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

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

BT
"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
Here's how I think it works:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Roger Long
Jay Honeck wrote in message
news:ef1lb.832451$Ho3.239473@sccrnsc03...
His advice: Go fly, have fun, don't worry, follow the regs as
written.

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

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