Illegal charters

Considering the number of threads we see discussing what a pilot can and
cannot get away with insofar as sharing costs and quasi-Part 135 operations
are concerned, today's Avweb article on increased FAA emphasis in this area
should be illuminating.

Bob Gardner

Bob Gardner wrote:
Considering the number of threads we see discussing what a pilot can
and cannot get away with insofar as sharing costs and quasi-Part 135
operations are concerned, today's Avweb article on increased FAA
emphasis in this area should be illuminating.

I am still waiting to see a single example of someone punished by the FAA
for this. Unless the FAA is randomly calling pilots and asking them to fly
them somewhere, or eavesdropping on people who are actually exchanging
money, I can't imagine how they would ever know. I would certainly hope
they have more important things to do than "crack down" on this very grey
legality.

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, unless a charter company lost
business to it.

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:31:33 -0400, "JohnH"
wrote in ::


Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, unless a charter company lost
business to it.


It's a matter of standards for public safety mandated by the FAA.

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, unless a charter company
lost business to it.


It's a matter of standards for public safety mandated by the FAA.

You lost me there. Is a flight safer if a pilot pays for part of it?

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, unless a charter company
lost business to it.


It's a matter of standards for public safety mandated by the FAA.

You lost me there. Is a flight safer if a pilot pays for part of it?


Well yes, a charter operator has much higher standards it must meet to be a
charter operator. Are you saying because there happens at this moment in
time to be no charter operators where I'm based I should be able to rent out
my PP-SEL R-H skills to those that would use the service if it were
available? I mean otherwise the people are going to drive and no charter
operator is going to be out any business.

You lost me there. Is a flight safer if a pilot pays for part of it?
Well yes, a charter operator has much higher standards

Which is the answer to a different question. When a pilot pays for the
flight, it does not become safer.

Are you saying because there happens at this moment in
time to be no charter operators where I'm based I should be able to rent out
my PP-SEL R-H skills

No, I don't think that's what he was saying. I also don't think that a
PP should be able to "rent out" one's skills just because there isn't a
charter operation out there. However, there's a large area between
"taking a friend on a flight that you would have made anyway, to a place
he was going anyway" and putting a shingle at the airport "I'll fly
anyone anywhere for money". For example, a college student who is a
pilot offers to fly people in his dorm for costs. I see no reason this
should be prohibited, nor where safety is enhanced by requiring the
pilot to subsidize the flight. In fact, overall safety is increased the
more the pilot flies.

The difference I see is in whether a pilot =represents himself= or
passively =allows= himself to be represented as a charter pilot of
sorts. Doing so is what I believe the FAA wants us to believe it is
going after with its "holding out" rule, but I think the FAA's holding
out rule is too stringent.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Think about it. A 135 pilot must take a checkride every six months, and a
physical every six months or a year, depending on whether s/he holds a first
or second class medical. The airplane must have 100 hour inspections in
addition to the required annual. The 135 operation as a whole is subject to
a load of regulations involving such things as financial stability and the
experience of management personnel. They are given Operations Specifications
by the FAA to which they must adhere.

These are just some of the many differences between an operation "for hire"
and just someone with a certificate in their pocket.

Bob Gardner

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, unless a charter company
lost business to it.


It's a matter of standards for public safety mandated by the FAA.

You lost me there. Is a flight safer if a pilot pays for part of it?

Go to http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/186346-1.html. Click on "Five traps
for the unwary private pilot." Read the case law citation contained therein.
Now you have heard of such a case.

Bob Gardner

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
Bob Gardner wrote:
Considering the number of threads we see discussing what a pilot can
and cannot get away with insofar as sharing costs and quasi-Part 135
operations are concerned, today's Avweb article on increased FAA
emphasis in this area should be illuminating.

I am still waiting to see a single example of someone punished by the FAA
for this. Unless the FAA is randomly calling pilots and asking them to
fly them somewhere, or eavesdropping on people who are actually exchanging
money, I can't imagine how they would ever know. I would certainly hope
they have more important things to do than "crack down" on this very grey
legality.

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, unless a charter company lost
business to it.

How does FAR 61.113b work ?
Let's say I work for that widget company mentioned in the AvWeb article
and usually manufacture little widgets. For a trade show I am asked to
fly some sample parts using a rented airplane. It seems that the "no
compensation or hire" rule does not apply in this case and (given the
willingness of the CEO) I could charge the company 100% operating
expenses and "pilot bonus".
Now let's say the CEO wants to go to that trade show as well. He would
be a passenger and now 61.113b2 applies since he is a passenger and
therefore I may not collect any money at all, thus have to pay 100% of
operating expenses myself.
Yes, no, maybe ?

- Marco

How does FAR 61.113b work ?
Let's say I work for that widget company mentioned in the AvWeb article
and usually manufacture little widgets. For a trade show I am asked to
fly some sample parts using a rented airplane. It seems that the "no
compensation or hire" rule does not apply in this case and (given the
willingness of the CEO) I could charge the company 100% operating
expenses and "pilot bonus".

You are not being employed as a pilot. You are being employed to make
widgets. The fact that you choose to use an airplane instead of an
automobile to get to your widget show is not the pivot point. Your company
can rent you the airplane and pay your normal salary or hourly wage on your
trip. HOWEVER, you cobbed the system up by saying "pilot bonus". Now you
ARE being employed as a pilot and without a commercial certificate, you
can't do that.



Now let's say the CEO wants to go to that trade show as well. He would
be a passenger and now 61.113b2 applies since he is a passenger and
therefore I may not collect any money at all, thus have to pay 100% of
operating expenses myself.

Nope, same argument. You are not being paid to fly the CEO to the widget
show. The company can pick up the entire cost of the airplane and your
normal widgetworker salary while on the trip.

That's the way I read the regulation.\


Jim