![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Tony Cox" wrote:
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. But the private pilot is allowed to take up unsuspecting members of the public, so we've already decided it's ok for him to fly such passengers. The next question is how many such passengers, and that's where the commercial line is drawn 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. Agreed. 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. But it does impact how many such passengers are exposed to that risk. 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. Agreed. I have the same libertarian leanings and agree that the A&P and CFI know the risks. I'd have no real problem allowing the payment of money, but you then have to recognize that someone might set up a money making business transporting such pilots. It's not that I object to such a business, but I'm inclined to think that we should draw the line somewhere between private. commercial and ATP. 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? I don't. I do care if he transports large numbers of passengers. When he starts transporting large numbers, the rules are justified in requiring better equipment and more training. 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. I don't care if he makes a profit. I just think we should ease the rules on private pilots. If we are going to have rules that require better training/equipment, I think "profit" is a reasonable place to draw the line. It ensures that there's money there to pay for better training/equipment. 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 don't worry about the air taxi operator. I worry about the imposition of excessively restrictive rules on the private pilot. Todd Pattist (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.) ___ Make a commitment to learn something from every flight. Share what you learn. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
... "Tony Cox" wrote: 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. But the private pilot is allowed to take up unsuspecting members of the public, so we've already decided it's ok for him to fly such passengers. Well, there is a distinction. Passengers who go for a ride with a private pilot almost always know him/her & are under no doubt as to his/her 'amateur' status. People who go to an air taxi operation expect (and ought to receive) professional treatment. The next question is how many such passengers, and that's where the commercial line is drawn I've taken over 30 different people for rides in the last year. I'll bet there are some air-taxi operations servicing perhaps only one or two businesses which fall short of that. So I don't think 'how many' really has much bearing on the issue. 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. Agreed. I have the same libertarian leanings and agree that the A&P and CFI know the risks. I'd have no real problem allowing the payment of money, but you then have to recognize that someone might set up a money making business transporting such pilots. Indeed. But in "Mark"'s case, I'm hard pressed to see how he could make much money out of this. After all, who'd pay to fly with a private pilot when they can fly themselves? Still, crafting a FAR for this would need care to exclude the cowboys. (And I *do* think it would be worthwhile, since helping someone go get a plane is a fine 'professional' courtesy that ought to be permitted. Don't forget that even if "Mark" didn't get reimbursed, he's still not going with a 'common purpose' and so he's still illegal). I don't care if he makes a profit. I just think we should ease the rules on private pilots. I think we're actually in agreement. If we are going to have rules that require better training/equipment, I think "profit" is a reasonable place to draw the line. I'd consider it a reasonable default. But the 'profit' motive does already get modified for flight instruction, so I don't really see that it is a tremndous leap if it gets modified in "Mark"'s case too. It ensures that there's money there to pay for better training/equipment. That's a good one. 'Ensures', eh? Any 135 operators care to comment? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Tony Cox" wrote:
I think we're actually in agreement. So do I. Now if we could just convince the FAA :-) Todd Pattist (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.) ___ Make a commitment to learn something from every flight. Share what you learn. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | June 12th 04 03:03 AM |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | General Aviation | 0 | June 12th 04 02:14 AM |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | Owning | 0 | June 12th 04 02:14 AM |
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post | MrHabilis | Home Built | 0 | June 11th 04 05:07 PM |
Club Management Issue | Geoffrey Barnes | Owning | 150 | March 30th 04 06:36 PM |