The Most Expensive Ironing Boards in the World...

In article ,
Grumman-581 wrote:
"Eduardo K." wrote in message
...
It's not the only place it happens. Down here, if you drive a
friend to the airport, don't park and just drop him off
at the terminal, cops can detain you and impound your car for 'performing
taxi duties in a non commercially registered vehicle'

Awh, they're just looking for a bribe... Does donuts work down there or do
you have to offer them an alfajor? I was picking Grace up at IAH last
night from a commercial flight from Toronto and the ****in' TSA idiots
wouldn't even let me wait for her to cross from the doorway to pickup
area... They made me make another loop through the maze of terminals...


If you try to bribe a cop in Chile you'll go to jail fast, they are
for all reasonable purposes, unbribable. What they are looking for
is filling a quota and keeping illegal taxis at bay but they go WAY
overboard in doing so... just as the FAA does in trying to fence
non commercial pilots from doing air taxi dutys...






--
Eduardo K. |
http://www.carfun.cl | Freedom's just another word
http://e.nn.cl | for nothing left to lose.
|

What they are looking for
is filling a quota and keeping illegal taxis at bay but they go WAY
overboard in doing so... just as the FAA does in trying to fence
non commercial pilots from doing air taxi dutys...

The quota part makes sense -- but who cares about "illegal" taxi cabs?
What constitutes an "illegal" cab?

Oh, wait, I know -- someone who isn't beholden to pay the gummint a
cut, right?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
As I've already stated, I am well aware that logging is considered
compensation. However, even the FAA does not consider logging IN AND OF
ITSELF to be compensation. If it did, no Private certificate holder
could ever fly anywhere, with or without anyone, without violating
61.113.. It is time logged when the costs of the flight are otherwise
covered by someone else (such as the owner of the airplane) that is a
problem. That is, a pilot getting to log time that they themselves did
not pay for.

... which means that logging time when I'm paying for your rating counts
as compensation.

I don't think so. When you are being given training in an aircraft, the
instructor is acting as PIC, assuming they are qualified to do so. The
student is not acting as PIC, and so even if the student is being
compensated, could not be found to be in violation of "nor may that person,
for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft" (the only
relevant part of 61.113 in that case).

Have there been any enforcement actions in which a pilot was charged when
all that happened was someone else paid for their training? I don't see how
something like that could happen. Compensation in and of itself does not
mean a violation of 61.113. 61.113 has exceptions, and even ignoring those
exceptions limits the application of the "compensation" concept to specific
situations (that is, acting as PIC).

As long as the pilot is not acting as PIC, none of 61.113 applies.

I really don't understand how the FAA comes up with it's contention that a
true record of events that actually transpired is compensation, other than
that they want it to.

Why not? Flight time has intrinsic value. That said, to my knowledge the
FAA has only applied that standard in situations in which someone else
benefited from the flight. If a pilot manages to get a situation in which
they get to fly an airplane at no cost to them, for their own purposes at
their own whim, I would be surprised if the FAA would apply 61.113 in that
case. I've never heard of anything like that. Have you? If so, please
provide a reference.

Frankly, given the fine and easily-equivocated line between being paid
for a flight that one did pay for and simply not having to pay for a
flight at all, I don't find the FAA's position to be entirely
unreasonable.

I don't understand what that means.

What is the difference between me paying the FBO for an hour of flight time
when you are flying the airplane, releasing you from the obligation to pay
for that flight time, and paying you directly for an hour of flight time
when you are flying the airplane and then you turning around and paying that
to the FBO?

The net effect is the same. And a particular example of why the FAA is
concerned that pilots NOT be able to make a distinction is that a Private
pilot may decide to operate a charter in which the only payment made is by
the customer to an FBO to pay for the rental of an airplane. That would be
no different than the pilot accepting payment directly from the customer in
the exact same amount as the rental cost, which would be illegal.

But I have not found the compensation rules to be onerous or restrictive
in the way I use my airplane.

I find them chilling. They are certainly restrictive in how I would have
(and in fact did) use the airplane when I was in college.

For example? I didn't fly in college, so I can't relate personally.
Perhaps you can explain what being in college has to do with the
compensation rules.

It affects how I use the airplane now in terms of sharing costs,

For example? I have found the sharing costs rules to be straightforward and
simple to follow. Of course, I don't mind paying for the flight entirely
when I'm asked to help a friend out. I hardly ever bother to try to share
costs anymore anyway, but even when I did on a regular basis, I only did so
when the flight was my idea.

IMHO, it's important for laws to be applied on a basis of fact, not on a
basis of intent. Unfortunately, not all laws are like that, but it happens
that in the case of 61.113, the factual is MUCH more relevant than the
intent, and this is a good thing. The FAA doesn't make a distinction
between someone intending to skirt the rules for commercial operations and
someone who just happens to have friends who like to suggest places to go.
They just look at what happened and who got paid (or didn't get paid, as the
case may be).

Yes, it means that you cannot make a flight in which the factual nature of
the flight would be similar to the factual nature of a commercial operation.
But I find the alternative -- for the FAA to be making assumptions about my
intent -- to be less desirable.

Any pilot that isn't qualified to operate as a commercial entity [...]
should expect to have to fund their own flight time...

Even my son, going for his instrument rating?

You are well within your rights to pay for your son's instrument training.

It's actually not that difficult to write the rules in such a way that it
allows most things that should be allowed, and forbids most things that
should be forbidden.

Perhaps that's true. But since that's not the FAA's goal, it's irrelevant.
They want to forbid ALL things that should be forbidden. Doing that while
still allowing all things that should be allowed is much more difficult, and
perhaps impossible. As things stand now, I disagree that "most things that
should be allowed" are not, but that's a matter of opinion and I don't see
the point in debating the exact degree to which some things that should be
allowed are not.

Pete

Of course not because if I already have enough time to get my Instrument, commercial, ATP, whatever then logging a few more hours is irrelavant to me.

Well, no. You may not have enough to satisfy insurance requirments for
certain aircraft, applications, or policies, for example. You may not
have enough to satisfy a job entry requirement. You may get a higher
starting salary if you have logged more hours.

But even so, I don't see it as compensation. Logged hours is merely
evidence of skills (gained from experience), and weak evidence in any
case. But the experience happened, whether it's logged or not.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
The quota part makes sense -- but who cares about "illegal" taxi cabs?
What constitutes an "illegal" cab?

You only don't know because you've never gone anywhere in which there were a
lot of them.

In the US, and elsewhere, taxis are regulated. Ignore for a moment whether
this regulation is based on safety or on revenue. The fact remains, they
are regulated. An illegal taxi operates without a license, just as an
illegal air transportation service operates without a license.

Some consumer benefits that theoretically are assigned when using a legal
taxi:

* Standardized fares
* Minimum standards for drivers
* A government agency to which to complain (whether due to a violation
of fares, driver competence, or some other driver behavior -- offensive or
otherwise rude treatment of a passenger, for example)

In many foreign countries, the number of unlicensed taxis is huge, and they
can be a major hazard to visiting tourists (of course, as with all other
unregulated things, they can also be a major boon...it just depends on which
unlicensed taxi you get).

Oh, wait, I know -- someone who isn't beholden to pay the gummint a
cut, right?

I'll grant that in many cases, regulation may amount only to a surcharge on
the taxi service. But in theory, it's quite a bit more than that. In most
major cities of the US, it is in reality as well.

I can't speak for Chile.

Pete

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
After you overhauled your engine did you get a dynamic prop balance?

When accessories or their mounting brackets start cracking that's a good
place to start looking.

Interesting point. We *have* noticed some vibration in the yoke (most
visible on the yoke-mounted GPS) lately, and have discussed getting the
prop balanced (like we did on our old Warrior) -- but when IT started
leaking, we kind of put that on hold.

Now, of course, the prop has STOPPED leaking of its own accord, just to
**** me off...

Sounds like it is time to have the prop balanced.

You got off easy, with a warning failure, in a good place, and a good time,
without jeopardizing your safety. Next time, who knows?

You usually don't get off so easy, the second time.
--
Jim in NC

When you are being given training in an aircraft, the
instructor is acting as PIC, assuming they are qualified to do so.

No, that's not true. The student can most definately be =acting= as
PIC, and can even =log= PIC time, if the student is qualified (i.e. a
current private pilot being trained under the hood).

Have there been any enforcement actions in which a pilot was charged when
all that happened was someone else paid for their training?

I doubt it. That would point out how ridiculous the rule is. However
the FAA has gone after other cases (being discussed here already) which
does not so easily show the idiocy of their policy.

Flight time has intrinsic value.

So? Anything one enjoys has intrinsic value. If I didn't like to fly,
is it less valuable? Besides, if it had so much intrinsic value, we
wouldn't be paying commercial pilots anything at all. (Granted, some
may argue that already is the case

If a pilot manages to get a situation in which
they get to fly an airplane at no cost to them, for their own purposes at
their own whim, I would be surprised if the FAA would apply 61.113 in that
case.

Three friends and I, on a whim, go for a hundred-twenty dollar
hamburger. They each put $40 in the pot, I pay nothing.

What is the difference between me paying the FBO for an hour of flight time
when you are flying the airplane, releasing you from the obligation to pay
for that flight time, and paying you directly for an hour of flight time
when you are flying the airplane and then you turning around and paying that
to the FBO?

None, in essence (I'm presuming the amounts yield no profit to the
pilot). And none should be made.

And a particular example of why the FAA is
concerned that pilots NOT be able to make a distinction is that a Private
pilot may decide to operate a charter in which the only payment made is by
the customer to an FBO to pay for the rental of an airplane. That would be
no different than the pilot accepting payment directly from the customer in
the exact same amount as the rental cost, which would be illegal.

Didn't used to be illegal. Shouldn't be illegal. There's no more
reason that it should be illegal for a pilot to be able to fly for free
than it should be illegal for a pilot to fly at a discount.

Perhaps you can explain what being in college has to do with the
compensation rules.

Having gotten my license and being eager to fly, anywhere, I made it
known that if people wanted to fly, I'd be happy to take them. Nowadays
this is called "holding out". In a college dorm it is exceptionally
easy to do, and there is no reason not to (so long as you are not
misrepresnting yourself as a commercial pilot).

I have found the sharing costs rules to be straightforward and
simple to follow.

Sure, it's easy to follow. It was easier to follow when there wasn't
the "pro-rata" stuff to it. Let's say I lost my job and am rather tight
financially. You want to cheer me up, so you and I go in Atlas on a
hundred dollar hamburger, for which you are treating. While leaving the
restaurant, you injure yourself and end up with your arm in a sling, and
drugged out. No problem, I can fly you home. I'm rated, current, and
competent.

The only problem is, I can't pay for it. So I can't fly us home.

I hardly ever bother to try to share
costs anymore anyway...

Maybe you don't, but many people do. Many people have to.

IMHO, it's important for laws to be applied on a basis of fact, not on a
basis of intent.

Well, I disagree with you here too, at least partly. The laws have to
be well written so that the law does reflect the intent. This is not
the case with FAA regs, whose intent seems to be to make it easy to give
the FAA discretion against the pilot.

You are well within your rights to pay for your son's instrument training.

Why is my son within his rights to accept this compensation and log the
training? What if it wasn't my son, but rather, my neighbor's best
friend's cousin Max?

But since that's not the FAA's goal, it's irrelevant.
They want to forbid ALL things that should be forbidden.

Actually, I don't think that's the FAA's goal either, though that may be
the goal of the DMV. The FAA, at least when I started out, counted on
pilot judgement.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article . com,
Jay Honeck wrote:
What they are looking for
is filling a quota and keeping illegal taxis at bay but they go WAY
overboard in doing so... just as the FAA does in trying to fence
non commercial pilots from doing air taxi dutys...

The quota part makes sense -- but who cares about "illegal" taxi cabs?
What constitutes an "illegal" cab?

In Chile cab numbers are frozen for pollution and congestion reasons, so
the only legal way to get a new cab is to buy the plate from an old one.

Before that, the number of taxis was so incredibly high you NEVER EVER
had to wait to get one. You could step out of your house and a minute
later a cab would be passing in fron of you. Downtown entire street blocks
were full of them, all empty, all doing 2mph to get a fare.


Oh, wait, I know -- someone who isn't beholden to pay the gummint a
cut, right?

As I said, there is very little low level corruption in Chile. There have
been a couple of mega-big-bucks scandals, but in everyday life you
can more or less count on cops and civil servants to be unbribable. Is
much, much easier to get a favor from a mutual friend, but thats another
story.

Cops do have to fill ticket quotas periodicallyy and are always hated by
drivers near national holidays and near year ends, but get used to that.


--
Eduardo K. |
http://www.carfun.cl | Freedom's just another word
http://e.nn.cl | for nothing left to lose.
|

In article ,
Peter Duniho wrote:

I'll grant that in many cases, regulation may amount only to a surcharge on
the taxi service. But in theory, it's quite a bit more than that. In most
major cities of the US, it is in reality as well.

I can't speak for Chile.


Once you get a taxi license, its actually much cheaper to operate that an
unlicensed one. You pay less taxes. You do have to get a harder to get
drivers license and you car need to get an inspecion every 4 or 6 months,
depending on age.

There is no rear regulation on taxi fares, except for the basic taxis
that roam downtown...

--
Eduardo K. |
http://www.carfun.cl | Freedom's just another word
http://e.nn.cl | for nothing left to lose.
|

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
No, that's not true. The student can most definately be =acting= as PIC,
and can even =log= PIC time, if the student is qualified (i.e. a current
private pilot being trained under the hood).

Sorry. I thought it was understood we were talking about the typical case,
not the exceptional ones. If the student is acting as PIC, then 61.113
applies. So what? The point is that it IS possible for someone to pay for
someone else's training without violating 61.113.

Have there been any enforcement actions in which a pilot was charged when
all that happened was someone else paid for their training?

I doubt it. That would point out how ridiculous the rule is.

So your position is that the rule stipulates something, in spite of no
indication that it does, and in spite of no actual enforcement action even
attempting to claim it does?

That's rich.

However the FAA has gone after other cases (being discussed here already)
which does not so easily show the idiocy of their policy.

I've yet to see an example of an enforcement action in which the application
of the policy was obviously idiotic. There is certainly room for
disagreement as to where to draw the line, but IMHO the FAA has been
consistent in focusing on pilot activities that are in at least some
respects similar to commercial operations.

Flight time has intrinsic value.

So? Anything one enjoys has intrinsic value. If I didn't like to fly, is
it less valuable? Besides, if it had so much intrinsic value, we wouldn't
be paying commercial pilots anything at all. (Granted, some may argue
that already is the case

I'm not talking about the value in the instantaneous experience of the
flight time. I'm talking about a marketable, valuable long-term asset. In
any case, you've already recognized for me the fallacy in your logic. So
even if I was talking about the instantaneous value, you've covered that
too.

If a pilot manages to get a situation in which they get to fly an
airplane at no cost to them, for their own purposes at their own whim, I
would be surprised if the FAA would apply 61.113 in that case.

Three friends and I, on a whim, go for a hundred-twenty dollar hamburger.
They each put $40 in the pot, I pay nothing.

Bad example, and I suspect you know it is, since you took the time to trim
the portion of my post that makes clear it is.

In your example, you are not flying solely for your own purpose. To
translate that example into something relevant to what I wrote, you'd have
to have three friends chip in for a flight in which you went by yourself for
a $120 hamburger.

What is the difference between me paying the FBO for an hour of flight
time when you are flying the airplane, releasing you from the obligation
to pay for that flight time, and paying you directly for an hour of
flight time when you are flying the airplane and then you turning around
and paying that to the FBO?

None, in essence (I'm presuming the amounts yield no profit to the pilot).
And none should be made.

Then you *do* understand what I wrote means.

And a particular example of why the FAA is concerned that pilots NOT be
able to make a distinction is that a Private pilot may decide to operate
a charter in which the only payment made is by the customer to an FBO to
pay for the rental of an airplane. That would be no different than the
pilot accepting payment directly from the customer in the exact same
amount as the rental cost, which would be illegal.

Didn't used to be illegal.

When wasn't it illegal? When, and under what rule, did the FAA allow the
holder of a Private pilot certificate operate a charter in which the
passenger simply paid the FBO for the use of the airplane?

Shouldn't be illegal.

Why not?

There's no more reason that it should be illegal for a pilot to be able to
fly for free than it should be illegal for a pilot to fly at a discount.

You think it should be legal for a pilot to operate a charter outside the
existing rules governing commercial operations, by flying a passenger
wherever they want to go, as long as that passenger is the one who pays
directly for the airplane?

I certainly don't. If you do, then you have a basic philosophical
difference with the FAA that is far greater than the simple question of how
to interpret the rules.

Perhaps you can explain what being in college has to do with the
compensation rules.

Having gotten my license and being eager to fly, anywhere, I made it known
that if people wanted to fly, I'd be happy to take them. Nowadays this is
called "holding out".

Yup, that's true. I don't see how that's specific to college though. It's
true no matter where you are.

In a college dorm it is exceptionally easy to do, and there is no reason
not to (so long as you are not misrepresnting yourself as a commercial
pilot).

Your parenthetical statement is part of the problem. The FAA does not want
the general public to have the impression that non-commercially certificated
pilots and operations are a suitable replacement for the air travel
industry. By restricting pilots from holding themselves out as generally
willing to fly wherever and whenever a person asks them to, the FAA is
attempting to make clear the distinction between an on-demand commercial
operation and a pilot inviting a friend for a recreational flight.

Frankly, they are not so much concerned with the person who is genuinely
just willing to carry his friends about, than they are with the person who
crosses the line and effectively creates an illegal business out of a
situation disguised as the former. But the legal standard for defining a
"friend" is not well-established. The FAA has chosen to address the general
characteristics of such flights, rather than trying to enforce a much more
vague standard of who should or should not be permitted to suggest a flight
destination to a pilot.

I'm sorry that you don't understand this, but it's a pretty clear
distinction to me.

I have found the sharing costs rules to be straightforward and simple to
follow.

Sure, it's easy to follow. It was easier to follow when there wasn't the
"pro-rata" stuff to it.

It was also a lot easier to abuse.

Let's say I lost my job and am rather tight financially. You want to
cheer me up, so you and I go in Atlas on a hundred dollar hamburger, for
which you are treating. While leaving the restaurant, you injure yourself
and end up with your arm in a sling, and drugged out. No problem, I can
fly you home. I'm rated, current, and competent.

The only problem is, I can't pay for it. So I can't fly us home.

Yup. Oh, darn. There's all sorts of reason you might have been stranded
away from home without transportation. This just happens to be one of them.
If you are unprepared to take the risk of that happening, you have no
business going on the trip in the first place.

If anything, that example is one of the more benign ways to get stranded.
If your friend really wanted to help out, he could just hire someone else to
fly the plane back, with you aboard. It's not like the situation is
impossible. If you really want to be able to cover a situation like that,
get your Commercial pilot certificate and keep your 2nd class medical
current.

I hardly ever bother to try to share costs anymore anyway...

Maybe you don't, but many people do. Many people have to.

No one has to. It may be that they have to do less flying without sharing
costs, but no one has to.

IMHO, it's important for laws to be applied on a basis of fact, not on a
basis of intent.

Well, I disagree with you here too, at least partly. The laws have to be
well written so that the law does reflect the intent. This is not the
case with FAA regs, whose intent seems to be to make it easy to give the
FAA discretion against the pilot.

You are confusing intent of the rule with intent of the actor. I'm talking
about the latter, not the former. Your own opinion as to the intent of the
FAR, apparent or actual, is not relevant to what I wrote.

You are well within your rights to pay for your son's instrument
training.

Why is my son within his rights to accept this compensation and log the
training?

Because he is not acting as PIC.

What if it wasn't my son, but rather, my neighbor's best friend's cousin
Max?

Same thing.

It is not at all hard for a person to find an instructor who can and will
act as PIC. The FAA in fact assumes that a qualified instructor is acting
as PIC. In every case that I have ever read (including some recent ones
posted here), an instructor on board qualified to act as PIC was held to be
PIC. Usually this comes up in a situation where the PIC is being charged
with a violation, but the same thing applies when deciding whether someone
else in the place is NOT acting as PIC.

But since that's not the FAA's goal, it's irrelevant. They want to forbid
ALL things that should be forbidden.

Actually, I don't think that's the FAA's goal either, though that may be
the goal of the DMV. The FAA, at least when I started out, counted on
pilot judgement.

You believe that the FAA does NOT want to forbid all things that SHOULD be
forbidden?

That's an odd viewpoint. What evidence do you have from the FAA that
suggests there are things that SHOULD be forbidden than they do NOT want to
forbid?

Pete