Club Management Issue

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

Sure, the FAA reserves to right to interpret their rules as they see fit
at
the time of interpretation, but as long as "Mark" paid his pro-rata share
of
the flight cost, I think this would still fall under Part 91.

If he is deemed to be "holding out" to the public in return for partial fuel
reimbursement, then this would clearly be in violation of Part 135.

Let's look at it this way. Suppose you put a sign at your local airport
saying "Discount airplane rides -- pay only half the cost of gas". By your
reasoning this would be legal; by precedent this would be unequivocally
illegal.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

No "commonality of purpose". Mark was not goint to fly to the destination
until the mechanic told him that there was a plane stranded there.

Mike
MU-2

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

"Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.

Why? If the $175 does not include his pro-rata share, he's legal isn't
he?

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net

No "commonality of purpose". Mark was not goint to fly to the
destination until the mechanic told him that there was a plane
stranded there.

OK, let me change the scenario slightly. Let's say Mark and I are airport
neighbors and I need a ride to Little Airport to pick up my plane that's in
for service. 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?

In the scenario posed by the OP, let's assume for the moment that Mark
didn't charge anything for the flight and did it out of neighborly concern.
Is he still in violation of Part 91?

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.

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

"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

John T wrote:

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.

They can offer all they want. They just can't *charge* for it.

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

John T wrote:
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net

No "commonality of purpose". Mark was not goint to fly to the
destination until the mechanic told him that there was a plane
stranded there.


OK, let me change the scenario slightly. Let's say Mark and I are airport
neighbors and I need a ride to Little Airport to pick up my plane that's in
for service. 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?

In the scenario posed by the OP, let's assume for the moment that Mark
didn't charge anything for the flight and did it out of neighborly concern.
Is he still in violation of Part 91?

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.


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.



--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

"John T" wrote in message ews.com...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...

"Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.

Why? If the $175 does not include his pro-rata share, he's legal isn't he?

Why was Mark going there? If teh FSDO comes around asking he better be
able to produce a grandmother out there he was visiting. You can't
just hang up a sign on your plane and say, "I'll fly anyone anywhere
if you split the gas". Even that would be 135.

-Robert

There is a difference between "holding out" for business and simply
doing a favor. I think you guys are taking this all a little too
seriously---but then again, the issue is confused enough with regulatory
nonsense that perhaps it should be taken this seriously.

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.

As for commonality of purpose, landing practice always ranks pretty high
with me, particularly at airports I don't fly to very often. In fact,
many of my flights are for the specific purpose of practicing landings.
Even a mediocre burger joint could serve my purpose for deciding where
to land; my taste is not under the FAA's purview (thankfully for both
them and me).



Robert M. Gary wrote:
"John T" wrote in message ews.com...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.

Why? If the $175 does not include his pro-rata share, he's legal isn't he?


Why was Mark going there? If teh FSDO comes around asking he better be
able to produce a grandmother out there he was visiting. You can't
just hang up a sign on your plane and say, "I'll fly anyone anywhere
if you split the gas". Even that would be 135.

-Robert

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.

I agree that this newsgroup is not the final word on the regs, but
in my experience, you'll do no better by calling a FSDO for legal
interpretations. What they tell you carries about as much weight as
the comments you'll find here. FWIW, I find the folks here more
knowledgable about the regs than most of the FSDO inspectors I've met.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om

Why was Mark going there? If teh FSDO comes around asking he better be
able to produce a grandmother out there he was visiting. You can't
just hang up a sign on your plane and say, "I'll fly anyone anywhere
if you split the gas". Even that would be 135.

Who asked whom for the flight? If "Mark" advertises or suggests that he'd
fly them for a fee, then that's clearly a commercial operation. If,
however, "Paul" asks Mark to fly him out to pick up his plane and Paul chips
in half the cost of the one-way trip, I don't see that as a commercial
operation and I've not seen anything yet that convinces me it's a violation
of 14CFR91. If Paul paid Mark for half the cost of both legs of Mark's
flight, then I'd agree that Mark isn't paying his pro rata share and is in
violation. (Without knowing what plane was used and the distances involved,
I have no way of knowing whether $175 is a reasonable figure for a pro rata
share.)

If you know of something concrete that contradicts my understanding, please
let me know where I can read it. I'm really not trying to be obstinate
here, but I keep seeing people reference what is essentially the word of
somebody's interpretation of what they heard a FSDO or legal counsel may
have ruled.

I think everybody agrees that Mark would not be in volation of any FAR's if
he "donated" his flight time to take the crew out to retrieve Paul's plane.
The only question is whether he can accept *any* money for the flight. My
assertion is that he can accept payment as long as it does not exceed the
cost of the outbound leg minus his pro rata share. In other words, Mark
would pay no less than an equal share of the outbound leg and all of the
inbound leg costs.

I don't think it's the FAA's intent to force all pilots of stranded planes
to:
a) hire a charter flight; or
b) fly commercial; or
c) drive; or
d) take any transportation not operated by a private pilot
to get their plane.

However, since we *are* talking about the FAA, I could be wrong. So, if
you know of links with documentation to demonstrate my error in
understanding, please let me know.

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