Renting an airplane? Need Expert FARS Advice??

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
I'm certainly not trolling. Can you cite a single case in which the FAA
has
deemed this the case?I've not seen one that didn't turn out to rely on a
different interpretation on closer inspection.

I trust AOPA's experts to review the cases for me, as well as other
resources. I don't have the specific examples in front of me, but it's
simply not in question that the FAA has considered flight time to be
"compensation". This is well-understood, and frequently reported.

For example, from http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...97/pc9710.html :

"The FAA interprets the term compensation in its broadest sense.
Compensation is not only the payment of money, but it is the receipt of
anything of value, and even the mere expectation of some benefit. To show
you how broad the FAA interpretation is, the agency, on several occasions,
has said that just building up flight time is compensation to the pilot
where the pilot does not pay the cost of operating the aircraft"

Like I said, this has been discussed so many times right here in this
newsgroup, it's hard to see how you can claim it's not the case unless
you're trolling. I know you're not (unless you've gone through some radical
personality change), but even so...it's still hard to believe.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

I trust AOPA's experts to review the cases for me, as well as other
resources. I don't have the specific examples in front of me, but it's
simply not in question that the FAA has considered flight time to be
"compensation". This is well-understood, and frequently reported.

For example, from http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...97/pc9710.html
:

If the different AOPA article quoted by Peter Clark in this thread really
interprets the case, for which the ruling is available for all to read, as
supporting this view, then I'm not convinced they're doing you a favour.

"The FAA interprets the term compensation in its broadest sense.
Compensation is not only the payment of money, but it is the receipt of
anything of value, and even the mere expectation of some benefit. To show
you how broad the FAA interpretation is, the agency, on several occasions,
has said that just building up flight time is compensation to the pilot
where the pilot does not pay the cost of operating the aircraft"

I'm not really going to be convinced except by docket numbers! This seems
to be an area where rumours reinforce themselves.

Like I said, this has been discussed so many times right here in this
newsgroup, it's hard to see how you can claim it's not the case unless
you're trolling. I know you're not (unless you've gone through some
radical
personality change), but even so...it's still hard to believe.

I don't read every thread, Peter, and while I've seen some assertions on the
subject, I've never seen anything that changed my opinion. I've now seen
two cases (the other was the letter posted by Roger Long with FAA counsel's
opinion) cited in support of the concept that flying for free is illegal.
Both arguments have rested on a lazy reading of what was actually written.

Julian

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
If the different AOPA article quoted by Peter Clark in this thread really
interprets the case, for which the ruling is available for all to read, as
supporting this view, then I'm not convinced they're doing you a favour.

Not sure what you're talking about. The case Peter Clark is quoting is a
completely different issue, where the pilot is not the person being
compensated, even though the flight was made "for compensation". The case
doesn't address whether free flight time is compensation at all, since the
case involved a much more clear-cut situation of paying passengers, nor does
the AOPA Pilot article make a claim that the case does.

I'm not really going to be convinced except by docket numbers! This seems
to be an area where rumours reinforce themselves.

The cases have been quoted. Just because I don't have them in front of me
doesn't mean they don't exist. Regardless, it's not really any of my
concern whether you agree or not. I know that I would never accept free
flight time where the donor had anything other than simply doing me a favor
in mind; that includes just flying the airplane to keep it from sitting
idle.

Pete

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:28:18 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
If the different AOPA article quoted by Peter Clark in this thread really
interprets the case, for which the ruling is available for all to read, as
supporting this view, then I'm not convinced they're doing you a favour.

Not sure what you're talking about. The case Peter Clark is quoting is a
completely different issue, where the pilot is not the person being
compensated, even though the flight was made "for compensation". The case
doesn't address whether free flight time is compensation at all, since the
case involved a much more clear-cut situation of paying passengers, nor does
the AOPA Pilot article make a claim that the case does.

Actually, I was only quoting that case in the context that the FAA and
NTSB appear to take the view that intangible things (including good
will) can and are also considered compensation WRTexamining whether
61.113 was violated or not. The specifics of the case are immaterial
to the concept that, according to the ruling, one of the tests to be
used in deciding if there is a violation of 61.113 or not includes
looking to see if there is evidence of (in the absence of direct
monetary compensation) any intangible benefits to be found, and if
they are present a violation has occurred. If I'm wrong in
interpreting the ruling to establish/use one prong of a multi-prong
test to see whether a violation has occurred, great, I'd like to
understand the dissenting opinion's logic.

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
Actually, I was only quoting that case in the context that the FAA and
NTSB appear to take the view that intangible things (including good
will) can and are also considered compensation WRTexamining whether
61.113 was violated or not.

The Super Bowl party case doesn't show that. The problem there was actual,
paying passengers, who paid for transportation. That's tangible
compensation, and has nothing to do with whether intangible compensation
(like logging hours) is considered "compensation" by the FAA.

In spite of the NTSB's comments regarding "goodwill", I don't read the
article as saying that that was a core component of their judgment, but
rather a secondary issue. The real problem was that the pilot participated
in what was a commercial operation, complete with paying passengers. (It
certainly didn't help things that the airplanes used were not Part 135
certified either).

I agree with your views with respect to 61.113, but I don't think that
particular case is the best example of how the pilot himself receives what
the FAA considers "compensation" even if he isn't paid in cash. There's too
many other distracting factors (after all, Julian apparently failed to
notice that, in addition to the other "commercial operation" issues, the
NTSB found that the pilot *did* receive compensation himself; I think that's
because the other issues distracted him from that one).

It *does* illustrate that *even if the pilot himself pays for the flight*,
he could potentially get into trouble, if the operation otherwise looks like
a commercial operation, or if the FAA and NTSB find that the pilot *still*
received some sort of compensation (even in the form of "goodwill"). That
latter point delves more deeply into what the FAA might not approve of than
the comments I've made do.

Frankly, with such liberal interpretations of "compensation" by the FAA and
NTSB, it boggles my mind that anyone might think that the FAA *doesn't* view
free flight time as compensation. (Hi Julian ).

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

I agree with your views with respect to 61.113, but I don't think that
particular case is the best example of how the pilot himself receives what
the FAA considers "compensation" even if he isn't paid in cash. There's
too
many other distracting factors (after all, Julian apparently failed to
notice that, in addition to the other "commercial operation" issues, the
NTSB found that the pilot *did* receive compensation himself; I think
that's
because the other issues distracted him from that one).

They didn't find that he received compensation in the form of anything as
intangible as you would like it to be. They found that it "strained
credulity" that he didn't expect to get paid. In other words, they simply
didn't believe that there was no compensation, even though they couldn't
find the check stubs.

Julian

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
They didn't find that he received compensation in the form of anything as
intangible as you would like it to be. They found that it "strained
credulity" that he didn't expect to get paid. In other words, they simply
didn't believe that there was no compensation, even though they couldn't
find the check stubs.

That wasn't my interpretation of that statement. After all, it "strains
credulity" to think that your comments were not acts of trolling, even
though ultimately I have to believe that they were not. Further, why
comment on the "compensation" in the form of "good will", if they really
believed there was actual payment?

Regardless, the actual interpretation is irrelevant to this discussion.
Please interpret the NTSB's statement however you like.

Pete

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...

Actually, I was only quoting that case in the context that the FAA and
NTSB appear to take the view that intangible things (including good
will) can and are also considered compensation WRTexamining whether
61.113 was violated or not.

That "compensation" is broader than a simple payment is not in dispute.
That compensation for a flight would include the mere privilege of making
that particular flight, is.

The specifics of the case are immaterial
to the concept that, according to the ruling, one of the tests to be
used in deciding if there is a violation of 61.113 or not includes
looking to see if there is evidence of (in the absence of direct
monetary compensation) any intangible benefits to be found, and if
they are present a violation has occurred. If I'm wrong in
interpreting the ruling to establish/use one prong of a multi-prong
test to see whether a violation has occurred, great, I'd like to
understand the dissenting opinion's logic.

If I misinterpreted your reason for quoting that ruling, I apologise. You
quoted it in a paragraph where you started with the assertion

It seems to me that the underlying implication of the rule is that in
the eyes of the FAA the pilot is supposed to be paying for the flight
expenses in all cases.

and I thought you were using that in support. The "goodwill" referred to by
the NTSB in that ruling is the expectation that the pilot would get paid, or
equivalent, at some future date for doing this "favor". In essence, neither
the law judge nor the Board believed that this was just a favor, and the
"goodwill" precedent seemed to be cited to contrast with the lack of
evidence that money changed hands. It did nothing to broaden the
interpretation of compensation to support your assertion above.

Julian