Club Management Issue

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...

"Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.

Why? If the $175 does not include his pro-rata share, he's legal isn't he?

John T wrote:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...

"Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.

Why? If the $175 does not include his pro-rata share, he's legal isn't he?

IMHO it is a grey area because "Mark" didn't already have plans to go to the
airport where the 182 was down, therefore there is a presumption that the
flight is being made for some type of compensation. In fact, Geoffrey
refferred to it as "cashed in some favors". Therefore, one could make the
argument that "Mark" was offering a charter flight service (albeit probably not
a profitable one). There's little evidence that the FAA would come after
"Mark" if this is a rare occurrence, but the possibility of an
accident/incident and subsequent FAA enforcement action and potential denial of
insurance coverage does cause *some* people to hesitate.

But then Mike Rapoport is assuming that "Mark" doesn't already have a Pt135
certificate...

Russell Kent

"Russell Kent" wrote in message


IMHO it is a grey area because "Mark" didn't already have plans to go
to the airport where the 182 was down, therefore there is a
presumption that the flight is being made for some type of
compensation. In fact, Geoffrey refferred to it as "cashed in some
favors". Therefore, one could make the argument that "Mark" was
offering a charter flight service (albeit probably not a profitable
one).

It may be gray, but I'm sure the FAA isn't suggesting that Part 91 pilots
can't do favors for each other by denying them a flight to retrieve a
stranded plane.

Sure, the FAA reserves to right to interpret their rules as they see fit at
the time of interpretation, but as long as "Mark" paid his pro-rata share of
the flight cost, I think this would still fall under Part 91.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Russell Kent" wrote in message


IMHO it is a grey area because "Mark" didn't already have plans to go
to the airport where the 182 was down, therefore there is a
presumption that the flight is being made for some type of
compensation. In fact, Geoffrey refferred to it as "cashed in some
favors". Therefore, one could make the argument that "Mark" was
offering a charter flight service (albeit probably not a profitable
one).

It may be gray, but I'm sure the FAA isn't suggesting that Part 91 pilots
can't do favors for each other by denying them a flight to retrieve a
stranded plane.


You are not doing "favors" when you charge for it (even if it is
unprofitable)

Sure, the FAA reserves to right to interpret their rules as they see fit
at
the time of interpretation, but as long as "Mark" paid his pro-rata share
of
the flight cost, I think this would still fall under Part 91.


This flight absolutely does not fall under Part 91.

Mike
MU-2

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...

Sure, the FAA reserves to right to interpret their rules as they see fit
at
the time of interpretation, but as long as "Mark" paid his pro-rata share
of
the flight cost, I think this would still fall under Part 91.

If he is deemed to be "holding out" to the public in return for partial fuel
reimbursement, then this would clearly be in violation of Part 135.

Let's look at it this way. Suppose you put a sign at your local airport
saying "Discount airplane rides -- pay only half the cost of gas". By your
reasoning this would be legal; by precedent this would be unequivocally
illegal.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

No "commonality of purpose". Mark was not goint to fly to the destination
until the mechanic told him that there was a plane stranded there.

Mike
MU-2

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...

"Mark" should get a 135 certificate before he gets in trouble.

Why? If the $175 does not include his pro-rata share, he's legal isn't
he?

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net

No "commonality of purpose". Mark was not goint to fly to the
destination until the mechanic told him that there was a plane
stranded there.

OK, let me change the scenario slightly. Let's say Mark and I are airport
neighbors and I need a ride to Little Airport to pick up my plane that's in
for service. You're saying Mark can't offer or accept a request from me to
take me to Little Airport unless he were specifically going to that airport?

In the scenario posed by the OP, let's assume for the moment that Mark
didn't charge anything for the flight and did it out of neighborly concern.
Is he still in violation of Part 91?

I understand your "commonality clause" argument, but it seems you're taking
it's interpretation to an extreme. I find it difficult to believe that even
the FAA would say pilots can't offer to help other pilots in need of
transportation to/from stranded planes.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
[...] You're saying Mark can't offer or accept a request from me to
take me to Little Airport unless he were specifically going to that
airport?

No, he's not saying that.

I understand your "commonality clause" argument, but it seems you're
taking
it's interpretation to an extreme. I find it difficult to believe that
even
the FAA would say pilots can't offer to help other pilots in need of
transportation to/from stranded planes.

No problem, because they don't say that.

The problem is when Mark receives ANY money for the flight. Even pro-rata
sharing is not allowed if there was no "commonality of purpose".

If Mark pays for the flight himself, he's allowed to volunteer his time and
money however he likes.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message


The problem is when Mark receives ANY money for the flight. Even
pro-rata sharing is not allowed if there was no "commonality of
purpose".


That's not the way I read the regulation (61.113(a) and (c)). That section
says only that Mark must pay no less than his pro rata share of fuel, oil,
airport and rental costs. Where else should I be looking? Is there a legal
counsel ruling on this subject I should read?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
That's not the way I read the regulation (61.113(a) and (c)). That
section
says only that Mark must pay no less than his pro rata share of fuel, oil,
airport and rental costs.

The regulation you're looking at applies only to exceptions in which a
private pilot may operate for hire.

If Mark doesn't take any money, he's not operating for hire, and 61.113
doesn't apply.

Pete