Illegal charters

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.

The next flight will be made with a less experienced pilot, as will all
subsequent ones. This is the same argument I make for hand flying
rather than relying on the autopilot, and using pilotage rather than
just following the GPS. The more you use your skills, the more skilled
you'll become.

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.

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.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
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)



At which point every PP looking to be an ATP stands at the airport offering
rides like a cab driver in aircraft that isn't anywhere close to the Part
135 standards.

At which point every PP looking to be an ATP stands at the airport offering
rides like a cab driver in aircraft that isn't anywhere close to the Part
135 standards.

I don't think so. For many years the rule allowed a pilot to fly with
no restriction on having to pay a certain share of the flight. To my
knowledge, pilots weren't hawking themselves at the airport like that.

I did offer rides in my college dorm to people who wanted to fly. Made
some nice flights that way. It was a small college, we all pretty much
knew each other. Now it would be considered "holding out" even if I
paid the whole thing and I'd be in the hoosegow. Is this the problem?

Does anybody here know why the rule was changed?

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.

The next flight will be made with a less experienced pilot

Yes, but these passengers won't be on the next flight - they will be on
this one. From the pilot's perspective, safety is indeed degraded by
these rules - but it's not the pilot the rules are intended to protect.

Michael

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

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 19:44:21 -0700, "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 liked the example of a primary student in a high performance,
complex, retract as being a charter. I know of a Doctor and his son
who both took their primary training in an A36 Bonanza and a musician
who did it in a Glasair III.

I wonder what their insurance rates were the first few years? :-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Bob Gardner

Yes, but these passengers won't be on the next flight - they will be on
this one.

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

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.

Lets say I work for company A, company A has 4 factorys and I have to go to
all 4 factorys. I can charge the company my expences and if another employee
wanted to catch a ride this would be ok because I was going there anyhow?

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...

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