Club Management Issue

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
I do. We draw similar lines with vehicles. I can't run a
taxi service or drive 18 wheelers for delivery of product.
I can run to the store to get a part for a friend. Similar
rules could (and should) be set that allow the use of a
plane to be more like the use of a car. We can have such
rules without risking public safety.

IMHO, the way the rules work for motor vehicles is a good argument for
having the rules interpreted the way the FAA is doing now. There are plenty
of people who stretch the concept of what's commercial and what's not,
engaging in commercial operations in motor vehicles without a proper
license. This is exactly the kind of stretching that would happen in
aviation if the FAA didn't take such a hard-nosed stance.

I'd love to think that pilots are a unique group and above that sort of
thing, but history says otherwise. Aviation has just as many scofflaws and
pretenders as exist in the general population, and those folks will take the
whole mile, given the inch. The FAA is well within their rights to not give
the inch.

As far as the claim that "rules could be set that allow the use of a plane
to be more like the use of a car", you won't get anywhere convincing me
that's true. It's my opinion that motor vehicles ought to be regulated MUCH
more strictly, and more like aviation is now. Especially with respect to
driver certification and the kind of training drivers are required to have
for various kinds of driving, as well as actually enforcing the laws we
already have and which drivers flagrantly ignore.

Finally, with respect to your example, note that while you can run to the
store to get a part for a friend, you are not allowed to charge your friend
for that service. So, the example you're providing doesn't appear to me to
offer any difference than what the situation is in aviation.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

some snippage

Finally, with respect to your example, note that while you can run to
the store to get a part for a friend, you are not allowed to charge
your friend for that service. So, the example you're providing
doesn't appear to me to offer any difference than what the situation
is in aviation.

Pete


Yes, but there is nothing wrong with your friend paying for your gas
used, absolutley nothing (not saying that's the way the regs read, but
that they SHOULD read that way). That's were the aviation laws need to
be modified. I agree if you start making interpretations about maint
reserves, etc. then you have a problem since it would be very easy to
manipulate the numbers without some definate standard. But I should be
able to use my time and my plane to help and/or transport my friend
without actually having to take out my own wallet at the gas pump.

Heck, by strict interpretation of some of these "common law" decisions
Angel Flight should have to be conducted under 135 too. If I get a "good
feeling" or possibly "enhanced standing in the eyes of my fellow pilots"
by flying an Angel Flight, then that's compensation and I better have
complied with 135 right????? For that matter, arent I able to deduct the
costs of the flight on my taxes?? there's compensation too... where does
it stop?

--
ET
(from the perspective of a future Student Pilot)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

"ET" wrote in message
...
[...] But I should be
able to use my time and my plane to help and/or transport my friend
without actually having to take out my own wallet at the gas pump.

If it were certain that all pilots would adhere strictly to that sort of
reimbursement, there would be no problem. But pilots are just like other
people too, and there are always going to be the bad apples that refuse to
obey the spirit of the law (and sometimes the letter of the law).

The problem is that as soon as you allow some kinds of compensation for
favors, where there was no common purpose, and in fact in some cases, the
paying party didn't even participate in the flight, the line between "legal"
and "not legal" becomes very fuzzy. The extremes are easy to identify, but
there's always going to be someone who wants to push the limits of the law,
and engage in what is essentially a commercial operation, while calling it a
"reimbursed favor for a friend".

When you solve this basic problem with human nature, then perhaps you can
move on to getting the letter and interpretation of the FARs changed. Until
then, this is how it has to be, in order to ensure that no pilot ever gets
into a situation where they have a reasonable reason to believe that they
are not acting as a commercial operation, even if they are.

Heck, by strict interpretation of some of these "common law" decisions
Angel Flight should have to be conducted under 135 too.

Since there is an explicit exception for these kinds of operations, they
don't. However, until that exception was written, charitable airlifts WERE
definitely a concern with respect to their legality.

If I get a "good
feeling" or possibly "enhanced standing in the eyes of my fellow pilots"
by flying an Angel Flight, then that's compensation and I better have
complied with 135 right?????

As far as the FAA is concerned, only tangible compensation matters.
"Tangible" includes things we might consider "intangible" by strict
definition, such as logging time without paying for it, but it certainly
does not include psychological effects.

For that matter, arent I able to deduct the
costs of the flight on my taxes?? there's compensation too...

Interesting you should mention that. Deductions have in fact been a grey
area in the past. I'm not sure if the FAA has finally resolved that. But
note that the financial gain due to a deduction is typically only going to
be a small fraction of the total cost of the flight.

Pete

In article , "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

When you solve this basic problem with human nature, then perhaps you can
move on to getting the letter and interpretation of the FARs changed.
Until
then, this is how it has to be, in order to ensure that no pilot ever
gets
into a situation where they have a reasonable reason to believe that they
are not acting as a commercial operation, even if they are.

These interpretations/rulings/case law don't ensure any such thing.

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
These interpretations/rulings/case law don't ensure any such thing.

Of course they do. Pilots may act against them, but those pilots had no
reasonable reason to believe that they were doing so legally.

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Aviation has just as many scofflaws and
pretenders as exist in the general population, and those folks will take the
whole mile, given the inch. The FAA is well within their rights to not give
the inch.

We just disagree. There is no reason I can see to prevent
"compensation" in the form of logging time and reimbursement
of legitimate expenses. I would simply prohibit "holding
out" and "profit" to ensure that commercial activities were
not being engaged in.

As far as the claim that "rules could be set that allow the use of a plane
to be more like the use of a car", you won't get anywhere convincing me
that's true. It's my opinion that motor vehicles ought to be regulated MUCH
more strictly, and more like aviation is now. Especially with respect to
driver certification and the kind of training drivers are required to have
for various kinds of driving, as well as actually enforcing the laws we
already have and which drivers flagrantly ignore.

I've got no comment on changing automotive licensing, but I
don't see the advantage of prohibiting activities in an
airplane that are legal in a car.

Finally, with respect to your example, note that while you can run to the
store to get a part for a friend, you are not allowed to charge your friend
for that service.

But he can legally reimburse you 100%.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Aviation has just as many scofflaws and
pretenders as exist in the general population, and those folks will take
the
whole mile, given the inch. The FAA is well within their rights to not
give
the inch.

We just disagree. There is no reason I can see to prevent
"compensation" in the form of logging time and reimbursement
of legitimate expenses. I would simply prohibit "holding
out" and "profit" to ensure that commercial activities were
not being engaged in.

The point of all the additional 'commercial' regulation is to
reduce the risk for the general public - people who may not
know, and have no real way of assessing the risk themselves.

In this case, we have "Mark" flying an A&P and a couple of
pilots on a repair mission. All know the risks they are running,
such as they are. I say good luck to "Mark". He can even make
a profit so far as I care. In this case, the FAA regulations have
missed their 'safety' rationale & merely function as a protectionist
device for the benefit of air taxi operators.

Of course, rewriting the regulations to permit this while protecting
the public using real air taxi services is the challenge.

"Tony Cox" wrote:

The point of all the additional 'commercial' regulation is to
reduce the risk for the general public - people who may not
know, and have no real way of assessing the risk themselves.

Agreed, and it's a valid regulatory purpose that I support.

In this case, we have "Mark" flying an A&P and a couple of
pilots on a repair mission. All know the risks they are running,
such as they are. I say good luck to "Mark". He can even make
a profit so far as I care. In this case, the FAA regulations have
missed their 'safety' rationale & merely function as a protectionist
device for the benefit of air taxi operators.

Of course, rewriting the regulations to permit this while protecting
the public using real air taxi services is the challenge.

I think you can do this pretty well by prohibiting "holding
out" and any payments beyond reimbursement. An air taxi
operation can't operate under those restrictions.
Reimbursement of direct expenses seems reasonable to me and
isn't commercial activity.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
"Tony Cox" wrote:

Of course, rewriting the regulations to permit this while protecting
the public using real air taxi services is the challenge.

I think you can do this pretty well by prohibiting "holding
out" and any payments beyond reimbursement. An air taxi
operation can't operate under those restrictions.

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.

"Holding out" is vague and open to abuse. Regulating any
payments that may be made is a protectionist issue, not a
safety one.

"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.

"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.

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 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.



Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.