![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
... "Tony Cox" wrote: How about a rider saying that if all passengers hold FAA certificates, the flight can be conducted under part 91 regardless of any other circumstances? It'd be hard to make a living flying other pilots around, skinflints that they are. This deals with the "is the passenger aware of risk" issue, but that's not the only issue around. Says you. Says I, "it's the only reasonable justification for commercial flight regulation". "Holding out" is vague and open to abuse. And "all available information" (91.103 Preflight action.) and "careless or reckless" (91.13) are not? I agree some times these are tough calls, but this is a sign of commercial activity. I always think of people 'holding out' as advertising. I say it's too vague because it doesn't seem to cover on-the-side word of mouth sort of activity. Regulating any payments that may be made is a protectionist issue, not a safety one. No, it's a commercial vs. non-commercial issue. I think you're too hung up on 'commercial' part. The only issue that *should* matter is whether unsuspecting members of the public who just want to get somewhere are not exposed to excessive risk. This is the rational behind pt 135 operation, or at least it should be. People 'in the know' -- those who have completed pilot training or who have been around aircraft as mechanics -- are well aware of the risks. If you don't accept this, then we might as well dispense with the private/commercial certificate distinction completely. Just because "Mark" wants $100 or even $5000 has no effect on the risks that his passengers take - risks which they are aware of in any case. That's why I say it's not a safety issue -- unlike the general air taxi case where this is clearly an incentive to recruit 'unknowledgeable' passengers who (arguably) ought to have their risks 'bounded' more tightly by regulation. Now my libertarian leanings say that perhaps we should allow anyone to fly anywhere with a private pilot, as long as they sign a waiver first. This, I suppose, could be argued in a different thread. But this is _not_ what I'm arguing here. These 'customers' know the risks, and if it wasn't for the fact that their damn plane had broken down they'd be taking those risks themselves. So the money is irrelevant because it has no effect whatsoever on risk, perceived or actual. I think the private pilot rules should do two things: 1) The passengers should understand the risk. 2) the pilot should not be engaged in a commercial business, so he shouldn't attempt to draw in "customers" and he shouldn't be allowed to profit. What are you, as socialist? What do you care if he makes a buck? His 'customers' know the risks - they fly as (at least) private pilots all the time (I don't know an A&P who isn't now or hasn't ever been a pilot). He's not attempting to 'draw in' the general public, and any 'profit' he makes is none of your business. Unless, of course, you're running an air taxi business which thinks it is loosing out. But as I said before, that is a _protectionist_ issue which shouldn't have anything to do with the FAA. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | June 12th 04 03:03 AM |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | General Aviation | 0 | June 12th 04 02:14 AM |
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post | MrHabilis | Home Built | 0 | June 11th 04 05:07 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: Bush Backs Down On Tower Privatization Issue!!! | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 3 | October 1st 03 05:39 AM |
September issue of Afterburner now on line | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 9th 03 09:13 PM |