Club Management Issue

"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

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
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.

The government does not require you to be a jerk. It simply requires that
if you choose to be a Good Samaritan, you don't accept any compensation, not
even the usual pro-rata share of direct operating expenses.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message


The government does not require you to be a jerk. It simply requires
that if you choose to be a Good Samaritan, you don't accept any
compensation, not even the usual pro-rata share of direct operating
expenses.

To add to the "jerk-ness" factor, if you have any relationship with the
passenger such that the flight could be construed as to be generating "favor
or goodwill", you could still be held in violation even if no cash changed
hands. (Based on NTSB rulings, not FAR's.)

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

You are forgetting that if it can be construed that the pilot may garner
favor from the passenger then the flight is commercial. If I, a securties
analyst, offer a ride to somenone (to see his dying spouse) who works for a
company in a sector that I follow and I pay all the expenses, it is
prohibited under the regs. Even if I was previously planning to practice
landings at different airports, it is still a prohibited flight if I take
this passenger. The government is requiring me to be a jerk

Mike
MU-2


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
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.

The government does not require you to be a jerk. It simply requires that
if you choose to be a Good Samaritan, you don't accept any compensation,
not
even the usual pro-rata share of direct operating expenses.

Pete

I am certainly no regs lawyer, so could someone tell me where this
"commonality of purpose" clause is?

I have read several examples that say I can take a customer of mine on a
trip related to business so long as the business is not transporting that
person to the destination. Now you are saying that because I want him to
buy something from me I can't do it?

Also, how ridiculously stupid is this going to get? If you are a
politician, you can't take anyone flying because you may one day be seeking
their vote or contribution?

I can't fly anyone from my company with me because I am obviously currying
favor there.

How about a doctor flying a patient for treatment into the big city to see a
specialist?

I think someones hyper sensitive lawyer went overboard somewhere.



"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
You are forgetting that if it can be construed that the pilot may garner
favor from the passenger then the flight is commercial. If I, a securties
analyst, offer a ride to somenone (to see his dying spouse) who works for
a
company in a sector that I follow and I pay all the expenses, it is
prohibited under the regs. Even if I was previously planning to practice
landings at different airports, it is still a prohibited flight if I take
this passenger. The government is requiring me to be a jerk

Mike
MU-2


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
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.

The government does not require you to be a jerk. It simply requires
that
if you choose to be a Good Samaritan, you don't accept any compensation,
not
even the usual pro-rata share of direct operating expenses.

Pete

"Dude" wrote in message

I am certainly no regs lawyer, so could someone tell me where this
"commonality of purpose" clause is?

That's the very part I was having a hard time with. We're talking about the
US only, but the NTSB ruled (see my post just off the root of this thread)
in a case involving a pair of TV reporters, an insrument student and his
instructor. The student made arrangements with the TV studio to fly the
reporters to another location unbeknownst to the instructor. The reporters
were not to return with the student/instructor. The NTSB ruled that while
the student may have been in the plane to receive instruction, the
passengers were in the plane purely for transportation to Point B.
Therefore, the student was in violation of Part 135 and 61.118 and the
instructor was also in violation of Part 135.

I have read several examples that say I can take a customer of mine
on a trip related to business so long as the business is not
transporting that person to the destination. Now you are saying that
because I want him to buy something from me I can't do it?

If he's buying from you, he's a customer and not an employee.

Also, how ridiculously stupid is this going to get? ...
I think someones hyper sensitive lawyer went overboard somewhere.

No doubt. My assertion throughout this thread is that it's patently
ridiculous for the FAA to forbid me to help a fellow pilot retrieve his
plane and have said pilot pay what would amount to 1/4 the cost of the
roundtrip flight. However, based on FAA and NTSB rulings, I cannot accept
any money from him nor can I even take him at all if I'm in a position to
gain "favor or goodwill" from him.

Of course, if we take that last definition to its extreme, I can't even take
friends on local fun flights that I would still be taking without them
because I would be generating "favor and goodwill" with them.

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