Club Management Issue

"Dan Truesdell" wrote in message


Not likely. IIRC, there was an article recently in one of the
aviation pubs (AOPA Pilot, I think)
where a pilot flew a doctor and nurse to a crash site for no pay, and
wound up getting written up
by the FAA. Their view was that, even though the pilot didn't charge
anything for the flight, the doctor and nurse WERE being paid, and
therefore, it was deemed a commercial/135 operation.


OK. What if the mechanic were not onboard the flight and it were only Mark
and the replacement crew (with nobody getting paid for their time)?

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

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
[...] You're saying Mark can't offer or accept a request from me to
take me to Little Airport unless he were specifically going to that
airport?

No, he's not saying that.

I understand your "commonality clause" argument, but it seems you're
taking
it's interpretation to an extreme. I find it difficult to believe
that
even
the FAA would say pilots can't offer to help other pilots in need of
transportation to/from stranded planes.

No problem, because they don't say that.

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".

If Mark pays for the flight himself, he's allowed to volunteer his
time and money however he likes.

Pete



I say let Mark fly and then just pull up to the pump and fill up marks
plane with fuel, and maybe the next time he needs fuel also. No ones to
know who's credit card was used... of course that's not relevant to was
it legal under the regulations or not..., just would you get caught...
unlikely, but that's the way I would do it.

IMHO (from a "not even a student pilot yet") the regs were written in
such a way to absolutely regulate any commercial activity and close any
and all potential loopholes that someone could come up with. In doing
so, these regs shoot themselves in the foot by keeping someone from
"donating" there time, while not wanting to "donate" their money in the
form of fuel, oil, etc.

It is akin to telling me I can't let my father fill up my car with gas
while I drive with him around town, cause then I would have to get a taxi
license. Ridiculous.... When a regulation is written like this it
degrades the legitimacy of all the other regs written by the same
agency... I expect there are quite a few FAA regs that fit in this
category...


--
ET


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

John T wrote:

OK. What if the mechanic were not onboard the flight and it were only Mark
and the replacement crew (with nobody getting paid for their time)?

It still boils down to the fact that you can only share the expenses of a flight
that the group is making as an entity. The Feds have ruled that you cannot accept
compensation for transporting passengers unless you were going there anyway and
they're just along for the ride. You also can't advertise and take payment, and
that includes saying something to your friends like "Hey guys, I'm flying up to
Boston Saturday. Anybody wanna go along?" Half the people at Oshkosh probably
violate that one. It also includes offering to pilot a twin for free if you need
more twin time for a rating.

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

"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

The renter was rented a defective airplane. It is either the owner's or the
club's responsibility to ensure that the plane works.

Mike
MU-2


"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net

Are you saying that the original renter should be responsible for the
rent on the return flight? It is not his fault that the airplane
broke.


Are you saying that the club should be responsible for the rent? It's not
their fault the plane broke.

While it's not the pilot's fault that maintenance was required, he would
have paid the return rental time if the breakdown hadn't occurred, right?
Every club agreement I've seen has covered this with something along the
lines of "pilot is responsible for the cost to return the plane." This
does
not necessarily include time on the ground doing run-up tests or circuits
around the distant airport to test repairs, but the air time between the
airports would have been incurred by the pilot in any case.

Now, if the previously stranded pilot had volunteered to fly/drive out to
retrieve the plane, I'd be more willing to entertain the option of the
club
covering some or all of the cost of retrieval. In this case, he was
unwilling or unable to do that so I think the club would be fair in
charging
him the cost of retrieving the plane as well as the roundtrip rental for
the
plane flying the replacement pilot (if that had been necessary).

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

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



Phrased another way: Your plane is stranded at another airport and you
ask
me to fly you out to retrieve it. How much money can you offer me and how
much of that can I legally accept?

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



I could offer you any amount that I want but you cannot legally accept
anything.

However, should this actually happen, I will give you cash and you can count
on me not to turn you over to the FAA.

Mike
MU-2

John T wrote:
"Dan Truesdell" wrote in message


The mechanic was also on the trip, and was getting paid for his time.
Makes it a part 135 operation as far as the FAA is concerned, even if
"Mark" didn't receive a dime.



OK, I'm willing to buy that.

For the sake of discussion, would Mark be able to accept any payment if he
were ferrying only the replacement crew to retrieve the plane?

Phrased another way: Your plane is stranded at another airport and you ask
me to fly you out to retrieve it. How much money can you offer me and how
much of that can I legally accept?


I would presume that ferrying a plane for no cost would not fall under a
"commercial" operation. Since you would not be in the plane, there is
no possibility of sharing the cost.



--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

"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

"ET" wrote in message
...
I say let Mark fly and then just pull up to the pump and fill up marks
plane with fuel, and maybe the next time he needs fuel also. No ones to
know who's credit card was used... of course that's not relevant to was
it legal under the regulations or not..., just would you get caught...
unlikely, but that's the way I would do it.

By that logic, why not just accept another $100 cash. After all, "no ones
[sic] to know" where the $100 came from, right?

Whether we think the rules make sense, or whether we like them, is
irrelevant. The FAA has been clear that they will interpret and enforce the
no-compensation rules for private pilots, and that anything that could be
even remotely construed as a "for hire" situation will be.

The "commonality of purpose" criteria is the most common way for pilots to
be violated by the FAA. If you accept compensation, even if it's just
pro-rata sharing, you had better make sure that you have a commonality of
purpose. Otherwise, should the FAA get wind of your flight, they will come
after you.

It is akin to telling me I can't let my father fill up my car with gas
while I drive with him around town, cause then I would have to get a taxi
license.

It's true. The FAA regulations are much stricter than motor vehicle rules,
and they are much more strictly enforced. You'll notice that pretty much
everything about aviation is much more strictly regulated than it is in
motor vehicles. So what? That doesn't change how things are in aviation,
nor does it mean that you can draw analogies between aviation and motor
vehicle law. The two are very different. Don't confuse them.

As far as the legitimacy of the regulation goes, I personally have no
problem with it. It's simply one of many rules that the FAA has set out for
us. If you want to use an airplane to do a friend a favor, then you do so
at your own expense. It's simple to understand. If you know someone that
needs an airplane, and you're not willing to foot the bill, let them pay a
commercial pilot working for an appropriate Part 135 operator handle the
job.

Pete

"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
____________________