![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in news:fhf54d$67b$1
@xen1.xcski.com: In a previous article, Helen said: Here's a good write-up on the subject. Note in the case listed, it wasn't even logged flight hours that the FAA cited as "compensation," but simply "good will." http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...04/pc0403.html But that's carrying passengers. I'm not going to be carrying passengers. IO still think you're OK. There's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The law requiring you to have a commercial licence to fly for dough is to further public safety. IOW someone paying for flying has a right to a certain standards otherwise we'd have a bunch of Anthonys flying airliners. Your operation would not endanger the public anymore than if you were fling your own or a rented airplane from a to b. Having said that, some FAA types are natural born policemen and can't see past the nose on their faces. Most can, though. Bertie |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recently, Steven P. McNicoll posted:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ... If the club didn't have to pay for a pilot for services rendered that they received payment, then the club had a net profit from the pilot's contribution. Not necessarily. They could also have a net loss or they could break even. I wasn't referring to their year-end financial report. At any rate, I suspect that most laws and rules are written at a certain level of naiveté and it is the unintended consequences that lead to such ambiguities as those we're discussing. A service that you get for free that you would otherwise have to pay for is recorded in the credits column, and just that could qualify the service as a commercial transaction. If that service is of sufficient value, it *will* be of interest to the IRS and thus the FAA and so forth, regardless of the year-end financial picture. Bottom line as I see it is that unless someone has a bug up their posterior, this ferry flight is unlikely to become an issue for anyone unless the club picks up the cost of the trip. Neil |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The FAA can consider the logging of "free flight time" as compensation.
Helen Maxwell wrote: "Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ... Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were flying it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the buyer. A CFI in the club said I can't, because it's a commercial operation, even though I'm not getting paid. Is he right? If your club is not specifically charging the new owner to deliver the aircraft, and you are not receiving compensation for delivering it, you are good to go. I have never heard of a case where accruing hours during a flight was considered compensation. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Helen" wrote in message
news:PmG_i.9313$Vp3.521@trnddc05... The FAA can consider the logging of "free flight time" as compensation. What if you don't log the time? My humble opinion: #1) The FAA will never know #2) If they somehow find out, they will need to decide if it they feel it's a violation. #3) If they decide it's a violation, they have to decide to punish you. If nothing happens, I feel then chances of #1 are pretty small. Even if #1 occurs, what is the likelyhood of #2 and #3 happening? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Helen" wrote in message news:PmG_i.9313$Vp3.521@trnddc05... The FAA can consider the logging of "free flight time" as compensation. Can you reference case that they actually have? |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2007-11-13 16:01:14 -0800, (Paul Tomblin) said:
Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were flying it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the buyer. A CFI in the club said I can't, because it's a commercial operation, even though I'm not getting paid. Is he right? It is not clear. After all, you are not carrying passengers or cargo 'for hire.' Neither are you getting paid, beyond the possible exception of the value of the flight time. Aircraft salesmen are allowed to demonstrate the airplane to customers. Presumably they are also flying the plane to the city where the aircraft will be demoed. §Â*61.113Â*Â*Â*Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. (b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. (c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees. (d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event flight described in §91.146, if the sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of §91.146. (e) A private pilot may be reimbursed for aircraft operating expenses that are directly related to search and location operations, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees, and the operation is sanctioned and under the direction and control of: (1) A local, State, or Federal agency; or (2) An organization that conducts search and location operations. (f) A private pilot who is an aircraft salesman and who has at least 200 hours of logged flight time may demonstrate an aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer. (g) A private pilot who meets the requirements of §61.69 may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle. Furthermore, your club can charge any price that it wants for 'renting' the aircraft to you, including nothing at all or even paying for your fuel. §Â*61.133Â*Â*Â*Commercial pilot privileges and limitations. (a) Privileges —(1) General. A person who holds a commercial pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft— (i) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation; and (ii) For compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation. It is quite clear that any commercial pilot may ferry the aircraft for compensation or hire if it is not carrying passengers or property. This is not a part 135 or commercial airline operation, after all. So, you could, if you were a commercial pilot, charge anything you like for the flight and maybe even do some commercial aerial photography along the way. Part 119 governs whether a flight is covered by the flight rules for commercial airlines. Note particularly 119.1(e)(3): §Â*119.1Â*Â*Â*Applicability. ... (e) Except for operations when common carriage is not involved conducted with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats or more, excluding any required crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, this part does not apply to— (1) Student instruction; (2) Nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted after September 11, 2007, in an airplane or helicopter having a standard airworthiness certificate and passenger-seat configuration of 30 seats or fewer and a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less that begin and end at the same airport, and are conducted within a 25-statute mile radius of that airport, in compliance with the Letter of Authorization issued under §91.147 of this chapter. For nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted in accordance with part 136, subpart B of this chapter, National Parks Air Tour Management, the requirements of part 119 of this chapter apply unless excepted in §136.37(g)(2). For Nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, the requirements of SFAR 50–2, part 93, subpart U, and part 119 of this chapter, as applicable, apply. (3) Ferry or training flights; (4) Aerial work operations, including— (i) Crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and bird chasing; (ii) Banner towing; (iii) Aerial photography or survey; (iv) Fire fighting; (v) Helicopter operations in construction or repair work (but it does apply to transportation to and from the site of operations); and (vi) Powerline or pipeline patrol; (5) Sightseeing flights conducted in hot air balloons; (6) Nonstop flights conducted within a 25-statute-mile radius of the airport of takeoff carrying persons or objects for the purpose of conducting intentional parachute operations. (7) Helicopter flights conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of the airport of takeoff if— (i) Not more than two passengers are carried in the helicopter in addition to the required flightcrew; (ii) Each flight is made under day VFR conditions; (iii) The helicopter used is certificated in the standard category and complies with the 100-hour inspection requirements of part 91 of this chapter; (iv) The operator notifies the FAA Flight Standards District Office responsible for the geographic area concerned at least 72 hours before each flight and furnishes any essential information that the office requests; (v) The number of flights does not exceed a total of six in any calendar year; (vi) Each flight has been approved by the Administrator; and (vii) Cargo is not carried in or on the helicopter; (8) Operations conducted under part 133 of this chapter or 375 of this title; (9) Emergency mail service conducted under 49 U.S.C. 41906; or (10) Operations conducted under the provisions of §91.321 of this chapter. Ferry flights are a specific exception to the rules for common carriers, so a commercial pilot could ferry your Lance for compensation or hire without meeting the requirements for common carriers. The question is, could you, as a private pilot, ferry the plane? I can just about guarantee that the CFI who claims that it is a commercial operation will report it to the FAA as such. He probably wants the job and will be offended by your flying it for free. Never mind whether he is actually competent to fly the Lance, you understand, it is just that he thinks he should do the job and get paid for it. Or he might simply be an incompetent CFI who has a poor understanding of the FARs and he thinks you need to be part 135 to fly ferry flights. Whatever. This guy is Trouble with a capital T. It is entirely up to you whether you want to deal with it or not. Best way to head off such trouble is to simply call the FSDO in advance and get their take on it. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2007-11-13 19:25:30 -0800, buttman said:
On Nov 13, 5:53 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: Something like ten years ago, maybe more, there was a case that involved a skydiving club. One of the members was also a private pilot and volunteered to fly the jump plane. He thought it a great way to build free time towards his commercial. Since he was using the time towards another rating it was deemed to be compensation since he'd otherwise have to pay for it and the flights were a commercial operation. http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf this case? If so, in that case, the pilot was in the wrong because he was flying passengers who had paid to be there. He was, but (just to be clear about this) it is not because he was violating the rules for common carriage. See part 119.1: §Â*119.1Â*Â*Â*Applicability. ... (e) Except for operations when common carriage is not involved conducted with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats or more, excluding any required crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, this part does not apply to— ... (6) Nonstop flights conducted within a 25-statute-mile radius of the airport of takeoff carrying persons or objects for the purpose of conducting intentional parachute operations. So, it is not a question of whether he was carrying passengers as a common carrier. It is a question of whether he was piloting an aircraft and carrying passengers for compensation in violation of the privileges and limitations of a private pilot certificate. The FAA said being allowed to fly an aircraft for free was a form of compensation. The problem I really have with this ruling (and the reason I brought this subject up in the first place) was the Administrator's insistence that a private pilot sharing expenses with his passengers must have a 'common purpose' with them for the flight. This is clearly wrong. You almost get the impression that if the pilot had jumped out of the plane along with the skydivers that the FAA would have been okay with that, because then he would have shared enough 'common purpose' with the skydivers to meet the 'shared expenses' rule (provided he had paid his share of the expenses). Because he did not jump out of the plane, there was no 'common purpose' with the skydivers. This is bogus, as the FARs make no mention at all of the need for a 'common purpose' when sharing expenses. See part 61.113 -- no mention of 'common purpose' at all: §Â*61.113Â*Â*Â*Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. (b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. (c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees. I think it is clear that this was an obvious example of someone attempting to circumvent the FARs governing commercial flight. Unfortunately, this forced the FAA to adopt a position that adversely affects private pilots engaged in ordinary activity. All it takes is one guy to try to find a loophole, and the FAA will have to plug up the loophole with a plug that blocks hundreds or even thousands of pilots who are engaging in an activity that was formerly considered legitimate. The 'common purpose' test is clearly out of bounds and should only be used in cases of questions of common carriage. In this case, the skydiving operation was clearly 'holding out' without having to resort to any sort of 'common purpose' test. They were advertising in the Yellow Pages, after all, which is how the pilot found them. But, even though they were 'holding out,' they were still within the exception of part 119.1(e)(3), so the issue of 'common purpose' should never have come up at all. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2007-11-14 10:47:07 -0800, "Maxwell" said:
"Helen" wrote in message news:PmG_i.9313$Vp3.521@trnddc05... The FAA can consider the logging of "free flight time" as compensation. Can you reference case that they actually have? http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "C J Campbell" wrote in message news:2007111412152311272-christophercampbell@hotmailcom... On 2007-11-14 10:47:07 -0800, "Maxwell" said: "Helen" wrote in message news:PmG_i.9313$Vp3.521@trnddc05... The FAA can consider the logging of "free flight time" as compensation. Can you reference case that they actually have? http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf That order doesn't say that. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
C J Campbell wrote in
news:2007111412152311272-christophercampbell@hotmailcom: On 2007-11-14 10:47:07 -0800, "Maxwell" said: "Helen" wrote in message news:PmG_i.9313$Vp3.521@trnddc05... The FAA can consider the logging of "free flight time" as compensation. Can you reference case that they actually have? http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf That's not a ferry flight. That's carrying pax for hire. The parachutists paid to fly. So, both the letter and spirit of the law were clearly violated in this case. Any private pilot can carry his friend up and have him jump out of his airplane. the chutist can even kick in for gas... Bertie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Problems in a commercial flight | megaMAX | Piloting | 92 | March 23rd 07 09:45 AM |
Question on ferry flight for inspection | M | Owning | 11 | July 14th 05 08:20 PM |
Looping during a commercial flight | LordAvalon | Aerobatics | 10 | October 23rd 04 04:05 PM |
Nixon on Commercial Flight | Flyin'[email protected] | Piloting | 1 | June 16th 04 05:51 PM |
Dash 80 Ferry Flight | MLenoch | Military Aviation | 1 | October 30th 03 11:55 PM |