Club Management Issue

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
k.net

On Monday, our club A&P cashed in some favors with a client of his,
who we'll call "Mark". Mark agreed to take the mechanic to the
remote airport in Mark's personal aircraft. If it maters, Mark is
not a member of the flying club, but is friendly with several of our
members and was willing to help us out. Once all of this was
arranged, Paul was asked if he would like to go along on the trip,
but he said he was unable to do so. So instead, one of our club CFIs
and another club member ("Luke") -- who were scheduled to do some
instrument training that evening in a different aircraft -- agreed to
go along and fly the 182 back after the mechanic got things squared
away.


OK, after helpful tips from George Patterson and Todd Pattist, I have come
to the conclusion that my understanding of 61.113 was indeed wrong.
(Sidebar: I don't have any of my old FAR/AIMs. Did 61.118 change to 61.113
in a re-write of 14CFR?)

For those with AOPA membership (thanks to George's tip):
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...04/pc0403.html
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...95/pc9503.html

In the 2004 article, the pilot was found to have been compensated due to the
"greasing of the wheels" for possible future work even though the pilot was
not paid directly for the 4 flights.

The 1995 article references a pilot flying skydivers to altitude. The pilot
argued that he wasn't operating for a profit, but the Board rejected his
arguments since the skydivers paid a share of the flight costs purely to
achieve altitude for jumps.

These articles referred to NTSB cases posted by Todd. Based on Todd's
helpful links, I found a couple other interesting findings including:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4791.PDF
Pilot flew a mechanic and owner to repair a helicopter. Pilot accepted no
money (not even shared expenses) but was charged with violating 61.118 (now
61.113??). The NTSB upheld the pilot's appeal and the pilot was not
sanctioned because he not only used his own aircraft at his own expense, but
he did so without the intent to generate favor or goodwill with the
passengers.

So, the FAR still doesn't reflect the "common purpose" phrase implemented as
law by the NTSB in 1994.

And there's the rub. There is *case law* implementing the "common purpose"
phrase, but no regulation. This begs the question: How are pilots supposed
to know and follow the rules when the rules aren't published? The FAA/NTSB
may argue that case law is published (after all, I found it online), but
common sense suggests that 14CFR should be the single source for these
rules. If case law changes the meaning of a given regulation, then the
regulation should be changed. That's just my opinion and I know all about
the "everybody has one" rule.

The "common purpose" definition appears to hinge on whether the passenger's
purpose is to move from Point A to Point B (say, home airport to stranded
airplane).

As such, this new understanding I have of this case law implies that "Mark"
is really setting himself up for enforcement action by the FAA. His *only*
hope of avoiding sanction (assuming the local FSDO investigates), is to
accept absolutely no payment for this flight - and even that isn't going to
assure him of no action taken against him (see the "favor and goodwill"
phrases used by the NTSB and relate that to "cashed in some favors" in the
OP).

For pilots finding themselves in this situation (needing to retrieve a plane
from another location due to maintenance, weahter, etc.), either hire an air
taxi/charter service or hitch a ride from a pilot already going to your
destination. Pilots providing the ride should either have prior plans to go
to the destination airport or accept absolutely no form of compensation (no
shared expenses, favor or goodwill).

It still sounds asinine to me, but the FAA/NTSB appear to be very forcefully
drawing the line between air charter and non-charter flying. Accepting a
fellow pilot's request for help is quite a different animal from, say,
flying an acquaintance to visit family. Again, just my opinion.

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