some things should not be done by some, but
are ok done by others. This is where judgement comes in, and the FAA
grants pilots much wider latitude here than (say) the DMV. Granting
this kind of latitude inherently fails to forbid some things that should
not be done.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> A private pilot going for an instrument rating is a typical case.

A private pilot going for an instrument rating in which the private pilot is
the one who is acting as PIC is NOT the typical case.

This is the first of many misinterpretations in your most recent post of
things that I've written. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume
that you are so dedicated to your position, that you are unconsciously
misinterpreting what I've written. The alternative is that you are
intentionally ignoring the written meaning of my words.

Either way, I'm going to clarify for you all of these misinterpretations and
then I'm done. You obviously have a predecided notion about what's the
rules should be and what they are, and your interpretation not only of the
case law but also of what I've written is being influenced by that notion.
As well, I have a predecided notion and while I think I'm doing a better job
reading your posts than you are mine, my point of view is still influenced
by that notion and you are so distant from what I feel is a reasonable
approach to looking at the case law and the rules, that I can't imagine this
discussion achieving anything productive.

So, here are your other clarifications, then I'm out of this sub-thread:

>> The point is that it IS possible for someone to pay for someone else's
>> training without violating 61.113.
>
> 61.113 is not the issue (or at least not the only issue). The FAA's
> interpretation of 61.113 is.

Since 61.113 specifically addresses only those situations in which the pilot
is acting as PIC, it very MUCH is the only issue with respect to the
question of whether the pilot acting as PIC affects the application of
61.113. This is entirely outside the question of the FAA's interpretation
of the word "compensation".

Misinterpretation #2.

> Not so rich as you seem to make it. The rule says X. The FAA says, in a
> certain case, "X means Y", without saying "only in this case does X mean
> Y". Therefore, one is vulnerable if one violates Y. It is an idiotic
> vulnerability, but it is one nonetheless.

Again, without the pilot acting as PIC, 61.113 is irrelevant.

Misinterpretation #3.

>> In your example, you are not flying solely for your own purpose. To
>> translate that example into something relevant to what I wrote, you'd
>> have to have three friends chip in for a flight in which you went by
>> yourself for a $120 hamburger.
>
> Does it matter that the three friends aren't really interested in a
> hamburger or in flying, but they go along anyway to keep the pilot
> company, or because they want to protect an investment (the pilot flies to
> a musical gig, using (for free) equipmenet owned by those three friends,
> who would just as soon not let the pilot just take off with it all.)

No, it does not matter one bit.

> Sure it's a bit contrived,

Yes, it is incredibly contrived, and you would NEVER be able to prove that
assertion in any court, administrative or otherwise.

> so is your limitation.

My "limitation" is contrived? It's not contrived...it's a direct
consequence of the rules as stated and interpreted.

Misinterpretation #4.

>> Then you *do* understand what I wrote means.
>
> Yes. I fully understand what you wrote.

Then why did you write "I don't understand what that means"?

>> When wasn't it illegal? When, and under what rule, did the FAA allow the
>> holder of a Private pilot certificate operate a charter in which the
>> passenger simply paid the FBO for the use of the airplane?
>
> Back when I was taking flying lessons, in 1980. The rule was that a
> private pilot could share expenses. There was no pro-rata rule.

So say you. My understanding of the rules prior to the inclusion of the
"pro-rata" phrase is that the FAA always held that "sharing" implied
"pro-rata". They only added that text because there were people like you
and your instructor who wishfully believed otherwise.

Show me some actual documentation that shows that the FAA considered
arbitrary sharing, up to zero contribution from the pilot, as legal
"sharing" of costs for a Private pilot and I'll accept your statement. I
don't believe you can.

>>>Shouldn't be illegal.
>> Why not?
>
> For the same reason it shouldn't be illegal for me to do the same in a
> car.

It IS illegal for you to do the same in a car. Ironically enough, we just
had a bunch of messages in this very newsgroup about unlicensed taxis. It's
the exact same thing.

> Why do you call it a charter, when you don't call a shared flight a
> charter? After all, the pilot gets a benefit out of a shared flight too.

Because I'm talking specifically about a charter operation, that's why. I'm
not talking about your friend paying the rental rate, I'm talking about the
pilot who flies all sorts of people, hiding the fact that it's in fact a
charter operation by having the people pay for the rental and not accepting
any other payments.

Why in the world do you insist on not only ignoring the fact that I'm using
the word "charter" to mean something specific, but then question me on why I
would use that word? All you've accomplished is to show me that you are so
dead-set on being contrary to what I've written, that you cannot be bothered
to take the time to comprehend what I've written. You just jump to whatever
the first conclusion you find that you can sink your teeth into.

Misinterpretation #5.

> I think it should be perfectly legal for a private pilot to say to his
> classmates that he loves to fly, and if somebody wants to fly somewhere,
> he'd be happy to do it, as a private pilot, for expenses.

Yes, clearly you think it should be.

> That you are calling it a "charter" is telling, because it's not a charter
> at all.

The operation I'm talking about IS a charter. That you insist on applying
my use of the word "charter" to some other operation, and that you then use
that misinterpretation of my use of the word "charter" to claim that my use
is "telling" is in and of itself telling.

Misinterpretation #6.

> It's not specific to college. But college is one place where I think it's
> quite appropriate to "hold out" in this manner, so long as a pilot is not
> =misrepresnting= the flight as a commercial operation.

I don't see how it's any more appropriate in college than anywhere else. As
far as I know, the FARs don't provide specific waivers for behavior based on
one's age or educational enrollment.

> It's equally appropriate to "hold out" for car pools too come Spring
> Break, and not be prosecuted for "operating an illegal taxi".

Actually, if someone held out advertising a "car pool" to wherever anyone
else wanted to go, that likely WOULD be illegal.

It's likely that enforcement is almost never pursued, if ever. But that
doesn't change the legality. And in most cases, student car pools occur to
destinations that the students already had in common.

>> If your friend really wanted to help out, he could just hire someone else
>> to fly the plane back, with you aboard.
>
> It's not my friend that's concerned (about me). Rather, I want to (be
> able to) do a favor for my friend and fly him and his airplane back. I
> shouldn't need a commercial certificate to do this.

Nothing is stopping you from doing a favor for your friend as long as you
can afford to. Just as nothing is stopping you from flying anywhere you
want to go, as long as you can afford to.

>> No one has to. It may be that they have to do less flying without
>> sharing costs, but no one has to.
>
> Ok, I'll be more specific. They "have to in order to...". Of course they
> could choose not to fly as much. That would be an undesirable side
> effect.

My inability to turn a profit flying without jumping through a bunch of
regulatory hoops is IMHO a undesirable side effect. So what? That doesn't
justify removing those regulatory hoops. It just means that I don't desire
the side effect.

"That would be an undesirable side effect" carries zero weight as a debating
point.

>> You are confusing intent of the rule with intent of the actor.
>
> I think both intents are important.

Not with respect to interpreting what I've written. When I used the word
"intent", it was applied to the intent of the actor, not the intent of the
rules. Regardless of what you think is important, you need to stick to my
use of the word if you want to address what I've written.

Misinterpretation #7.

>>>Why is my son within his rights to accept this compensation and log the
>>>training?
>> Because he is not acting as PIC.
>
> Sure he is. He's a fully qualified private pilot, and he's receiving
> instruction under the hood. This is fairly typical.

That does not make him the person acting as PIC. Why you think it does is
beyond me.

>> In every case that I have ever read (including some recent ones posted
>> here), an instructor on board qualified to act as PIC was held to be PIC.
>
> This is somewhat silly too.

So your argument that the compensation rules are silly is based on your
claim that the assignment of the PIC rules are silly as well? Forgive if I
find that to be an empty and weightless debating point as well.

> And though I can see why the FAA may want to apply this rule, it has
> nothing to do with compensation, and to hang the compensation thing on
> this is weak.

Have you read 61.113? It is ALL ABOUT who is PIC. The question of who is
acting as PIC absolutely relates DIRECTLY to how 61.113 applies.

>> You believe that the FAA does NOT want to forbid all things that SHOULD
>> be forbidden?
>
> Yes. Flying in thunderstorms is not forbidden.

For that to be an example, you need to show that flying in thunderstorms
SHOULD be forbidden *and* that the FAA does NOT want to forbid flying in
thunderstorms. The fact that they haven't done so doesn't show that they
don't want to.

> It's incredibly stupid though. Flying beyond one's competence is not
> forbidden (though flying beyond one's currency is).

Again, you have not shown either component of the condition to be true.
Neither the requirement that flying beyond one's competence SHOULD be
forbidden, nor that the FAA does NOT want to forbid flying beyond one's
competence.

> [...] Granting this kind of latitude inherently fails to forbid some
> things that should not be done.

I did not write "that should not be done". I wrote "that SHOULD be
forbidden". These are different things. If you want to provide a
counter-example, you need to conform to the structure of the original
statement.

Anyway, that's a few logical mistakes and no fewer than SEVEN
misinterpretations of what I wrote. Frankly, I don't find that to be a
useful way to discuss anything, and even if you were discussing this in a
logical, error-free manner I can't say that I think there's any benefit from
the discussion.

The rules are as they are, I personally don't find them all that onerous,
and that's that. If you do, get off your butt and lobby some FAA official
or whoever it takes and get the rules changed. You're not going to convince
me that the current rules are all that terrible, but I generally welcome the
sort of relaxation in the rules that you're proposing. Wouldn't bother me
one bit if you got your way. Go for it...you never know what you might
accomplish if you put the same effort into the project as you do in writing
Usenet posts.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> In Chile cab numbers are frozen for pollution and congestion reasons, so
> the only legal way to get a new cab is to buy the plate from an old one.

That sounds just like the scam New York has going. Those "plates" are
worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, thanks to their "regulations".

> Before that, the number of taxis was so incredibly high you NEVER EVER
> had to wait to get one. You could step out of your house and a minute
> later a cab would be passing in fron of you. Downtown entire street blocks
> were full of them, all empty, all doing 2mph to get a fare.

Something doesn't add up here. If what you say was true, few of those
cab drivers were making money -- and most of them would have ceased
operation within weeks.

If, on the other hand, those guys WERE making money -- and they must
have been -- and you NEVER had to wait for a cab, this sounds like a
win-win situation for all concerned. The cab drivers had a job, and
the cab users had quick, efficient transortation.

Your government getting involved by selling "plates" has accomplished
three things: You now must wait for a cab, your government has added an
invisible (to most) tax to its citizens, and your fare you pay will be
higher. In short, the typical, low-level government fleecing of its
citizens under the guise of "regulation".

You may say that Chile has no low-level corruption, and I have no
reason to doubt you. America has very little of the "pay the cop $100
and he'll look the other way" type of corruption, etiher. What we have
in spades, however, (and it sounds like Chile does, too) is
"corruption by regulation", where the powers that be have codified
their corrupt practices to make them appear legal and moral. The FAA
regulation against buying a friend a tank of gas for helping you is but
one of the many examples of this type of thing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Eduardo K.[_1_]]

In article . com>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> In Chile cab numbers are frozen for pollution and congestion reasons, so
>> the only legal way to get a new cab is to buy the plate from an old one.
>
>That sounds just like the scam New York has going. Those "plates" are
>worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, thanks to their "regulations".

Is true. But price is reasonable as the number is large.

>
>Something doesn't add up here. If what you say was true, few of those
>cab drivers were making money -- and most of them would have ceased
>operation within weeks.

Most of the taxi drivers were single vehicule owners, not corporations. Any
reasonable corporation would have ceased operation in weeks, but a
middle age father whose only income was the taxi would keep on trying
to make ends meet by skimping on manteinance and safety.


>You may say that Chile has no low-level corruption, and I have no
>reason to doubt you. America has very little of the "pay the cop $100
>and he'll look the other way" type of corruption, etiher. What we have
>in spades, however, (and it sounds like Chile does, too) is
>"corruption by regulation", where the powers that be have codified
>their corrupt practices to make them appear legal and moral. The FAA
>regulation against buying a friend a tank of gas for helping you is but
>one of the many examples of this type of thing.
>

And thats why I made the comparison :)


--
Eduardo K. | Darwin pone las reglas.
http://www.carfun.cl | Murphy, la oportunidad.
http://e.nn.cl |
| Yo.

[soxinbox[_2_]]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Sorry Larry and Jose, but there's at least one case which is similar in
> > facts to that which transpired between Jay and his friend and the FAA lost
> > the case on appeal:
> >
> > http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4791.PDF
>
> While an interesting and gratifying read (nice to see the Board overturn an
> FAA action once in awhile), I don't see how it's relevant here. The only
> point being made here is that *if* compensation is given to the pilot, that
> would be a violation.
>
> In the case you're showing us, the outcome very much hinged on the pilot's
> ability to show *not only that he had not received compensation*, but also
> that he convinced the Board that he had made very clear that the flight was
> not a revenue flight, and that he would accept no compensation, not even
> payment for the fuel.
>
> If you look at the references to other cases in the decision you posted,
> you'll notice that a pilot flying a revenue flight, even if he did not
> personally get compensated, also runs afoul of the rules (since the flight
> is "for hire", even though the pilot is not). In those cases, however, the
> pilot was found to have done so knowingly. In the case you posted, even
> though someone received compensation, the pilot himself not only did not, he
> also made it very clear at the time that no payment would be required for
> the flight, nor accepted.
>
> This was why he was eventually found innocent, and frankly it was hardly a
> slam-dunk for him even so. If they'd been having a bad day, I could easily
> see the NTSB having taken a slightly different interpretation of the events
> and upholding the original charges.
>
> (Why Keenan was willing to pay the invoice sent to him by the other guy
> later is an entirely different matter, but only because there was no dispite
> about whether the pilot thought the flight was a revenue flight or not).
>
> John Yodice wrote in AOPA Pilot a few years back about a pilot who carried
> passengers who merely shared expenses, and who was found guilty of the
> compensation rules, simply because those passengers were not traveling for
> the same reason as the pilot (if I recall correctly, one or some were going
> to a football game, and others or one were not). That may be the case that
> Larry and Jose are recalling as well.
>
> Pete

In that paticular case, the passengers paid for the flight, the flight
was solicited and advertised, and the passengers had an expectation of
a comercial operation. These facts were the basis of the FAA ruling. I
agree with the FAA ruling on that case because if a passenger pays for
a comercial flight, they diserve the extra level of safty given by the
part 135 operations.

I don't think this case is very relevaent to the current arguments.

[soxinbox[_2_]]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Sorry Larry and Jose, but there's at least one case which is similar in
> > facts to that which transpired between Jay and his friend and the FAA lost
> > the case on appeal:
> >
> > http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4791.PDF
>
> While an interesting and gratifying read (nice to see the Board overturn an
> FAA action once in awhile), I don't see how it's relevant here. The only
> point being made here is that *if* compensation is given to the pilot, that
> would be a violation.
>
> In the case you're showing us, the outcome very much hinged on the pilot's
> ability to show *not only that he had not received compensation*, but also
> that he convinced the Board that he had made very clear that the flight was
> not a revenue flight, and that he would accept no compensation, not even
> payment for the fuel.
>
> If you look at the references to other cases in the decision you posted,
> you'll notice that a pilot flying a revenue flight, even if he did not
> personally get compensated, also runs afoul of the rules (since the flight
> is "for hire", even though the pilot is not). In those cases, however, the
> pilot was found to have done so knowingly. In the case you posted, even
> though someone received compensation, the pilot himself not only did not, he
> also made it very clear at the time that no payment would be required for
> the flight, nor accepted.
>
> This was why he was eventually found innocent, and frankly it was hardly a
> slam-dunk for him even so. If they'd been having a bad day, I could easily
> see the NTSB having taken a slightly different interpretation of the events
> and upholding the original charges.
>
> (Why Keenan was willing to pay the invoice sent to him by the other guy
> later is an entirely different matter, but only because there was no dispite
> about whether the pilot thought the flight was a revenue flight or not).
>
> John Yodice wrote in AOPA Pilot a few years back about a pilot who carried
> passengers who merely shared expenses, and who was found guilty of the
> compensation rules, simply because those passengers were not traveling for
> the same reason as the pilot (if I recall correctly, one or some were going
> to a football game, and others or one were not). That may be the case that
> Larry and Jose are recalling as well.
>
> Pete

In that paticular case, the passengers paid for the flight, the flight
was solicited and advertised, and the passengers had an expectation of
a comercial operation. These facts were the basis of the FAA ruling. I
agree with the FAA ruling on that case because if a passenger pays for
a comercial flight, they diserve the extra level of safty given by the
part 135 operations.

I don't think this case is very relevaent to the current arguments.

[Sylvain]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> In Chile cab numbers are frozen for pollution and congestion reasons, so
>> the only legal way to get a new cab is to buy the plate from an old one.
>
> That sounds just like the scam New York has going. Those "plates" are
> worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, thanks to their "regulations".

that was also the situation in Dublin (Ireland) when I was living
there; at the time, the going rate -- or so the rumor said -- was
around 50k Irish Pounds (no Europ yet), which at the time, about
ten years ago, could buy you a house, or a very nice appartment
downtown. The nominal fee was of course much lower. The thing
almost turned to riots when the gvt released a bunch new licenses at
said nominal fee, thus upsetting a very lucrative 'derivative'
market...

--Sylvain

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Jay,

I don't think I'll ever let a prop shop "overhaul" another prop, unless the
blades are in really bad shape.

The prop shops GRIND away huge amounts of blade and that's why one can never
get more than 3 overhauls on a blade. I need a re-seal right now on my prop.
I'm getting oil on the windshield. It is difficult to keep a BIG prop sealed
because of all the weight being slung around.

So......I just want to have the blades lightly sanded, forget the grinder.
There aren't any rock chips anyway and no peeling from float operations.
Re-seal, sand and paint. Only Pt.135 airplanes require a certified overhaul.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> After you overhauled your engine did you get a dynamic prop balance?
>>
>> When accessories or their mounting brackets start cracking that's a good
>> place to start looking.
>
> Interesting point. We *have* noticed some vibration in the yoke (most
> visible on the yoke-mounted GPS) lately, and have discussed getting the
> prop balanced (like we did on our old Warrior) -- but when IT started
> leaking, we kind of put that on hold.
>
> Now, of course, the prop has STOPPED leaking of its own accord, just to
> **** me off...
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Doug[_1_]]

You might want to spring for a dynamic balance. Smooths things out
which helps on wear and tear and makes the plane nicer to ride in as
well....

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-10-06, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> "Is all that oil normal?"
>
> Interestingly, we were only 1/2 quart down on the dipstick.

A little oil, when smeared over the side of the aircraft, goes a long
way. I once did a stupid pilot trick (was interrupted during my preflight and
forgot to replace the oil filler cap/dipstick on the C140!) and on
landing a short time later discovered what looked like a gallon of oil
coating the side and belly of the aircraft. However, not much had
actually been blown out the engine. Fortunately, the cap/dipstick was
still where this idiot had left it - on top of the engine!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[A Lieberma]

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> Fortunately, the
> cap/dipstick was still where this idiot had left it - on top of the
> engine!

Fortunately, I have not done this, but this is one of my greatest
fears..... My way of reducing this is to never completely remove the
dipstick, just enough to see the level and put it right back on. The dip
stick on my Sundowner is not a screw on type, but the type you push it to
"click it" in place and put the pull handle in a flat position.

Whenever possible, I try to top off the oil after a flight, so it gives me
a second oppurtunity (subsequent pre-flight) to catch a mistake should I do
something like you describe above.

You must have a very well balanced prop for the dip stick not to shift in
flight sitting on top of your engine :-)

Allen

[John Galban]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> A little oil, when smeared over the side of the aircraft, goes a long
> way. I once did a stupid pilot trick (was interrupted during my preflight and
> forgot to replace the oil filler cap/dipstick on the C140!) and on
> landing a short time later discovered what looked like a gallon of oil
> coating the side and belly of the aircraft. However, not much had
> actually been blown out the engine. Fortunately, the cap/dipstick was
> still where this idiot had left it - on top of the engine!
>

I did this on a Continetal powered 172. The dipstick was separate
from the oil filler neck (much bigger opening). I lost 2 quarts on a
3 hr. flight and the plane was covered from nose to tail and dripping
all over my tiedown. Like you, I opened the cowl and found the cap
right where I'd left it. Sitting on top of the battery box. It was
pretty embarrasing, as my IA had come out to see what happened after
seeing me taxi past.

A few years later (same plane) I landed in the middle of nowhere in
Nevada and the FBO lady came out and was excitedly pointing at my
plane. When I got out and saw oil all down the side, I couldn't
believe I'd done it again. As it turned out, I didn't. This time, the
entire oil filler neck had departed the engine somewhere over Idaho or
Nevada. It was press-fit into the engine and had come loose over the
decades. This time I lost 2 1/2 quarts and had to wait 3 days for the
part.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Do you write for Reader's Digest? Because I have read worse titles and worse
>>stories in that mag. I wd think they would be grateful to publish -
>>brilliant! Thanks
>
>
> Thanks for the compliment. I haven't measured -- is my story about the
> length of time it takes for a "morning constitutional"? (That *is*
> the standard story length for Reader's Digest, BTW...)

We have a bookcase in the aforementioned room. I don't have any books
in it. I think it's a guy thing (especially if She is WAITING for the
room)!
>
> That's also why the Digest is the size it is. It's designed to fit
> perfectly on the toilet tank lid.
>
> (And I'm a life-long subscriber, BTW... ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jay Honeck]

> > Thanks for the compliment. I haven't measured -- is my story about the
> > length of time it takes for a "morning constitutional"? (That *is*
> > the standard story length for Reader's Digest, BTW...)
>
> We have a bookcase in the aforementioned room. I don't have any books
> in it. I think it's a guy thing (especially if She is WAITING for the
> room)!

That's why we have three full bathroom/tubs/showers in a home occupied
by just four people.

(And each one has a good selection of reading material...)

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"