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
____________________

Note - Actual discussion is after the rant. You can avoid the rant by
skipping down to the part after the large "Argh".


-------
Oh boy if you didn't step right onto two of my favorite, all time, land
mines - so called "case law" and administrative regulations with the power
of law.

Case Law in any other profession would be held up to be a monopolistic
practice by a conspiracy of thieves calling their gang by the ominous name -
"The Bar".

Seriously, couldn't the legislative branch get off its lazy arse and rewrite
the laws so that they either clearly state what the case law reflects, or in
such a way as to negate the case law in instances of judicial activism or
wrong headedness? Isn't this the very heart of their job? Legislature has
law in its root for Pete's sake.

Instead we now have the legilature throwing out minimum sentencing
guidelines and other crazy crap because they can't manage to get a
reasonably competent judicial branch that is willing to do its job.

As for Adminstrative Law - if you hired someone to take care of your most
precious belongings, and they delegated that responsibility to someone you
never heard of and didn't even pay much attention to what they were doing,
you would fire, if not shoot them. Unless they are a legislator, in which
case, you reelect them!

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!

That's two rants in one night, sorry
---------

Anyway, you have a reasonably good way to look at this, and you are probably
right. If I were Mark, I would avoid compensation as well. In any case, it
would appear that most of the examples where people got nailed they made the
mistake of opening their big mouths or having obvious motives.

So lets say its too late, that he did ask for pro rata gas.

Here is what I say Mark should do (if his lawyer agrees). He should claim
that it was his desire to help his friends get the plane back. That may be
a weak excuse for commonality of purpose, but only if he had another
purpose. Now, let the FAA prove that he was doing it build hours. If its
his plane, he likely doesn't need the hours, so they are on shakey ground
themselves. If he states that it was his purpose to retrieve the plane,
then the FAA is in the position of PROVING that he had an alterior motive.
LET THEM PROVE IT!

The guy with the film crew was obviously trying to lessen the cost of his
lesson.

The guy with the ambulance got off in the end because his only purpose was
to help achieve the same mission that the mechanic and pilot were working
on. The fact that they were paid for their participation would be
incidental business.

The guy in the party example was transporting people who had paid to be
somewhere, so they were paying passengers, and thats gotta be a violation.

The guy with the lease dodge was too smart for his own good. He was
obviously doing what the laws were written to regulate in the first place.

To me, the closest case is the ambulance one, but that guy took no money, so
you need to determine how important the money was in the decision to grant
the appeal.




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

"Dude" wrote:

He should claim
that it was his desire to help his friends get the plane back. That may be
a weak excuse for commonality of purpose, but only if he had another
purpose.

It's not all that weak. He should say he'll go, but only if
he can help once he's there. There's always some extra work
he can do to help. He could even let the other pilot be PIC
on the way out.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

Excellent research and reporting by John T. One question:

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).

In your research, did you find definitions of the terms "favor" and/or
"goodwill"? Anyone I have ever flown anywhere for any purpose has
thanked me for it---that sounds like "goodwill".

You are right, this whole situation is asinine. Thanks for doing the
work to try to explain it.

wrote in message


In your research, did you find definitions of the terms "favor" and/or
"goodwill"? Anyone I have ever flown anywhere for any purpose has
thanked me for it---that sounds like "goodwill".

No, I didn't. The terms "favor", "goodwill" nor "compensation" or "for
hire" are defined anywhere I looked. As I said elsewhere, taken to the
extreme, none of us can fly friends or family with us even on local pleasure
flights when we take no money because we may be generating "favor and
goodwill".

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

Under the terms of our lease with the owners of the 182, they are
responsible for maintence costs, so the $70 to fix the plane seems to be
pretty clearly their responsibility. All of the other costs are, with the
club's lack of written policy, open to debate at the moment. What would
your club or FBO do in this situation?

I would think that all the costs are the costs of the repair, hence
chargable to the owner.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote
There are four different costs involved here. Our A&P charged us $100 for
the travel time back and forth. The parts and labor to fix the 182 amounted
to $70. Mark (the non-club member who flew everyone down there) would like
to be reimbursed for his fuel costs, which are around $175. And the 182's
flight home racked up about $270 in rental fees, about $225 of which would
normally be sent directly to the aircraft owners.

Everyone here is worrying about legality, but I'll give you some
practical advice.

The $70 parts and labor are clearly billable to the owners. They
won't complain.

The $100 travel time is questionable. Bill it to the owners, and they
might be OK with it - or they might complain that a local mechanic
could be used. A lot depends on their relationship with the mechanic
used and their relationship with the mechanics local to where the
plane was left.

Do you want a policy of needing to consult with owners every time
there has to be an off-field repair? Or maybe a restriction on how
far from home the aircraft can go? Because that's what you're going
to get if you bill them for this without their consent. Ask them if
they feel it's fair, if not eat it.

The $175 for Mark's fuel is likely not even close to what his real
operating cost was. No, he's not legally entitled to it - it does
legally put him in violation of Part 135. It's also how things are
done - deal with it. You can easily not pay him - and that will be
the last time ANYONE on the field will do you that kind of favor.
Trust me - word will get around among the owners. Imagine how much
travel time billing from the mechanic there would have been for
driving out there.

Once you accept that Mark has to be paid, you also have to realize
that it's a cost of getting the plane fixed (meaning getting the
mechanic there) and a cost of getting the plane home (which would not
have occurred had the plane not been broken). So who pays? You can
easily argue that the owners should pay, but then the question becomes
this - what would it have cost to have the local mechanic do it? What
would it have cost to drive there and get it?

The $270 in rental fees on the way home is a thorny issue. Paul has a
reasonable case - he would have flown the aircraft home if it wasn't
broken. Make him pay it, and you're going to encourage members to fly
unairworthy aircraft home, or not to take long trips. Once your club
gets a reputation as a place where long trips are a problem, your
membership will change - and not for the better. Make Luke pay the
full amount, and you can bet he (and any other club member) isn't
going to be real interested in changing his plans to help out.

The real solution here is this - FIRST, figure out what you want the
policy to be. THEN, assign the costs in such a way as to be
consistent with the policy. Be prepared to either **** people off or
eat the cost.

Michael

Some observations on this thread:

1. Rule 1. It doesn't have to make sense. Don't ever forget it.

2. Maybe Mark's "common purpose" was to go flying. Does he
have to have a particular place in mind as a destination
to acheive his purpose?

3. Such trips should always be "Dual Instruction" when
possible.

4. This was a pretty sane debate, compared to, for example
rec.music.opera. Over there, at least 3/4 of the messages
would diss the combatants sexual orientation!!

Bill Hale

Bill Hale wrote:

4. This was a pretty sane debate, compared to, for example
rec.music.opera. Over there, at least 3/4 of the messages
would diss the combatants sexual orientation!!

People interested in opera rarely are forced to meet their newsgroup counterparts.
Any of us could run into other posters pretty much any time (after all, airplanes
*do* allow us to travel extensively). And with the FAA and landings databases, we
can find out where that other SOB is.

You really don't want to **** off someone who knows how airplanes work, has a
set of tools, and knows where your plane lives.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

You really don't want to **** off someone who knows how airplanes work,
has a
set of tools, and knows where your plane lives.

Hmmm... we ****ed each other off just a month ago, and now the alternator
goes bad in the club's 182... Just kidding, George! Uh, you aren't still
****ed off at me about the VOR variation settings thing, are you? George?
Aww c'mon! Put the wrench down, George! g


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004