Club Management Issue

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message


The problem is when Mark receives ANY money for the flight. Even
pro-rata sharing is not allowed if there was no "commonality of
purpose".


That's not the way I read the regulation (61.113(a) and (c)). That section
says only that Mark must pay no less than his pro rata share of fuel, oil,
airport and rental costs. Where else should I be looking? Is there a legal
counsel ruling on this subject I should read?

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

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
That's not the way I read the regulation (61.113(a) and (c)). That
section
says only that Mark must pay no less than his pro rata share of fuel, oil,
airport and rental costs.

The regulation you're looking at applies only to exceptions in which a
private pilot may operate for hire.

If Mark doesn't take any money, he's not operating for hire, and 61.113
doesn't apply.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message


The regulation you're looking at applies only to exceptions in which a
private pilot may operate for hire.

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

I read that as "privileges and limitations of a private pilot" - not "when a
private pilot may accept money".

Again, I'm open to the idea that I'm looking in the wrong place, but this is
the only section I know of that describes what a private pilot may and may
not do with his certificate.
If Mark doesn't take any money, he's not operating for hire, and
61.113 doesn't apply.


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

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

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
If Mark doesn't take any money, he's not operating for hire, and
61.113 doesn't apply.

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.

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.

Your response is like saying that, since 91.1 says Part 91"prescribes rules
governing the operation of aircraft", 91.173 is applicable every time a
pilot flies, even on a VFR flight.

I suppose technically it could be considered true, if you want to twist the
semantics, but no rationally thinking person would use the word "apply" that
way. Only some troll looking for an argument rather than the truth would.

Are you a troll?

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.

Pete

"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 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
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"John T" wrote in message
ws.com


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

No you cannot because you do not have commonality of purpose. Its just one
of those cases where the government requires you to be a jerk.

Mike
MU-2