Common instruments on small aircraft

TxSrv wrote in
:

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.

Yes. But no one ever claimed that the regulations or, more
importantly, their interpretation by the FAA made sense. By regulation, if
you do not have a commonality of purpose, with a private pilot certificate
or less, you can not provide your friend this transportation, even if you
pay all the expenses. It may be irrational, but it's the regulation.


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.

There is no problem with you giving a friend a ride as long as their
is commonality of purpose to the trip. The problem arises when there is
no commonality of purpose. And the NTSB ALJs are very strict on this.
Take the example of giving a friend a ride to a wedding. If you are going
to the same wedding, no problem. Let's say you are going to the same
destination, but not to the wedding and give your friend a ride. You have
no commonality of purpose. See Administrator v. Carter, Order EA-3730,
Docket SE12735, NTSB Decisions (1992).
Fred F.


Nobody ever said it made sense.

That's the regulations and, more importantly, the FAA interpretation
of their regulations.

Just like the regulations regarding Sport Pilot and medicals. Two
pilots develop the exact same medical condition which would result in the
failure of a class III medical but does not prevent them from keeping a
driver license. First pilot just lets his medical expire. The second
takes and fails a medical. The first pilot can continue to fly as a Sport
Pilot, the second can't. Makes no sense, but that's the regulation.

Google "NTSB compensation private pilot". Look at the Alameda Aero
Club Newsletter, Traps For The Unwary, and The FAA's Charitable
Contribution to Charities.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)