Illegal charters

[(]Why ? The 61.113b excpetion only applies if both 61.113.b.1 and
61.113.b.2 are met. [)]

If we consider the CEO to be a passenger then
61.113.b.2 is not met, thus 61.113.b is not applicable any more.
Therefore the PIC would have to either pay 100% or 50% depending on
whether 61.113.c apply.

This is the part thats baffeling.

We'd need to consider the CDO not "just" a passenger, but a "passenger
for compensation or hire", iow somebody who paid the company in order to
be on the flight. That would make the flight "look like" air taxi to
him. (or her).

If the CEO is "just" a passenger, that is not sufficient for 61.113.b.2
to not be met.

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.

Other passengers will be on the next flight, and other people will be in
the houses below.

Those other passengers will presumably be people who know the pilot,
and can asess the risk accordingly. The risk to the people in the
houses below from private pilots flying overhead is negligible. In
fact, I don't believe I've ever heard of a private pilot crashing into
a house and killing people. They all seem to have higher ratings.

If you're arguing that this particular safety rule has an overall
negative effect on safety in the long term, I won't argue with you. Of
course it does. All safety rules do. However, this rule does protect
the innocent - those who don't fly, don't have friends who do, and thus
know nothing about GA and can't make an intelligent risk asessment.

Michael

Those other passengers will presumably be people who know the pilot,
and can asess the risk accordingly.

.... but what does this have to do with how much the pilot pays?

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.

Those other passengers will presumably be people who know the pilot,
and can asess the risk accordingly.
... but what does this have to do with how much the pilot pays?

Because if the pilot has to pay for the flight himself, he won't be
carrying complete strangers (no incentive) and thus exposing them to
risk. Therefore, to take away the pilot's incentive, he's made to bear
the entire cost. It really does make sense.

Michael

Because if the pilot has to pay for the flight himself, he won't be
carrying complete strangers (no incentive) and thus exposing them to
risk. Therefore, to take away the pilot's incentive, he's made to bear
the entire cost. It really does make sense.

Not to me.

Take away the pilot's incentive to fly, and he flies less. He becomes
less safe. He is more likely to fly down a runway into the face of a
152 coming the other way.

The incentive for carrying complete strangers isn't the money. It is
the sharing of the joy of flying. If the point is to save complete
strangers from risk, then private pilots should simply not be allowed to
fly complete strangers. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to carry
passengers at all.

A person who knows the pilot but does not know aviation is really not in
a much better position to assess the risk. It's not about (or shouldn't
be about) assessing risk that way, so much as presenting a flight as if
it were a commercial endeavor, with commercial safety standards.

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.