Club Management Issue

"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.

"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.

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.

I would agree that protectionism is a big part of it. And I would also
agree that the "unsuspecting public" plays a lesser role. But I also wonder
whether the rule also exists to prevent putting non-commercial pilots in
positions where they face a difficult decision.

For example, I fly my boss and I to a meeting in a distant city. Let's say
that I accept no money for this whatsoever, but that my boss is mighty
impressed that I can get him there and back without the hassles of dealing
with the airlines these days. Now I'm looking good compared to all the
other cubicle dwellers, and it looks like I got real a leg up on them when
the next office comes available, right?

But after the meeting, the weather closes in. My boss makes it clear that
he really needs to get back in time for his daughter's piano recital at 6:00
PM. I know my personal limits, and if it were just me in the plane, there
is no way that I would fly in that weather. But I also don't want to look
bad in front of the boss, don't want him holding me responsible for his
missing the recital, and don't want to lose the advantage and good will that
I just earned that morning.

Sure, we are all pilots here and we know what the right answer is in this
situation. My boss is not a pilot, though, and will not be so
understanding. Even with nothing but good will at stake, there is this
additional weight in the decision-making process that a private pilot would
probably be better off without. I suspect that's another reason why this
rule is in place.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
ink.net...
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.

I would agree that protectionism is a big part of it. And I would also
agree that the "unsuspecting public" plays a lesser role. But I also
wonder
whether the rule also exists to prevent putting non-commercial pilots in
positions where they face a difficult decision.

For example, I fly my boss and I to a meeting in a distant city. Let's
say
that I accept no money for this whatsoever, but that my boss is mighty
impressed that I can get him there and back without the hassles of dealing
with the airlines these days. Now I'm looking good compared to all the
other cubicle dwellers, and it looks like I got real a leg up on them when
the next office comes available, right?

But after the meeting, the weather closes in. My boss makes it clear that
he really needs to get back in time for his daughter's piano recital at
6:00
PM. I know my personal limits, and if it were just me in the plane, there
is no way that I would fly in that weather. But I also don't want to look
bad in front of the boss, don't want him holding me responsible for his
missing the recital, and don't want to lose the advantage and good will
that
I just earned that morning.

Sure, we are all pilots here and we know what the right answer is in this
situation. My boss is not a pilot, though, and will not be so
understanding. Even with nothing but good will at stake, there is this
additional weight in the decision-making process that a private pilot
would
probably be better off without. I suspect that's another reason why this
rule is in place.


Except that the situation you've just described is in fact now
completely legal. You can even be more relaxed and get reimbursed
for flying yourself and your boss. Part 135 rules don't apply.

The difference is that in your situation you were going to the same
meeting, so there is a common purpose. In "Mark"'s case, he'd never
have gone to the airfield without being asked to help out.

Risk wise, I agree with you. Your situation is far riskier than for Mark.
Which only goes to show that the current rules about commercial operation
don't properly address 'risk' nor 'implied consent', which in my opinion
are the only reasons for having them in the first place.

A private pilot has at least 40hrs of experience and has passed a minimal
checkride. The FAA does not want pilots with these minimal qualifications
flying the public around. Part 91 maitenance standards are minimal too.
The FAA does not want the paying public flying around in these aircraft.

Mike
MU-2


"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
ink.net...
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.

I would agree that protectionism is a big part of it. And I would also
agree that the "unsuspecting public" plays a lesser role. But I also
wonder
whether the rule also exists to prevent putting non-commercial pilots in
positions where they face a difficult decision.

For example, I fly my boss and I to a meeting in a distant city. Let's
say
that I accept no money for this whatsoever, but that my boss is mighty
impressed that I can get him there and back without the hassles of dealing
with the airlines these days. Now I'm looking good compared to all the
other cubicle dwellers, and it looks like I got real a leg up on them when
the next office comes available, right?

But after the meeting, the weather closes in. My boss makes it clear that
he really needs to get back in time for his daughter's piano recital at
6:00
PM. I know my personal limits, and if it were just me in the plane, there
is no way that I would fly in that weather. But I also don't want to look
bad in front of the boss, don't want him holding me responsible for his
missing the recital, and don't want to lose the advantage and good will
that
I just earned that morning.

Sure, we are all pilots here and we know what the right answer is in this
situation. My boss is not a pilot, though, and will not be so
understanding. Even with nothing but good will at stake, there is this
additional weight in the decision-making process that a private pilot
would
probably be better off without. I suspect that's another reason why this
rule is in place.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 3/16/2004

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
A private pilot has at least 40hrs of experience and has passed a minimal
checkride. The FAA does not want pilots with these minimal qualifications
flying the public around. Part 91 maitenance standards are minimal too.
The FAA does not want the paying public flying around in these aircraft.



This is a hypothetical discussion, so what the FAA does or
doesn't want really isn't the issue. My point is that the
requirements for pilot qualification and maintenance should
be based on risk and the perception thereof by the participants,
and not upon other factors.

This is correlated with, but certainly not exclusively based upon,
whether the operation is considered 'commercial' or not. In fact,
the existing FARs already make exception for 'commercial' operations
which occur with (presumably) informed consent of the participants
- flight instruction, which doesn't need to be pt. 135.

It seems quite reasonable to me that "Mark", flying a pilot and A&P
out to a help a stricken plane ought not be hampered by the FARs
either. If he wants to charge money, so be it. I'd not attempt to
regulate his reimbursement any more than I'd try to tell a CFI what
to charge. It seems that too many people accept that 'commercial
intent' should be the deciding factor, but don't really appreciate
that what the rules should be doing (and what they for the most
part do) is arbitrate risk.

--
Dr. Tony Cox
Citrus Controls Inc.
e-mail:
http://CitrusControls.com/



"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
ink.net...

{tc says}
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.

"Tony Cox" wrote:

This is a hypothetical discussion, so what the FAA does or
doesn't want really isn't the issue. My point is that the
requirements for pilot qualification and maintenance should
be based on risk and the perception thereof by the participants,
and not upon other factors.

I generally agree, but you're arguing for an all or nothing
approach. If a private pilot can pay for the flight and
take his grandma sight seeing, why not others who pay him?
You have to look not only at risk per flight/passsenger, but
also at the total effect of your rule. If it's all or
nothing, either you let the private pilot fly only solo or
you let him fly commercially and impose the higher risk on
larger numbers of passengers. It's reasonable to restrict
the totals as we do now by some limit. I just think the
limit is currently more restrictive than is justified.

This is correlated with, but certainly not exclusively based upon,
whether the operation is considered 'commercial' or not. In fact,
the existing FARs already make exception for 'commercial' operations
which occur with (presumably) informed consent of the participants
- flight instruction, which doesn't need to be pt. 135.

It seems quite reasonable to me that "Mark", flying a pilot and A&P
out to a help a stricken plane ought not be hampered by the FARs
either. If he wants to charge money, so be it. I'd not attempt to
regulate his reimbursement any more than I'd try to tell a CFI what
to charge. It seems that too many people accept that 'commercial
intent' should be the deciding factor, but don't really appreciate
that what the rules should be doing (and what they for the most
part do) is arbitrate risk.

They control risk in two ways. One is by requiring certain
training levels. The other is by limiting the number of
operations by prohibiting certain commercial activities that
would result in large numbers of operations. The problem
IMHO is that too many non-comercial activities are
prohibited.

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

I agree. My point was only that the FAA does not seem to consider private
pilots and part 91 aircraft to be competent/safe enough for the general
public. The regulations were written to reflect this.

Mike
MU-2


"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
A private pilot has at least 40hrs of experience and has passed a
minimal
checkride. The FAA does not want pilots with these minimal
qualifications
flying the public around. Part 91 maitenance standards are minimal too.
The FAA does not want the paying public flying around in these aircraft.



This is a hypothetical discussion, so what the FAA does or
doesn't want really isn't the issue. My point is that the
requirements for pilot qualification and maintenance should
be based on risk and the perception thereof by the participants,
and not upon other factors.

This is correlated with, but certainly not exclusively based upon,
whether the operation is considered 'commercial' or not. In fact,
the existing FARs already make exception for 'commercial' operations
which occur with (presumably) informed consent of the participants
- flight instruction, which doesn't need to be pt. 135.

It seems quite reasonable to me that "Mark", flying a pilot and A&P
out to a help a stricken plane ought not be hampered by the FARs
either. If he wants to charge money, so be it. I'd not attempt to
regulate his reimbursement any more than I'd try to tell a CFI what
to charge. It seems that too many people accept that 'commercial
intent' should be the deciding factor, but don't really appreciate
that what the rules should be doing (and what they for the most
part do) is arbitrate risk.

--
Dr. Tony Cox
Citrus Controls Inc.
e-mail:
http://CitrusControls.com/



"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
ink.net...

{tc says}
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.

In article . net, "Geoffrey
Barnes" writes:

Sure, we are all pilots here and we know what the right answer is in this
situation. My boss is not a pilot, though, and will not be so
understanding. Even with nothing but good will at stake, there is this
additional weight in the decision-making process that a private pilot would
probably be better off without. I suspect that's another reason why this
rule is in place.

What makes you think that the comercial pilot isn't going through the same
pressures? I was in the Bahamas talking to a payed pilot who was to fly his
bosses guests back to the States (and into a cold front). He was to make two
trips. I wouldn't have gone when he did and he said he wouldn't if he didn't
have to. Another time in Canada, the pilot wanted to leave before evening when
" the bears will be on the runway". Paying customer and girlfriend stayed thru
the evening. These guys don't make enough ( and they are climbing a steep
ladder) so that it is very hard to tell the boss no and give up the next
charter. I have some of these same thoughts when I take an Angel Flight. Easy
to say the academic "What should be done".

Chuck