![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!! | Eliot Coweye | Home Built | 237 | February 13th 06 03:55 AM |
Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 12:56 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | May 1st 04 07:29 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 2 | February 2nd 04 11:41 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |