Club Management Issue

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om

Why was Mark going there? If teh FSDO comes around asking he better be
able to produce a grandmother out there he was visiting. You can't
just hang up a sign on your plane and say, "I'll fly anyone anywhere
if you split the gas". Even that would be 135.

Who asked whom for the flight? If "Mark" advertises or suggests that he'd
fly them for a fee, then that's clearly a commercial operation. If,
however, "Paul" asks Mark to fly him out to pick up his plane and Paul chips
in half the cost of the one-way trip, I don't see that as a commercial
operation and I've not seen anything yet that convinces me it's a violation
of 14CFR91. If Paul paid Mark for half the cost of both legs of Mark's
flight, then I'd agree that Mark isn't paying his pro rata share and is in
violation. (Without knowing what plane was used and the distances involved,
I have no way of knowing whether $175 is a reasonable figure for a pro rata
share.)

If you know of something concrete that contradicts my understanding, please
let me know where I can read it. I'm really not trying to be obstinate
here, but I keep seeing people reference what is essentially the word of
somebody's interpretation of what they heard a FSDO or legal counsel may
have ruled.

I think everybody agrees that Mark would not be in volation of any FAR's if
he "donated" his flight time to take the crew out to retrieve Paul's plane.
The only question is whether he can accept *any* money for the flight. My
assertion is that he can accept payment as long as it does not exceed the
cost of the outbound leg minus his pro rata share. In other words, Mark
would pay no less than an equal share of the outbound leg and all of the
inbound leg costs.

I don't think it's the FAA's intent to force all pilots of stranded planes
to:
a) hire a charter flight; or
b) fly commercial; or
c) drive; or
d) take any transportation not operated by a private pilot
to get their plane.

However, since we *are* talking about the FAA, I could be wrong. So, if
you know of links with documentation to demonstrate my error in
understanding, please let me know.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

John T wrote:
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net

No "commonality of purpose". Mark was not goint to fly to the
destination until the mechanic told him that there was a plane
stranded there.


OK, let me change the scenario slightly. Let's say Mark and I are airport
neighbors and I need a ride to Little Airport to pick up my plane that's in
for service. You're saying Mark can't offer or accept a request from me to
take me to Little Airport unless he were specifically going to that airport?

In the scenario posed by the OP, let's assume for the moment that Mark
didn't charge anything for the flight and did it out of neighborly concern.
Is he still in violation of Part 91?

I understand your "commonality clause" argument, but it seems you're taking
it's interpretation to an extreme. I find it difficult to believe that even
the FAA would say pilots can't offer to help other pilots in need of
transportation to/from stranded planes.


The mechanic was also on the trip, and was getting paid for his time.
Makes it a part 135 operation as far as the FAA is concerned, even if
"Mark" didn't receive a dime.



--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

Except that the owner IS responsible for airplane maintenance.

OTOH, the owner is generally not responsible for checking the weather
before flight.


"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in
k.net:

It is not his fault that the airplane broke.

Agreed.

As a Devil's advocate point, though, it's also not a VFR pilot's fault
when the weather closes in and traps them at a remote airport. But
it's still the renter's responsiblity to get that plane back home so
that other people can use it, even if it means paying for two IFR club
members to come get the plane.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004

John T wrote:

Now turn that around. Are you saying Mark cannot accept an offer of payment
for *pro rata share* of the flight costs for the trip out? (I assume that
Mark would pay his return expenses in entirety.)

That's correct. He has to be going there anyway.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

I'll add to that another point, which may largely depend on the
club/school...

At the school where I used to rent from before I got into the flight club
that I am in now, if someone got stuck for weather, they would not force
you to try to get the plane back - especially if you called to let them
know ahead of time that you were anticipating the possibility of weather
delays. If someone else was scheduled on the plane after you, they would
try to find a way to make alternate arrangements so that your delay would
not impact anyone else.

However, if you decided that you could not wait it out, and wanted to
have someone come "save" you, then it was your choice, and you were
responsible for the expenses associated with doing that (ie, the cost of
two instrument rated CFIs to fly out and get you home, as well as the
rental time on both planes round trip).

They were also as accomodating as could be, though. For example, I once
got almost all the way home when the weather started closing in, and my
airport became IFR. I landed at the nearest airport I could get to (about
20 miles away), and called up and told them about my situation. I waited
most of the day, and decided it wasn't getting better quick. One of the
school instructors was already planning to take an IFR student shooting
approaches at the airport where I got stuck. So a second instructors
"hitched" a ride with him, and they dropped him off so he could save me.
As a result, they didn't charge me for any of the first CFI's time, or
the other plane's time.

Their policy was overshadowed by the feeling that no one should be
pressured into flying in poor weather. If someone can't wait for better
weather, then it is HIS decision to get "saved", and he should bear the
cost. But if you start penalizing people for getting delayed by weather,
I think you are inviting people to take risks and make bad decisions.


"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in
k.net:

It is not his fault that the airplane broke.

Agreed.

As a Devil's advocate point, though, it's also not a VFR pilot's fault
when the weather closes in and traps them at a remote airport. But
it's still the renter's responsiblity to get that plane back home so
that other people can use it, even if it means paying for two IFR club
members to come get the plane.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004

On 25 Mar 2004 12:07:02 -0800, (John Galban)
wrote:

Ray Andraka wrote in message ...
Since Mark had no other reason to go to the airport
other than to drop the passengers, he can't ask for any compensation at all. Even
then you need to be careful about non-cash benefits garnered by piloting the flight.


I've read a few FAA cases about this and I'd tend to agree. The
"commonality of purpose" test kicks in whenever money (or other
compensation) changes hands. In this case (assuming Mark is not a
part 135 operator), Mark made the trip for the purpose of delivering
the mechanic and pilots to the stranded airplane. Under the rules, he
cannot accept any compensation. There was no common purpose, so costs
cannot be shared. This was a simply delivery flight.

Not sure about the last comment, though. What non-cash benefits
would Mark gain by doing these guys a favor. If he assumes all costs
for the flight no compensation has taken place, no commonality of
purpose is required.

I thought I had read somewhere that someone got ding'd for doing
something like this because they logged time and that was considered
compensation (IIRC it was something like airplane needed to go
somewhere for an oil change or something, they said "sure i'll do
that", ferried the airplane to the shop, hung around for food while
the oil change was done, flew it back, and even though they didn't get
paid cash, logging time for it was considered compensation)?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message


I'd argue that 61.113 applies every time Mark takes to the air.

Are you being dense on purpose?

Read 61.113(a). The only thing it mentions is the question of
"carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire". The
remainder of the regulation are exceptions to (a), labeled (b)
through (g). The only thing
61.113 talks about is whether Mark can take money for a flight. If he
doesn't take money for the flight, there's nothing in 61.113 that
concerns him.

It concerns him on every flight in the sense that he has to abide by the
rule. My point is that all the rules for a given certificate apply
regardless of the flight, but I'll cede the point that I was unclear. My
apologies for the misunderstanding.

FURTHERMO certainly nothing in 61.113 discusses whether or not he
is allowed to fly someone, without paying, even if that someone was
the one that proposed the flight.

Nor is it forbidden. The question remains one of: Is a given activity
allowed unless explicitly forbidden by the FAR's?

When you find the regulation in the FARs that says Mark can't someone
to where they want to go at their request, then come back and we can
talk about it. Until then, your insistence on questioning whether
they can is just plain silly. Certainly there's nothing in the
regulation you quote --
61.113 -- that addresses this question.

Dude, take a breath. I'm not trolling. I honestly don't understand from
where you're getting that Mark can accept no form of payment for the flight
in the OP's scenario. Without knowing the specifics of the OP's "cashing in
some favors", I'll assume that Mark was simply asked to fly the replacement
pilot to the C182. (I'm in no position to judge whether $175 is a
reasonable payment for Mark to accept. It sounds high to me, but I don't
know the aircraft type or distance involved.) Assuming 3 occupants on the
outbound leg, I'd expect that Mark would be entitled to no more than 2/3 the
cost of the outbound leg, but I don't see where Mark is forbidden to accept
a request to fly the replacement pilot to the plane.

My understanding is that 61.113 is the only place the FAR's define the
limitations of private pilot's privileges (with the main distinction between
a private and commercial pilot being the ability to charge for services) and
it defines when a private pilot may accept money for a flight. Paragraph
(a) says a private pilot may not offer services for compensation ("holding
out" or advertising services). As you aptly pointed out, Paragraph (c)
offers the ability to accept payment from passengers. It says that a
private pilot must pay no less than his pro rata share for a flight with
passengers. Your "commonality of purpose" argument is addressed in
61.113(b)(1) but that applies to flights incidental to the pilot's
employment - not helping a fellow pilot retrieve his plane.

It's not my intent to delve into semantics. If that's *really* where you
want to go, have fun without me. However, if you have some solid
information to demonstrate the error of my understanding (which I've
admitted several times may be in error), please post some links. Do you
know of case law or NTSB rulings backing your position?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

John T wrote:

Where can I read these cases?

Back issues of AOPA Pilot. John Yodice's column. Available online to members.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

"Dan Truesdell" wrote in message


The mechanic was also on the trip, and was getting paid for his time.
Makes it a part 135 operation as far as the FAA is concerned, even if
"Mark" didn't receive a dime.


OK, I'm willing to buy that.

For the sake of discussion, would Mark be able to accept any payment if he
were ferrying only the replacement crew to retrieve the plane?

Phrased another way: Your plane is stranded at another airport and you ask
me to fly you out to retrieve it. How much money can you offer me and how
much of that can I legally accept?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com

I honestly don't understand
from where you're getting that Mark can accept no form of payment for
the flight in the OP's scenario.

I can accept that having a mechanic on board getting paid for his time spent
in the plane would make it a commercial flight. My arguments have been made
from the point of view that the mechanic was not in the plane (oversight on
my part).

I'm still curious though: Can I fly a pilot to his stranded plane at his
request and accept his offer of half the cost of the outbound leg? I don't
see where the FAR's prohibit this.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________