![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Blanche" wrote in message
... But remember, the rule against flying is only for official, organized Girl Scout activities.... That's a loophole you can driver a 747 thru... Really? Which brings up an interesting question....If John Travolta or one of the executives at Boeing or Airbus offer a field trip to a troop and the aircraft will be something like a 737, 747, A340, etc. what's the policy? It's not Part 121. And if it's Travolta, it's not part 135. What's the policy? The policy is that you need to understand the regulations better than you obviously do. Large transport aircraft such as the 737 and larger are covered by certain portions of the transport rules (that is, not just Part 91) even if they are not flown as commercial operations. However, I fail to see what the type of aircraft has to do with the "loophole" you claim exists. The "loophole" isn't a loophole at all, since an activity that's not an official, organized Girl Scout activity wouldn't incur any liability risk for the Girl Scouts. It certainly doesn't seem to have anything to do with the type of the aircraft, or what portions of the FARs apply to the flights. How are the two questions related? Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|