Club Management Issue

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

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message


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

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

I read that as "privileges and limitations of a private pilot" - not "when a
private pilot may accept money".

Again, I'm open to the idea that I'm looking in the wrong place, but this is
the only section I know of that describes what a private pilot may and may
not do with his certificate.
If Mark doesn't take any money, he's not operating for hire, and
61.113 doesn't apply.


I'd argue that 61.113 applies every time Mark takes to the air.

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

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
If Mark doesn't take any money, he's not operating for hire, and
61.113 doesn't apply.

I'd argue that 61.113 applies every time Mark takes to the air.

Are you being dense on purpose?

Read 61.113(a). The only thing it mentions is the question of "carrying
passengers or property for compensation or hire". The remainder of the
regulation are exceptions to (a), labeled (b) through (g). The only thing
61.113 talks about is whether Mark can take money for a flight. If he
doesn't take money for the flight, there's nothing in 61.113 that concerns
him.

FURTHERMO certainly nothing in 61.113 discusses whether or not he is
allowed to fly someone, without paying, even if that someone was the one
that proposed the flight.

Your response is like saying that, since 91.1 says Part 91"prescribes rules
governing the operation of aircraft", 91.173 is applicable every time a
pilot flies, even on a VFR flight.

I suppose technically it could be considered true, if you want to twist the
semantics, but no rationally thinking person would use the word "apply" that
way. Only some troll looking for an argument rather than the truth would.

Are you a troll?

When you find the regulation in the FARs that says Mark can't someone to
where they want to go at their request, then come back and we can talk about
it. Until then, your insistence on questioning whether they can is just
plain silly. Certainly there's nothing in the regulation you quote --
61.113 -- that addresses this question.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"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



I say let Mark fly and then just pull up to the pump and fill up marks
plane with fuel, and maybe the next time he needs fuel also. No ones to
know who's credit card was used... of course that's not relevant to was
it legal under the regulations or not..., just would you get caught...
unlikely, but that's the way I would do it.

IMHO (from a "not even a student pilot yet") the regs were written in
such a way to absolutely regulate any commercial activity and close any
and all potential loopholes that someone could come up with. In doing
so, these regs shoot themselves in the foot by keeping someone from
"donating" there time, while not wanting to "donate" their money in the
form of fuel, oil, etc.

It is akin to telling me I can't let my father fill up my car with gas
while I drive with him around town, cause then I would have to get a taxi
license. Ridiculous.... When a regulation is written like this it
degrades the legitimacy of all the other regs written by the same
agency... I expect there are quite a few FAA regs that fit in this
category...


--
ET


"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
...
I say let Mark fly and then just pull up to the pump and fill up marks
plane with fuel, and maybe the next time he needs fuel also. No ones to
know who's credit card was used... of course that's not relevant to was
it legal under the regulations or not..., just would you get caught...
unlikely, but that's the way I would do it.

By that logic, why not just accept another $100 cash. After all, "no ones
[sic] to know" where the $100 came from, right?

Whether we think the rules make sense, or whether we like them, is
irrelevant. The FAA has been clear that they will interpret and enforce the
no-compensation rules for private pilots, and that anything that could be
even remotely construed as a "for hire" situation will be.

The "commonality of purpose" criteria is the most common way for pilots to
be violated by the FAA. If you accept compensation, even if it's just
pro-rata sharing, you had better make sure that you have a commonality of
purpose. Otherwise, should the FAA get wind of your flight, they will come
after you.

It is akin to telling me I can't let my father fill up my car with gas
while I drive with him around town, cause then I would have to get a taxi
license.

It's true. The FAA regulations are much stricter than motor vehicle rules,
and they are much more strictly enforced. You'll notice that pretty much
everything about aviation is much more strictly regulated than it is in
motor vehicles. So what? That doesn't change how things are in aviation,
nor does it mean that you can draw analogies between aviation and motor
vehicle law. The two are very different. Don't confuse them.

As far as the legitimacy of the regulation goes, I personally have no
problem with it. It's simply one of many rules that the FAA has set out for
us. If you want to use an airplane to do a friend a favor, then you do so
at your own expense. It's simple to understand. If you know someone that
needs an airplane, and you're not willing to foot the bill, let them pay a
commercial pilot working for an appropriate Part 135 operator handle the
job.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

lots of stuff snipped

Whether we think the rules make sense, or whether we like them, is
irrelevant.


THAT kind of thinking will lead to ANY opinion you have, or I have, of any
law or regulation being irrelevant. An unjust, unfair, and plain STUPID
law/regulation that defies all common sense deserves to be defied. Paying
for a buddie's fuel for him to take you somewhere is HARDLY a crime....

Yes, most will cower and obey, lest they loss their right to fly, and
perhaps when the time comes, I may as well... but that doesn't make it
right, and it CERTAINLY doesn't make it irrelevant.


--
ET


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