"Rescue" flight, PPL

Yes, you were bad. You broke the rules and the FAA could suspend your
license. I've seen the opinion letter.

I went round and round on this since our club doesn't make members pay when
they move the plane for maintenance.
I called up our local FSDO and asked if this kind of thing was a violation.
They said, "Of course not, that's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
Who told you that?"

I faxed them a copy of the FAA counsel's opinion letter and they called back
to say sheepishly that I was right. However they said that they have far
too much to do to ever worry about something like that.

Here's how it works in the real world:

You aren't going to get in trouble doing things like moving planes for
friends in the normal course of flying. However, if the FAA finds out that
you have "friends" all over the region and are racking up 20 - 40 hours of
free flight time moving planes while building time for your commercial
license, they may use the regulation to shut you down.

They may also use something like this that you did only once or twice if
they want to yank your chain for some other reason. For example, if they
are pretty sure that you are the guy who flew under the bridge last week and
can't prove it.

--

Roger Long



"Joe Johnson" wrote in message
m...
Last week, as I returned to my rental FBO after an evening local flight,
the
clerk on duty said an instructor and his student were stuck at an airport
about 40 minutes away. I spoke to the instructor on the phone and I
agreed
to fly up and bring them back. He mentioned that, of course, I wouldn't
have to pay for the aircraft time. Did I violate the terms of my PPL by
accepting free time in the airplane as "compensation" for picking them up
and bringing them back? Should I therefore have paid a proportional share
of the costs?

Roger gave you the correct answer. Yes, technically they could claim it
was "compensation" and come after you. Should you have let that stop
you? No... I would have done it, and I suspect most all of us on this
list would have also - without a second thought.

You were just "helping out" and I would hate to live where we were all
so terrified of big brother that we were afraid to give a friend a lift
to pick up his plane, or help out some folks stuck away from home.
Should you worry about a letter from the FAA for this - absolutely not.

So where *does* the rare action come from? It usually comes from
repeated actions, where someone has a vested interest in stopping you
from doing it. One of the cases on the books is glider tow, where the
company operating the aircraft will exchange free flight time if one of
the pilots who is also power rated and checked out will work a couple of
hours of tow first. [Nothing wrong with a bunch of glider pilots simply
trading off who tows whom. This is a different situation.]

Here the private pilot is getting free flight time in exchange for
flying duties. Yes, it's done all the time, so why this action? Well,
it COULD have simply come to the attention of some FAA type hanging
around. But more likely a commercial tow pilot who couldn't get enough
work dropped a dime on the FBO.

James M. Knox wrote:

Roger gave you the correct answer.

Hey, Roger: Any change that you could provide a reference to that letter
(ie. a place online from which I could print this out)? It's something I
think my club should see.

[...]
So where *does* the rare action come from?

What about a case where an accident occurs during the "free" flight? Could
an insurance company use this to create additional problems?

- Andrew

Hey, Roger: Any change that you could provide a reference to that letter
(ie. a place online from which I could print this out)? It's something I
think my club should see.

Whhat Andrew said! I would really like a copy of this.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/2004

In article .net,
"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote:


Whhat Andrew said! I would really like a copy of this.

Yeah, I'd like to see this letter also. I can't believe this guy was in
violation. If he was then anyone who uses a friends airplane would be
just as "guilty".

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

Here is the letter:

http://baldeagleflyingclub.org/FAAopinion.pdf

I apologize for the crappy quality. AOPA faxed it to me while my cartridge
was on its last legs.

I wouldn't let your club get too worked up over this for the reasons
described above. You might want to ask your FSDO though as attitudes and
interpretations vary from district to district.

Basically, if you think you have found a cute way to interpret the rules
that lets you rack up a significant amount of free flying, you are probably
in violation; especially if your primary purpose would appear to a
reasonable person to be getting the free flying.

If it is fairly clear that an occasional violation of a non-safety related
rule like this one is incidental to another purpose, such as helping someone
out or getting a club airplane moved, it is very unlikely that the FAA would
take an interest. They can barely keep track of the airlines and the 135
operators.

The insurance company will probably follow the same dynamics but you should
check with them. I have had excellent experience discussing things like
this very frankly with Avemco. You get points with them for asking and
appearing to be concerned and attempting to do the right thing. They'll
remember that if there is an incident.
--

Roger Long



"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
James M. Knox wrote:

Roger gave you the correct answer.

Hey, Roger: Any change that you could provide a reference to that letter
(ie. a place online from which I could print this out)? It's something I
think my club should see.

[...]
So where *does* the rare action come from?

What about a case where an accident occurs during the "free" flight?
Could
an insurance company use this to create additional problems?

- Andrew

Roger Long wrote:

Here is the letter:

http://baldeagleflyingclub.org/FAAopinion.pdf

It really does say "to build flight time". So not using that time would
appear to be a loophole. Wild!

[...]
The insurance company will probably follow the same dynamics but you
should
check with them. I have had excellent experience discussing things like
this very frankly with Avemco. You get points with them for asking and
appearing to be concerned and attempting to do the right thing. They'll
remember that if there is an incident.

Thanks for the letter and the suggestion.

- Andrew

"Roger Long" wrote in message
.. .
Here is the letter:

http://baldeagleflyingclub.org/FAAopinion.pdf



Wait... IANAL, but the situations discussed in this letter are NOT the same
as the "rescue flight" discussed in this thread.

The FAA letter makes it clear that THE FLIGHT ITSELF must be non profit, not
just no pilot monetary compensation. Thus, if the organization receives
benefit (donations, either fixed or per flight) from the flight, it is a
"flight for hire" and must be flown as such. Part of this is to assure
higher standards for passengers who by the nature of the flight might have
the expectation of higher standards than a Private pilot has demonstrated.

The rescue flight is not a revenue flight. It is only the good will of the
FBO picking up stranded people in an expedient manner. They could just as
well have driven there and accomplished the same result, but this was a
win-win-win situation, you get a chance to fly and be a good guy, they get
the task done quickly at low cost (their hourly marginal operating cost is
relatively small, and the stranded people get back much quicker than if by
car. (I don't remember) but if this was a student-instructor being
stranded, effectively the return flight was done with the instructor on
board so the student did not have any higher apparent risk than a normal
training flight.

That might be a hair properly split. IOWUEMWALWAH (I Only Wake Up Every
Morning With A Lawyer With A Headache) but the FSDO thought it supported the
idea of our "Club Time" flights being compensation even though they said not
to worry about it.

All I know at this point is that is really isn't worth worrying about. If
you set up some kind of arrangement that's getting you lost of flying that
you otherwise would have paid for, you should check it out more carefully.
Otherwise, don't worry, be happy.

--

Roger Long



"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

"Roger Long" wrote in message
.. .
Here is the letter:

http://baldeagleflyingclub.org/FAAopinion.pdf



Wait... IANAL, but the situations discussed in this letter are NOT the
same
as the "rescue flight" discussed in this thread.

The FAA letter makes it clear that THE FLIGHT ITSELF must be non profit,
not
just no pilot monetary compensation. Thus, if the organization receives
benefit (donations, either fixed or per flight) from the flight, it is a
"flight for hire" and must be flown as such. Part of this is to assure
higher standards for passengers who by the nature of the flight might have
the expectation of higher standards than a Private pilot has demonstrated.

The rescue flight is not a revenue flight. It is only the good will of
the
FBO picking up stranded people in an expedient manner. They could just as
well have driven there and accomplished the same result, but this was a
win-win-win situation, you get a chance to fly and be a good guy, they get
the task done quickly at low cost (their hourly marginal operating cost is
relatively small, and the stranded people get back much quicker than if by
car. (I don't remember) but if this was a student-instructor being
stranded, effectively the return flight was done with the instructor on
board so the student did not have any higher apparent risk than a normal
training flight.

"Roger Long" wrote in message
.. .
Yes, you were bad. You broke the rules and the FAA could suspend your
license. I've seen the opinion letter.

I went round and round on this since our club doesn't make members pay
when
they move the plane for maintenance.
I called up our local FSDO and asked if this kind of thing was a
violation.
They said, "Of course not, that's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
Who told you that?"

I faxed them a copy of the FAA counsel's opinion letter and they called
back
to say sheepishly that I was right. However they said that they have far
too much to do to ever worry about something like that.

In what way do you believe that the scenarios described in the FAA counsel's
opinion letter relate to the scenario described by Joe Johnson, or in fact
to the scenario of accepting free flying for maintenance?

All the scenarios in the letter involve an explicit payment in respect of
the flight by an Organization B to an Organization A. The counsel's opinion
revolves around this payment.

"A private pilot may not get paid to carry passengers or cargo and, even if
he does not get paid, he may not carry paying passengers or cargo if the
carriage has been paid to someone else. It should be further noted that a
private pilot may not serve as pilot in command of such an operation
even when he/she elects to forego actual monetary compensation..." (my
emphasis )

The "operation" cannot be conducted by a private pilot only because one
organization has paid a carriage fee for those passengers to another
organization. To do so would violate the first part of 61.113(a). The
counsel's opinion (Answer 2) is that the circumstances of the flight are not
covered by the exemption of 61.113(d).

If no such payment takes place, the passengers are not being carried for
compensation or hire. The counsel offers no opinion on this scenario in his
letter. It's quite clear that the counsel note is reinforcing the principle
that a private pilot cannot act as PIC of an air transportation operation
even if the private pilot is not reimbursed.

This is not hair-splitting as you suggest in your response to Peter
Gottlieb, but reading the answers in the context of the questions.

Julian Scarfe