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?

"Jose" wrote in message
news
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.


I agree the rule is very stringent. BUT I don't see how you could loosen it
much without opening a ton of loopholes that will be quickly used and will
result in accidents that cause a whole new set of even more stringent rules
to be enacted.

Gig

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

True. But if the pilot must pay for the flight entirely out of his own
pocket, an unsafe flight is less likely to be made. The pilot lacks
the financial incentive to make the flight.

It's not that there are not other possible incentives that can cause a
pilot to make a less-than-ideal go/no-go decision, but as long as he is
not holding out nor accepting compensation, the only people at risk are
the pilot and his friends and family - presumably people who know him
well enough to make an informed decision as to whether the risk is
acceptable.

This is actually one of the few times the FAA got it right. The
regulation as written is totally unenforceable if the pilot and
passengers know each other and collude to violate the regulation. Make
the payment in cash behind closed doors, and it's totally impossible to
prove anything happened. However, in such a case the passenger knows
that regulations are being violated and that he is trusting his life to
a pilot deemed not qualified for the operation - and knows the pilot
well enough to decide if this is a good idea. Gotta tell you, this
goes on all the time.

Next step up is pilot services. If you own (or can lease or rent) an
airplane, you're presumed to be knowledgeable enough about what you're
getting into to be permitted to hire any random commercial pilot to fly
you. No charter rules apply. You can hire a 300 hour pilot with an
instrument rating and a commercial ticket who has never flown outside
the instructional environment and has zero actual IMC experience to fly
you and your family in your A-36 Bonanza at night in IMC over the
Rockies.

And then there's a member of the general public. You're not a pilot or
an owner. You are presumed not competent to make any decisions, and
your only option is a certified charter operation. Now the pilot will
need 1200 hours total time, 100 hours in make and model, an autopilot,
redundant electrical and gyro systems, a monitoring program for the
engine, an operating manual. regular checkrides - and of course it will
all cost a lot more. But it will be safer.

Michael

BUT I don't see how you could loosen it
much without opening a ton of loopholes that will be quickly used and will
result in accidents that cause a whole new set of even more stringent rules
to be enacted.

No rule is free of loopholes. I posted elsewhere (a week ago?) my
proposal; it was essentially to go back to what we had twenty years ago.
A private pilot may accept compensation up to the total amount of the
flight, but no more. He is not required to make any minimum payment,
but the passengers may not pay more (in sum) than the flight costs. The
pilot cannot make a profit (in the dictionary sense).

I would add that all passengers must be informed that the flight is
under the "private pilot" rules, not the "commercial pilot" rules which
are more stringent in regards to safety. (I don't think that it is
necessary to go into what the rules really are - the point is to prevent
mis-representation of the venue)

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.