Club Management Issue

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.