"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