Club Management Issue

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.