Common instruments on small aircraft

The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an assumption that logged time is of any value.

The ruling also said, “We prefer not to rule” on whether logging time is of any value, but not a problem, it said, if you don’t log the time.

It does not follow from this that they cannot make an assumption that
the logged time is of any value. They "preferred not to rule", which
leaves the door open for them to rule any way they want in the future.
In fact, they =deliberately= left the door open by not making a ruling
that would be seen as outrageously silly, or being forced to make the
opposite ruling and be held to it as precedent. Therefore I conclude
that the FAA =will= look at logging time as compensation whenever it
thinks it can get away with it.

However, I don’t think there’s a single NTSB case where logging time alone was compensatory in your own airplane.

What about renters and flying club members? The observation above is of
little comfort.

Conceptually, the idea of a pax providing an opportunity to spend your own money and calling it compensatory as to the mere opportunity I think is absurd.

I agree, which is why I think the FAA has it =so= wrong.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

TxSrv wrote in
:

Jose wrote:
The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an
assumption that logged time is of any value.

Where? I'd like to see the case.


It was in the ruling issued to the warbird museum guys. The
issue was whether the motel bill paid for any private pilot who
ferries the warbirds to air shows is compensation. Yes it is, but
conceptually silly here. Like, “I’m not flying that B-17 unless
you pay for my motel!” The ruling also said, “We prefer not to
rule” on whether logging time is of any value, but not a problem,
it said, if you don’t log the time. Just about anyone would want
to log warbird time, so they left open the question were the
pilot to pay for the motel but log the time.

However, I don’t think there’s a single NTSB case where logging
time alone was compensatory in your own airplane. Conceptually,
the idea of a pax providing an opportunity to spend your own
money and calling it compensatory as to the mere opportunity I
think is absurd.

Fred F.

Absurd or not, that is the FAA's interpretation. The FAA gets to
decide how its rules are interpreted. There was one case, written up
several years ago in AOPA Pilot IIRC where the FAA changed their
interpretation of the regulations in the middle of an NTSB hearing. The
pilot lost under this new interpretation and appealed. The courts ruled
that the FAA could do this and the penalty would apply.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"Bart" wrote in message
oups.com...
Wade Hasbrouck wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote
If you have understanding passengers, fine. If they are going to a
wedding or job interview, though, this is a serious problem.

Again you are inferring that the Private Pilot can ignore FAR Part 91 and
FAR 61.113 when they want to help out friends. If a friend comes to me
and
says "I have a wedding or job interview to go to, could you fly me
there?",
this would most likely be considered a violation of 61.113, and would be
illegal for a Private Pilot to do.

That's absurd. Someone asking to be flown somewhere is in no way a
violation of the FARs. If it were, most GA pilots would be in violation
almost every time they fly.

Bart,

Who said the FAA rules aren't absurd?

A passenger cannot initiate a flight, that's the ruling, whether you or I
like it or not.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
As long as the pilot pays for the entire cost of operating the aircraft
(ie - no pro rata sharing of expenses), it is legal.

Logging flight time is considered compensation on flights where there
is sharing of expenses. The added "compensation" to the pilot (beyond
the sharing of expenses) of being able to log flight time violates the
pro rata.



No! There must be "commonality."

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

"TxSrv" wrote in message
. ..

The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an assumption that logged
time is of any value. I have my IR and am too old (drawing Social
Security) for an ATP to be worth anything. How is my logged time in my
plane compensatory?

Fred F.

The rulings don't have to make common sense. You must have commonality,"
which means you can't fly someone around for their convenience. That's 135.

Karl
"Curaor" N185KG

Marty Shapiro wrote:
...
Absurd or not, that is the FAA's interpretation.
...

Help me find one FAA or NTSB document which says that, though.
I'm talking my airplane; I pay for fuel. Say a pilot/friend's
plane is at a nearby airport after maintenance was done. He asks
for a ride there to retrieve it, and no pmt for fuel, as two
months ago he did the same favor for me. How can FAA argue that
mere logging of time is a violation for both of us on this mutual
pair of flights? It's irrational.

The other hurdle they have is arguing the logged time is of any
benefit to me. How many people do we know, upon reaching 1500
hours in their retirement years, get an ATP for the heck of it?
In a 172-class airplane. That's the only advanced rating
requiring total hours I can get now.

Sillier yet would be where Dad owns a plane and asks me to fly it
now and then to keep it active. No pax; no problem. But if one
day I give a friend a ride, the logging of time magically becomes
compensation. That makes no sense.

Fred F.

karl gruber wrote:
...
The rulings don't have to make common sense. You must have commonality,"
which means you can't fly someone around for their convenience. That's 135.

IOW, if I log the time in my own plane, it's 135. If not logged,
it's permissible. FAA's legal opinions on 135 are on their web
site, and I don't think there's one which would stretch a favor
for a friend that far. They often decide a 135 issue based upon
the expectations of the passenger. So, if I fly a pilot/friend to
another field to retrieve his airplane, for no payment (cost
sharing prohibited if no common purpose), that pilot/friend is
under no delusion I'm an air taxi operator. And one who flies
charter for free. I make it up in volume. :-)

Fred F.

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Judah writes:

A VFR Flight plan doesn't do more to improve your visibility with ACT
except to inlude a name, contact phone number, and aircraft color.

That's an improvement, especially if they are trying to figure out
what happened to you, or if they are looking for your crash site.

You gonna answer the phone from your crash site?

"Wade Hasbrouck" wrote in
news:LNydnZoqtMjE0tnYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@cablespeedwa .com:

If you are "committing to friends and family to transport them", and
that is the only reason for the flight, you are now an "air taxi". Just
because I have a Private Pilot Certificate doesn't mean I can be a "taxi
service" for my friends and family and transport them around where ever
they want to go when they want to go.

So what you are saying is that if I give my sister a ride to LGA so she can
catch a commercial flight, I am considered a Taxi even if I don't ask for
compensation? Will the government require me to have a Hack License and a
Medallion?

Does that mean I can use the Taxi lanes instead of the Passenger Pick Up/Drop
off lanes?

Marty Shapiro wrote:
Inspector's for at least 2 FSDO's that I'm aware of say otherwise.
They were very clear in different Wings safety seminars that providing air
transportation for a friend is NOT permitted for a private pilot. One even
stated that the FAA added the definition of logging time as compensation
for this exact case, where the pilot does not charge at all. They
empasized that unless you were going to make the trip regardless of whether
or not your friend was going along, you would be violating the FARs.

Ok - well maybe I'm wrong. I read an article in AOPA awhile back that
was on the legalities of this very subject that said it illegal *if*
there are shared expenses.

Can anyone point to any official statements or rulings by the FAA?