Club Management Issue

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

some snippage

Finally, with respect to your example, note that while you can run to
the store to get a part for a friend, you are not allowed to charge
your friend for that service. So, the example you're providing
doesn't appear to me to offer any difference than what the situation
is in aviation.

Pete


Yes, but there is nothing wrong with your friend paying for your gas
used, absolutley nothing (not saying that's the way the regs read, but
that they SHOULD read that way). That's were the aviation laws need to
be modified. I agree if you start making interpretations about maint
reserves, etc. then you have a problem since it would be very easy to
manipulate the numbers without some definate standard. But I should be
able to use my time and my plane to help and/or transport my friend
without actually having to take out my own wallet at the gas pump.

Heck, by strict interpretation of some of these "common law" decisions
Angel Flight should have to be conducted under 135 too. If I get a "good
feeling" or possibly "enhanced standing in the eyes of my fellow pilots"
by flying an Angel Flight, then that's compensation and I better have
complied with 135 right????? For that matter, arent I able to deduct the
costs of the flight on my taxes?? there's compensation too... where does
it stop?

--
ET
(from the perspective of a future Student Pilot)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

"ET" wrote in message
...
[...] But I should be
able to use my time and my plane to help and/or transport my friend
without actually having to take out my own wallet at the gas pump.

If it were certain that all pilots would adhere strictly to that sort of
reimbursement, there would be no problem. But pilots are just like other
people too, and there are always going to be the bad apples that refuse to
obey the spirit of the law (and sometimes the letter of the law).

The problem is that as soon as you allow some kinds of compensation for
favors, where there was no common purpose, and in fact in some cases, the
paying party didn't even participate in the flight, the line between "legal"
and "not legal" becomes very fuzzy. The extremes are easy to identify, but
there's always going to be someone who wants to push the limits of the law,
and engage in what is essentially a commercial operation, while calling it a
"reimbursed favor for a friend".

When you solve this basic problem with human nature, then perhaps you can
move on to getting the letter and interpretation of the FARs changed. Until
then, this is how it has to be, in order to ensure that no pilot ever gets
into a situation where they have a reasonable reason to believe that they
are not acting as a commercial operation, even if they are.

Heck, by strict interpretation of some of these "common law" decisions
Angel Flight should have to be conducted under 135 too.

Since there is an explicit exception for these kinds of operations, they
don't. However, until that exception was written, charitable airlifts WERE
definitely a concern with respect to their legality.

If I get a "good
feeling" or possibly "enhanced standing in the eyes of my fellow pilots"
by flying an Angel Flight, then that's compensation and I better have
complied with 135 right?????

As far as the FAA is concerned, only tangible compensation matters.
"Tangible" includes things we might consider "intangible" by strict
definition, such as logging time without paying for it, but it certainly
does not include psychological effects.

For that matter, arent I able to deduct the
costs of the flight on my taxes?? there's compensation too...

Interesting you should mention that. Deductions have in fact been a grey
area in the past. I'm not sure if the FAA has finally resolved that. But
note that the financial gain due to a deduction is typically only going to
be a small fraction of the total cost of the flight.

Pete

In article , "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

When you solve this basic problem with human nature, then perhaps you can
move on to getting the letter and interpretation of the FARs changed.
Until
then, this is how it has to be, in order to ensure that no pilot ever
gets
into a situation where they have a reasonable reason to believe that they
are not acting as a commercial operation, even if they are.

These interpretations/rulings/case law don't ensure any such thing.

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
These interpretations/rulings/case law don't ensure any such thing.

Of course they do. Pilots may act against them, but those pilots had no
reasonable reason to believe that they were doing so legally.