Club Management Issue

"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.