Club Management Issue

"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.

"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?

"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.