"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