If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
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. I would agree that protectionism is a big part of it. And I would also agree that the "unsuspecting public" plays a lesser role. But I also wonder whether the rule also exists to prevent putting non-commercial pilots in positions where they face a difficult decision. For example, I fly my boss and I to a meeting in a distant city. Let's say that I accept no money for this whatsoever, but that my boss is mighty impressed that I can get him there and back without the hassles of dealing with the airlines these days. Now I'm looking good compared to all the other cubicle dwellers, and it looks like I got real a leg up on them when the next office comes available, right? But after the meeting, the weather closes in. My boss makes it clear that he really needs to get back in time for his daughter's piano recital at 6:00 PM. I know my personal limits, and if it were just me in the plane, there is no way that I would fly in that weather. But I also don't want to look bad in front of the boss, don't want him holding me responsible for his missing the recital, and don't want to lose the advantage and good will that I just earned that morning. Sure, we are all pilots here and we know what the right answer is in this situation. My boss is not a pilot, though, and will not be so understanding. Even with nothing but good will at stake, there is this additional weight in the decision-making process that a private pilot would probably be better off without. I suspect that's another reason why this rule is in place. --- 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 |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
ink.net... 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. I would agree that protectionism is a big part of it. And I would also agree that the "unsuspecting public" plays a lesser role. But I also wonder whether the rule also exists to prevent putting non-commercial pilots in positions where they face a difficult decision. For example, I fly my boss and I to a meeting in a distant city. Let's say that I accept no money for this whatsoever, but that my boss is mighty impressed that I can get him there and back without the hassles of dealing with the airlines these days. Now I'm looking good compared to all the other cubicle dwellers, and it looks like I got real a leg up on them when the next office comes available, right? But after the meeting, the weather closes in. My boss makes it clear that he really needs to get back in time for his daughter's piano recital at 6:00 PM. I know my personal limits, and if it were just me in the plane, there is no way that I would fly in that weather. But I also don't want to look bad in front of the boss, don't want him holding me responsible for his missing the recital, and don't want to lose the advantage and good will that I just earned that morning. Sure, we are all pilots here and we know what the right answer is in this situation. My boss is not a pilot, though, and will not be so understanding. Even with nothing but good will at stake, there is this additional weight in the decision-making process that a private pilot would probably be better off without. I suspect that's another reason why this rule is in place. Except that the situation you've just described is in fact now completely legal. You can even be more relaxed and get reimbursed for flying yourself and your boss. Part 135 rules don't apply. The difference is that in your situation you were going to the same meeting, so there is a common purpose. In "Mark"'s case, he'd never have gone to the airfield without being asked to help out. Risk wise, I agree with you. Your situation is far riskier than for Mark. Which only goes to show that the current rules about commercial operation don't properly address 'risk' nor 'implied consent', which in my opinion are the only reasons for having them in the first place. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Geoffrey Barnes wrote: Hmmm... we ****ed each other off just a month ago, and now the alternator goes bad in the club's 182... Just kidding, George! Hey, I don't know anything about alternators! Really! Of course, I *have* been told that a bad adjustment of the voltage reg ....... Uh .. never mind. Uh, you aren't still ****ed off at me about the VOR variation settings thing, are you? George? Of course not! Don't even remember the exchange! :-) Aww c'mon! Put the wrench down, George! g It's a screwdriver, but, ok, if you insist. :-) George Patterson Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would not yield to the tongue. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
I guess that I see it differently.
The owners are responsible for maitenance and they should be responsible when lack of maitenance causes a problem. It is their call whether to replace things to insure better reliability. Mike MU-2 "Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message ink.net... Thanks, Peter. Everything you say has great merit, and I agree with all of your points. As you noted, the club could of course raise our hourly rate to build up a margin that would allow us to deal with these contingencies at no cost to the member who finds himself stranded someplace. At the end of the day, we either do that or we ask individual pilots to take responsibility for getting the plane home after the owner-financed repairs have been accomplished. So in this case, it really is a key fact that this is a club and not just another FBO. We have members, and not just simple customers, and it will be the members who must decide which way they want to go. The club currently passes virtually all of the rental fees back to the owners of the planes, and what little it does keep mostly goes back out the door in sales tax. For the most part, this particular club has historically sided with keeping the hourly costs down for all of the members and has shunned taking on additional expenses such as paying for ferrying costs when the PIC decides to abandon an aircraft somewhere else. If I were handicapping the way that the membership will vote, I suspect that they will prefer to keep the hourly costs where they are while accepting the potential for having to pay ferrying costs in the future. That's the way that my vote will probably go as well. Again, I agree with every point you make but I still come down on the other side of the issue. I still really appreciate your comments, though, and I thank you for a very good response that must have taken a goodly amount of time to write. You are a quality guy, mate, and I thank you for it! --- 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 |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
A private pilot has at least 40hrs of experience and has passed a minimal
checkride. The FAA does not want pilots with these minimal qualifications flying the public around. Part 91 maitenance standards are minimal too. The FAA does not want the paying public flying around in these aircraft. Mike MU-2 "Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message ink.net... 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. I would agree that protectionism is a big part of it. And I would also agree that the "unsuspecting public" plays a lesser role. But I also wonder whether the rule also exists to prevent putting non-commercial pilots in positions where they face a difficult decision. For example, I fly my boss and I to a meeting in a distant city. Let's say that I accept no money for this whatsoever, but that my boss is mighty impressed that I can get him there and back without the hassles of dealing with the airlines these days. Now I'm looking good compared to all the other cubicle dwellers, and it looks like I got real a leg up on them when the next office comes available, right? But after the meeting, the weather closes in. My boss makes it clear that he really needs to get back in time for his daughter's piano recital at 6:00 PM. I know my personal limits, and if it were just me in the plane, there is no way that I would fly in that weather. But I also don't want to look bad in front of the boss, don't want him holding me responsible for his missing the recital, and don't want to lose the advantage and good will that I just earned that morning. Sure, we are all pilots here and we know what the right answer is in this situation. My boss is not a pilot, though, and will not be so understanding. Even with nothing but good will at stake, there is this additional weight in the decision-making process that a private pilot would probably be better off without. I suspect that's another reason why this rule is in place. --- 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 |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
ink.net... That's the way that my vote will probably go as well. Again, I agree with every point you make but I still come down on the other side of the issue. Obviously, I disagree. But as long as the club is clear about the policy, I guess they can set whatever policy they want. However, just keep in mind that, just as the private pilot renter would be required by FAR to pay for the flight back, should he choose to stay with the plane until it's fixed, the club can only legally bill back the cost of having someone else fly the plane back if that someone else has a commercial certificate. Otherwise, the person flying the plane back is required to pay for the flight. Pete |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony Cox" wrote in message nk.net... 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". Another justification is that when a pilot is "holding out" or is receiving compensation, history shows that such a pilot is more likely to fly in more inclement weather. Under those circumstances, it seems reasonable to hold the airplane to a higher maintenance standard and to hold the pilot to a higher standard ratings and experience. -- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
"John T" wrote in message ws.com... Now turn that around. Are you saying Mark cannot iaccept an offer of payment for *pro rata share* of the flight costs for the trip out? (I assume that Mark would pay his return expenses in entirety.) Absent some other clear explanation, the presence of such a dead-head leg on the return trip would raise a significant suspicion in my mind that the outbound trip did not have a commonality of purpose. -- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
"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. Actually, the paid mechanic's presence does nothing at all to make this a Part 135 operation. The mechanic was not part of the flight crew so his presence was irrelevant for the purpose of determining if this is Part 135. If you want to hire a cabin attendant and/or onboard entertainer for your Part 91 flights, that is just fine as long as they are not flight crew. Interestingly, you could also hire a paid flight instructor and it would STILL not be a Part 135 operation; in fact, it would not even be a commercial for hire operation as long as the flight instructor did not provide the airplane. -- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | June 12th 04 03:03 AM |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | General Aviation | 0 | June 12th 04 02:14 AM |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | Owning | 0 | June 12th 04 02:14 AM |
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post | MrHabilis | Home Built | 0 | June 11th 04 05:07 PM |
Club Management Issue | Geoffrey Barnes | Owning | 150 | March 30th 04 06:36 PM |