Breath of Fresh Air from the FSDO

I decided to get our local FSDO's take on the flight compensation issue
since so many of these things vary in interpretation from district to
district.

I spoke with someone who said, in response to some of the points kicked
around in the Cost sharing - reimbursement - flight for hire mess thread
below, "That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Where did you get
that?' He then took me through the regulations and pointed out that it
doesn't say that stuff anywhere.

About 20 minutes later, he called back and said he'd done some research and
talked to some other people and I was right. However, he said they thinks
Washington is being silly and assured me that they would never violate
anyone on things like logging unpaid time. They have much more important
things to do.

His advice: Go fly, have fun, don't worry, follow the regs as written.

I guess most of you guys who responded similarly were right.

These technicalities only appear to be pulled out when the find someone
making a while mini industry out of bending a regulation for significant
gain.

Thanks guys, I feel a lot better and we'll probably drop the flight rule
thing.

--
Roger Long

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"

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:56:10 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:


What's the bottom line?

Gotcha!.

Don

Roger Long wrote:
However, he said they thinks
Washington is being silly and assured me that they would never violate
anyone on things like logging unpaid time. They have much more important
things to do.

The FSDO continue to amaze me. IMHO, the FSDO should not make regulatory
decision or FAR interpretations.

Anyway, in a memo dated May 1982 from Bernard Geier, Chief, General Aviation
and Commercial Division, to Chief, Flight Standards Division, Bernard Geier
noted that a private pilot may not serve as pilot in command of such an
operation [towing gliders] even when he/she elects to forego actual monetary
compensation for service as pilot in command since, as stated, the private
pilot is rendering his/her services to build (flight) time. This act,
within itself, constitutes an operation for gain or advantage, other than
for transportation alone. As such, it would be considered an operation for
compensation or hire.

The FAA has 'punished' pilots for logging such time.

Hilton

Hilton wrote:
operation [towing gliders] even when he/she elects to forego actual
monetary

FWIW: The "towing gliders" issues was resolved with 61.113(g). However, the
"logging time is compensation" issue remains valid.

Hilton

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"

"Hilton" wrote:

FWIW: The "towing gliders" issues was resolved with 61.113(g). However, the
"logging time is compensation" issue remains valid.

Interestingly, the "towing gliders" issue was supposed to be
resolved in 61.113(g) by allowing the logging of time (which
is compensation under the existing interpretation).
However, the rewrite was screwed up and they ended up
making a blanket exception for towing gliders whereby *all*
types of compensation are permitted. IOW, a private pilot
can tow gliders and be paid $$$$ for that towing as well as
logging the time because of the blanket exception to the
non-compensation rules.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

Thanks for the synopsis, Roger.

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.

One thing I've never quite figured out: What, exactly, does a FSDO *do* all
day long, that keeps them "overworked"?

I suppose there are routine inspections and the like to keep them busy, but
I have no idea what a FSDO actually does. Other than ramp checks and field
approvals, what goes on in those cubicles?

Can anyone here give us a "day in the life" at a FSDO?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"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."


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"

Remember, they have to be lunch room monitor to the airlines and the charter
operators as well.

You think there are some shysters and rule benders in GA......

My impression from what I've heard when I've been in the FSDO is that they
are mostly focused on heading off the really big news stories.
--
Roger Long


I suppose there are routine inspections and the like to keep them busy,
but
I have no idea what a FSDO actually does. Other than ramp checks and
field
approvals, what goes on in those cubicles?

Can anyone here give us a "day in the life" at a FSDO?

Roger Long wrote:

My impression from what I've heard when I've been in the FSDO is that they
are mostly focused on heading off the really big news stories.
--

Exactly. To think that a FSDO could give a rats ass if you are logging
time while giving your buddy a ride to somewhere boggles the mind.