Club Management Issue

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

some snippage

Finally, with respect to your example, note that while you can run to
the store to get a part for a friend, you are not allowed to charge
your friend for that service. So, the example you're providing
doesn't appear to me to offer any difference than what the situation
is in aviation.

Pete


Yes, but there is nothing wrong with your friend paying for your gas
used, absolutley nothing (not saying that's the way the regs read, but
that they SHOULD read that way). That's were the aviation laws need to
be modified. I agree if you start making interpretations about maint
reserves, etc. then you have a problem since it would be very easy to
manipulate the numbers without some definate standard. But I should be
able to use my time and my plane to help and/or transport my friend
without actually having to take out my own wallet at the gas pump.

Heck, by strict interpretation of some of these "common law" decisions
Angel Flight should have to be conducted under 135 too. If I get a "good
feeling" or possibly "enhanced standing in the eyes of my fellow pilots"
by flying an Angel Flight, then that's compensation and I better have
complied with 135 right????? For that matter, arent I able to deduct the
costs of the flight on my taxes?? there's compensation too... where does
it stop?

--
ET
(from the perspective of a future Student Pilot)


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

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Aviation has just as many scofflaws and
pretenders as exist in the general population, and those folks will take the
whole mile, given the inch. The FAA is well within their rights to not give
the inch.

We just disagree. There is no reason I can see to prevent
"compensation" in the form of logging time and reimbursement
of legitimate expenses. I would simply prohibit "holding
out" and "profit" to ensure that commercial activities were
not being engaged in.

As far as the claim that "rules could be set that allow the use of a plane
to be more like the use of a car", you won't get anywhere convincing me
that's true. It's my opinion that motor vehicles ought to be regulated MUCH
more strictly, and more like aviation is now. Especially with respect to
driver certification and the kind of training drivers are required to have
for various kinds of driving, as well as actually enforcing the laws we
already have and which drivers flagrantly ignore.

I've got no comment on changing automotive licensing, but I
don't see the advantage of prohibiting activities in an
airplane that are legal in a car.

Finally, with respect to your example, note that while you can run to the
store to get a part for a friend, you are not allowed to charge your friend
for that service.

But he can legally reimburse you 100%.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"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

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Aviation has just as many scofflaws and
pretenders as exist in the general population, and those folks will take
the
whole mile, given the inch. The FAA is well within their rights to not
give
the inch.

We just disagree. There is no reason I can see to prevent
"compensation" in the form of logging time and reimbursement
of legitimate expenses. I would simply prohibit "holding
out" and "profit" to ensure that commercial activities were
not being engaged in.

The point of all the additional 'commercial' regulation is to
reduce the risk for the general public - people who may not
know, and have no real way of assessing the risk themselves.

In this case, we have "Mark" flying an A&P and a couple of
pilots on a repair mission. All know the risks they are running,
such as they are. I say good luck to "Mark". He can even make
a profit so far as I care. In this case, the FAA regulations have
missed their 'safety' rationale & merely function as a protectionist
device for the benefit of air taxi operators.

Of course, rewriting the regulations to permit this while protecting
the public using real air taxi services is the challenge.

"Tony Cox" wrote:

The point of all the additional 'commercial' regulation is to
reduce the risk for the general public - people who may not
know, and have no real way of assessing the risk themselves.

Agreed, and it's a valid regulatory purpose that I support.

In this case, we have "Mark" flying an A&P and a couple of
pilots on a repair mission. All know the risks they are running,
such as they are. I say good luck to "Mark". He can even make
a profit so far as I care. In this case, the FAA regulations have
missed their 'safety' rationale & merely function as a protectionist
device for the benefit of air taxi operators.

Of course, rewriting the regulations to permit this while protecting
the public using real air taxi services is the challenge.

I think you can do this pretty well by prohibiting "holding
out" and any payments beyond reimbursement. An air taxi
operation can't operate under those restrictions.
Reimbursement of direct expenses seems reasonable to me and
isn't commercial activity.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
"Tony Cox" wrote:

Of course, rewriting the regulations to permit this while protecting
the public using real air taxi services is the challenge.

I think you can do this pretty well by prohibiting "holding
out" and any payments beyond reimbursement. An air taxi
operation can't operate under those restrictions.

How about a rider saying that if all passengers hold FAA
certificates, the flight can be conducted under part 91 regardless
of any other circumstances? It'd be hard to make a living
flying other pilots around, skinflints that they are.

"Holding out" is vague and open to abuse. Regulating any
payments that may be made is a protectionist issue, not a
safety one.

"Tony Cox" wrote:

How about a rider saying that if all passengers hold FAA
certificates, the flight can be conducted under part 91 regardless
of any other circumstances? It'd be hard to make a living
flying other pilots around, skinflints that they are.

This deals with the "is the passenger aware of risk" issue,
but that's not the only issue around.

"Holding out" is vague and open to abuse.

And "all available information" (91.103 Preflight action.)
and "careless or reckless" (91.13) are not? I agree some
times these are tough calls, but this is a sign of
commercial activity.

Regulating any
payments that may be made is a protectionist issue, not a
safety one.

No, it's a commercial vs. non-commercial issue.

I think the private pilot rules should do two things:

1) The passengers should understand the risk.
2) the pilot should not be engaged in a commercial business,
so he shouldn't attempt to draw in "customers" and he
shouldn't be allowed to profit.



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

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
"Tony Cox" wrote:

How about a rider saying that if all passengers hold FAA
certificates, the flight can be conducted under part 91 regardless
of any other circumstances? It'd be hard to make a living
flying other pilots around, skinflints that they are.

This deals with the "is the passenger aware of risk" issue,
but that's not the only issue around.

Says you. Says I, "it's the only reasonable justification for
commercial flight regulation".


"Holding out" is vague and open to abuse.

And "all available information" (91.103 Preflight action.)
and "careless or reckless" (91.13) are not? I agree some
times these are tough calls, but this is a sign of
commercial activity.

I always think of people 'holding out' as advertising. I say
it's too vague because it doesn't seem to cover on-the-side
word of mouth sort of activity.


Regulating any
payments that may be made is a protectionist issue, not a
safety one.

No, it's a commercial vs. non-commercial issue.

I think you're too hung up on 'commercial' part. The only
issue that *should* matter is whether unsuspecting members
of the public who just want to get somewhere are not exposed
to excessive risk. This is the rational behind pt 135 operation,
or at least it should be. People 'in the know' -- those who have
completed pilot training or who have been around aircraft as
mechanics -- are well aware of the risks. If you don't accept
this, then we might as well dispense with the private/commercial
certificate distinction completely.

Just because "Mark" wants $100 or even $5000 has no
effect on the risks that his passengers take - risks which they
are aware of in any case. That's why I say it's not a safety
issue -- unlike the general air taxi case where this is clearly
an incentive to recruit 'unknowledgeable' passengers who
(arguably) ought to have their risks 'bounded' more tightly
by regulation.

Now my libertarian leanings say that perhaps we should
allow anyone to fly anywhere with a private pilot, as long
as they sign a waiver first. This, I suppose, could be argued
in a different thread. But this is _not_ what I'm arguing
here. These 'customers' know the risks, and if it wasn't for
the fact that their damn plane had broken down they'd be
taking those risks themselves. So the money is irrelevant
because it has no effect whatsoever on risk, perceived or
actual.


I think the private pilot rules should do two things:

1) The passengers should understand the risk.
2) the pilot should not be engaged in a commercial business,
so he shouldn't attempt to draw in "customers" and he
shouldn't be allowed to profit.

What are you, as socialist? What do you care if he
makes a buck? His 'customers' know the risks - they
fly as (at least) private pilots all the time (I don't know
an A&P who isn't now or hasn't ever been a pilot).
He's not attempting to 'draw in' the general public, and
any 'profit' he makes is none of your business.

Unless, of course, you're running an air taxi business which
thinks it is loosing out. But as I said before, that is a
_protectionist_ issue which shouldn't have anything to do
with the FAA.

"ET" wrote in message
...
[...] But I should be
able to use my time and my plane to help and/or transport my friend
without actually having to take out my own wallet at the gas pump.

If it were certain that all pilots would adhere strictly to that sort of
reimbursement, there would be no problem. But pilots are just like other
people too, and there are always going to be the bad apples that refuse to
obey the spirit of the law (and sometimes the letter of the law).

The problem is that as soon as you allow some kinds of compensation for
favors, where there was no common purpose, and in fact in some cases, the
paying party didn't even participate in the flight, the line between "legal"
and "not legal" becomes very fuzzy. The extremes are easy to identify, but
there's always going to be someone who wants to push the limits of the law,
and engage in what is essentially a commercial operation, while calling it a
"reimbursed favor for a friend".

When you solve this basic problem with human nature, then perhaps you can
move on to getting the letter and interpretation of the FARs changed. Until
then, this is how it has to be, in order to ensure that no pilot ever gets
into a situation where they have a reasonable reason to believe that they
are not acting as a commercial operation, even if they are.

Heck, by strict interpretation of some of these "common law" decisions
Angel Flight should have to be conducted under 135 too.

Since there is an explicit exception for these kinds of operations, they
don't. However, until that exception was written, charitable airlifts WERE
definitely a concern with respect to their legality.

If I get a "good
feeling" or possibly "enhanced standing in the eyes of my fellow pilots"
by flying an Angel Flight, then that's compensation and I better have
complied with 135 right?????

As far as the FAA is concerned, only tangible compensation matters.
"Tangible" includes things we might consider "intangible" by strict
definition, such as logging time without paying for it, but it certainly
does not include psychological effects.

For that matter, arent I able to deduct the
costs of the flight on my taxes?? there's compensation too...

Interesting you should mention that. Deductions have in fact been a grey
area in the past. I'm not sure if the FAA has finally resolved that. But
note that the financial gain due to a deduction is typically only going to
be a small fraction of the total cost of the flight.

Pete

(John Galban) wrote in message . com...
lid wrote in message .. .
snip
I understand this is an academic exercise, but it could be that the
answer can be had by simply calling your local FSDO first. Believe me,
nothing you find on this or any other newsgroup is going to be
admissible in court if there is ever a problem.

Haaahaa! That's a good one! You don't really think that, "I called
Bob at the FSDO and he said it was OK" is going to fly in any FAA
court do you?

Since you've jumped out of the academic and into the real world, the
fact is that you could call 3 different people in a FSDO and get 3
different answers. Then you could call 5 other FSDOs and get more
different answers. None of that will help you in court.

It works very much like the acedemic world. When an advisor tells you
that you can subsitute one class for another, unless it is clearly
written as a substitute, GET IT IN WRITING. I can't tell you the
number of people I know that got a letter in the mail saying they
missed a class when they expected to receive their degree.
Its the same thing with the FSDO. If its worth anything, GET IT IN
WRITING. When I wanted to install a non-TSO'd attitude indicator as a
back up on the other side of my panel (labeled VFR only ) I got it
(337) in writing.