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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Montblack" wrote in message ...
"Peter Gottlieb" snip No monetary compensation is involved (nor other "favors" from her friend, for those of you with dirty minds). All I get out of it is time flying, and I bear all the costs. I would have no other reason to fly to that particular field (although no reason not to either). No dirty minds here. We believe you, nothing happened with "the friend." ...so, why do you think your wife (and her friend) wanted you out of town for the afternoon?? g Answer to your FAA question: You are acting as a (money losing) air taxi service. Bad. Gotta disagree with this one Montblack. If there was no compensation involved, Peter is not acting as an air taxi. As far as the FAA is concerned, you can fly anyone, anywhere, anytime as long as you (the pilot) are paying for all costs associated with the flight. The "commonality of purpose" and "pro rata share" tests only come into play when money or other compensation is exchanged. Basically, the rule exists to keep private pilots from making commercial flights. The absence of any sort of compensation makes Peter's flight legit. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message t...
OK, here's one. I have heard the FAA considers "time" to be compensation. The following is hypothetical. What you have heard is "kind of" correct. It came from a ruling against a pilot who was not being compensated monetarily, but was getting free use of an airplane. The logged flight time was considered to be compensation, as the pilot would have otherwise had to pay for the flight time. The specific case involved a time-building pilot that was flying skydivers for a skydiving operation for free. The FAA ruled that the pilot was being compensated with free flight time. Flight time that you pay for yourself is not considered compensation. If it was, you wouldn't be able to fly yourself anywhere. Let's say I have a wife who thinks flying is a waste of my time. So she always gives me a hard time when I want to use the plane. Now, she has a friend who needs to get somewhere, a small airport that no commercial planes go, and she asks me to fly her there. No monetary compensation is involved (nor other "favors" from her friend, for those of you with dirty minds). All I get out of it is time flying, and I bear all the costs. I would have no other reason to fly to that particular field (although no reason not to either). Is this legal in the FAAs eyes? Yes, this is legal. If your wife's friend contributed nothing to the flight, there was no compensation. You payed for the flight, so there is no way it could be considered a commercial operation. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Gottlieb wrote: Maybe I should have done something with the friend... I never thought of that angle! Well, the mother of a pair of Young Eagles wanted to fly along last Saturday. I can testify that you can't accomplish much along those lines in a Maule with no auto-pilot. :-) George Patterson The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist is afraid that he's correct. James Branch Cavel |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
You'll have to borrow a Cherokee 6 at least. With a pilot who won't look
back... "G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... Peter Gottlieb wrote: Maybe I should have done something with the friend... I never thought of that angle! Well, the mother of a pair of Young Eagles wanted to fly along last Saturday. I can testify that you can't accomplish much along those lines in a Maule with no auto-pilot. :-) George Patterson The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist is afraid that he's correct. James Branch Cavel |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message ... OK, here's one. I have heard the FAA considers "time" to be compensation. Only if someone else is providing the time. [ferrying a wife's friend] Is this legal in the FAAs eyes? As far as I know, yes. I'm not aware of any enforcement action where, with the pilot paying the entire cost of the flight, a pilot was found guilty of operating for compensation or hire. Pete There is something close. In NTSB order (EA-4791), a private pilot transported a mechanic for a medical air transportation service to repair one of their stranded helicopters. The owner of the company initially tried to find a 135 carrier, but was unable to find anyone available for the flight. He was eventually refered to a private pilot by an acquaintance who operated one of the charter services. The private pilot who offered to do the flight and pay all costs personally. He also advised the owner and mechanic that he was not an air charter operator. On that flight, and two other related flights, the owner of the medical transport co. offered to reimburse him for fuel, and the private pilot refused to accept payment. The FAA went after him and gave him a 365 day suspension, which was then reduced to 180 days on appeal to the law judge. Fortunately, on appeal to the NTSB, the charges were ultimately dismissed, but obviously not without a great deal of hardship and expense. Jeff H., CFI-A |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"J. Hansen" wrote in message
om... There is something close. In NTSB order (EA-4791), a private pilot transported a mechanic for a medical air transportation service to repair one of their stranded helicopters. Yes, I read about that in AOPA Pilot (if it's the same one I recall). It's not a relevant example though, because what tripped the pilot up was the "for hire" clause, not the "for compensation" clause. Also, you do note that in the end, the pilot was absolved, in a rare NTSB reversal. So the case is more an example of how the FAA can make your life miserable, and less an example of what the rules actually mean. Pete |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote:
Yes, I read about that in AOPA Pilot (if it's the same one I recall). It's not a relevant example though, because what tripped the pilot up was the "for hire" clause, not the "for compensation" clause. Also, you do note that in the end, the pilot was absolved, in a rare NTSB reversal. So the case is more an example of how the FAA can make your life miserable, and less an example of what the rules actually mean. The NTSB was at pains to establish that the pilot did not “hold himself out for compensation or hire.” IIRC, the original question was whether it would be OK to fly two people to city A, split the cost 3 ways and then fly back alone, paying all the cost of the return. It would probably depend on whether the pilot was found to “hold himself out for compensation or hire.” If you post a notice on a board that you will transport people under the arrangement above, there would be no common purpose for the flight and the NTSB/FAA would probably find that you were holding yourself out "for compensation or hire." It's not relevant whether you make or lose money on the operation, only that you say you will provide transportation for the specified amount - namely 2/3 of the outbound flight cost. Todd Pattist (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.) ___ Make a commitment to learn something from every flight. Share what you learn. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
One problem is that if you strictly follow all the rules you cannot seem to
fly anybody anywhere. Let's say my wife wants to go visit a friend of hers 300 miles away. If I fly her there the FAA could turn around and say I had no reason to go there and by telling my wife I would fly her on such trips during my training I was "putting myself out for compensation" (namely, being allowed to train). So, it's not a matter of breaking rules, it's a matter of which ones and how severely. We're always breaking some rule. "Todd Pattist" wrote in message ... "Peter Duniho" wrote: Yes, I read about that in AOPA Pilot (if it's the same one I recall). It's not a relevant example though, because what tripped the pilot up was the "for hire" clause, not the "for compensation" clause. Also, you do note that in the end, the pilot was absolved, in a rare NTSB reversal. So the case is more an example of how the FAA can make your life miserable, and less an example of what the rules actually mean. The NTSB was at pains to establish that the pilot did not "hold himself out for compensation or hire." IIRC, the original question was whether it would be OK to fly two people to city A, split the cost 3 ways and then fly back alone, paying all the cost of the return. It would probably depend on whether the pilot was found to "hold himself out for compensation or hire." If you post a notice on a board that you will transport people under the arrangement above, there would be no common purpose for the flight and the NTSB/FAA would probably find that you were holding yourself out "for compensation or hire." It's not relevant whether you make or lose money on the operation, only that you say you will provide transportation for the specified amount - namely 2/3 of the outbound flight cost. Todd Pattist (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.) ___ Make a commitment to learn something from every flight. Share what you learn. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net... [...] If I fly her there the FAA could turn around and say I had no reason to go there and by telling my wife I would fly her on such trips during my training I was "putting myself out for compensation" (namely, being allowed to train). I think it's a stretch to think that the FAA would find you to be "holding out" to your own wife. Generally, the standard requires holding out to the *public*. IMHO, the only reason you think there's no way to strictly follow the rules is that you're misinterpreting the rules. Pete |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
... IMHO, the only reason you think there's no way to strictly follow the rules is that you're misinterpreting the rules. A logical supposition, but easy to get into when the rules are complex and the real rules are a mix of regulatory law, case law, and the sometimes confused interpretation of different officials. Notwithstanding the mental masturbation that occurs in these forums at times (and I am as guilty as anyone), I use common sense to guide my actions and generally will make any flight that I can. Peter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Handheld battery question | RobsSanta | General Aviation | 8 | September 19th 04 03:07 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question | jlauer | Home Built | 7 | November 16th 03 01:51 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |
Partnership Question | Harry Gordon | Owning | 4 | August 16th 03 11:23 PM |