The Most Expensive Ironing Boards in the World...

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Since the FAA interpreted the FAR that way. It is my understanding,
that the pilot needs to have been planning on making the trip, and
invite his passengers to share the expense. It would appear that Jay
offered to foot the ENTIRE COST if the flight HE invited his friend to
make, and then posted it publicly.

so what? What FAR did Jay violate?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article ,
Peter Clark wrote:

What we don't know is whether or not any money exchanged hands or
bartering occurred.

Which AFAIK doesn't matter any more. The way I understand it, logging
time is also considered compensation, so if the friend logged the
flight it's for compensation or hire and is a violation. Plus there's
no common cause here - the flight wouldn't have taken place without
his request to be rescued.

The way it was explained to me is that as long as there was no
money/barter/beer and the other pilot didn't log the flight, it's
cool.

excuse me? If Jay didn't pay for the flight, how is his friend logging time
considered compensation? Remember, according to Jay's post he only
OFFERED to pay for the flight. No where does Jay's original post indicate
that he actually provided money or even beer. So, his friend used his own
airplane and his own gas to fly. How is logging time compensation when
his friend paid for the time?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:21:06 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Since the FAA interpreted the FAR that way. It is my understanding,
that the pilot needs to have been planning on making the trip, and
invite his passengers to share the expense. It would appear that Jay
offered to foot the ENTIRE COST if the flight HE invited his friend to
make, and then posted it publicly.

so what?

Do I really need to explain it to you? Or are you just fishin'?

What FAR did Jay violate?

The issue is more a matter of Mr. Honeck's friend's violation if what
Mr. Honeck reported is accurate.

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:28:53 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote:

In article ,
Peter Clark wrote:

What we don't know is whether or not any money exchanged hands or
bartering occurred.

Which AFAIK doesn't matter any more. The way I understand it, logging
time is also considered compensation, so if the friend logged the
flight it's for compensation or hire and is a violation. Plus there's
no common cause here - the flight wouldn't have taken place without
his request to be rescued.

The way it was explained to me is that as long as there was no
money/barter/beer and the other pilot didn't log the flight, it's
cool.

excuse me? If Jay didn't pay for the flight, how is his friend logging time
considered compensation? Remember, according to Jay's post he only
OFFERED to pay for the flight. No where does Jay's original post indicate
that he actually provided money or even beer. So, his friend used his own
airplane and his own gas to fly. How is logging time compensation when
his friend paid for the time?

Ask the FAA. I don't think it makes any sense either.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:03:31 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

It is my understanding,
that the pilot needs to have been planning on making the trip, and
invite his passengers to share the expense.

It is my further understanding that there has to be a "unity of
purpose". You both have to have the same reason for going to the
destination. It can't be one wants to go to a museum in Boston, and the
pilot just wants to see fall colors from the air and doesn't care where
he flies.

Jose

Right. I wish I could find the link to that interpretation. Then Mr.
Honeck might begin to understand the issue.

Sorry Larry and Jose, but there's at least one case which is similar in
facts to that which transpired between Jay and his friend and the FAA lost
the case on appeal:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/do...ation/4791.PDF

P.S. The damn NTSB web site keeps changing its URLs (they moved the case
law docs under "alj/alj"). But at least now they provide a page that allows
searches of their collection of case law (maybe they had this before and I
missed it):

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/query.asp

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
My first thought when reading the excellent story was that I
was soon going to read an FAR/private pilot compensation
post referencing § 61.113. (Triggered by this sentence:
"Did he feel like flying for free today?")

My second thought was that I hoped no one would make that
comment. [...]

I just want to say, for the record, that I had the same thought as Larry and
succeeded for once in resisting the urge to post about it.

I also refrained from posting about the other FAR violation described in the
post. I'm on a roll!

What's the point of having a rating if you can't
help out a friend in distress?

For what it's worth, you can help a friend out without violating the FARs.
You just can't be compensated for it.

I've flown my airplane on a number of "rescue" missions to help friends,
with no violation of the FARs. The key is that I offered my help gratis.
It's pretty easy to avoid running afoul of the "compensation" rules as long
as you handle the flight like any other solo flight (whether or not you wind
up carrying someone with you).

Pete

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 16:46:50 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

The key is that I offered my help gratis.
It's pretty easy to avoid running afoul of the "compensation" rules as long
as you handle the flight like any other solo flight (whether or not you wind
up carrying someone with you).

Did you hear they were stuck somewhere and say "Hey, what can I do?"
or did the phone ring with them asking you for help? I think that's
the first test they use when examining this isn't it?

Bob Noel wrote:

so what? What FAR did Jay violate?


Possibly 14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b) -- though we do not know
what certificate said friend has -- as well as 119.33(b)(2)
to boot.

However, it can boil down to how Jay phrased the thing as
far as I understand it; if Jay calls his friend, ask him
to please deliver the part, and offer to pay his expenses;
and then the friend decides to fly there rather than drive,
cycle, use a pogostick or public transportation, i.e., if
flying is incidental to the business of delivering the part,
then Jay is in the clear; if however Jay asks the friend
to specifically *fly* the part there, then he is potentially
in trouble....

--Sylvain

Peter Duniho wrote:

I've flown my airplane on a number of "rescue" missions to help friends,
with no violation of the FARs. The key is that I offered my help gratis.

I am not even sure that offering to do so gratis puts you in the clear;
I am trying to find the reference, but there was an incident where
an helicopter pilot helped some friends pro bono in a similar situation
and got himself in trouble...

--Sylvain

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Sorry Larry and Jose, but there's at least one case which is similar in
facts to that which transpired between Jay and his friend and the FAA lost
the case on appeal:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/do...ation/4791.PDF

While an interesting and gratifying read (nice to see the Board overturn an
FAA action once in awhile), I don't see how it's relevant here. The only
point being made here is that *if* compensation is given to the pilot, that
would be a violation.

In the case you're showing us, the outcome very much hinged on the pilot's
ability to show *not only that he had not received compensation*, but also
that he convinced the Board that he had made very clear that the flight was
not a revenue flight, and that he would accept no compensation, not even
payment for the fuel.

If you look at the references to other cases in the decision you posted,
you'll notice that a pilot flying a revenue flight, even if he did not
personally get compensated, also runs afoul of the rules (since the flight
is "for hire", even though the pilot is not). In those cases, however, the
pilot was found to have done so knowingly. In the case you posted, even
though someone received compensation, the pilot himself not only did not, he
also made it very clear at the time that no payment would be required for
the flight, nor accepted.

This was why he was eventually found innocent, and frankly it was hardly a
slam-dunk for him even so. If they'd been having a bad day, I could easily
see the NTSB having taken a slightly different interpretation of the events
and upholding the original charges.

(Why Keenan was willing to pay the invoice sent to him by the other guy
later is an entirely different matter, but only because there was no dispite
about whether the pilot thought the flight was a revenue flight or not).

John Yodice wrote in AOPA Pilot a few years back about a pilot who carried
passengers who merely shared expenses, and who was found guilty of the
compensation rules, simply because those passengers were not traveling for
the same reason as the pilot (if I recall correctly, one or some were going
to a football game, and others or one were not). That may be the case that
Larry and Jose are recalling as well.

Pete