Commercial Ticket Endeavor

tell that to my CFI and the DE

BT

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:rdhEe.18897$Eo.5130@fed1read04...
except that the criteria states that it is a VFR cross country.. night
and day.. any work under the hood enroute or an approach at either end
negates the use of that cross country for the Commercial rating.

Not true. As long as there are 2 hours of VFR flight, the rest of the
time can be under the hood. The presence of instrument training does not,
in and of itself, invalidate the flight from being used for that
requirement.

"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:GTzEe.19057$Eo.6904@fed1read04...
tell that to my CFI and the DE

Give me their names and phone numbers, and I will be happy to explain it to
them. I'll even fax them a copy of the Part 61 FAQ, since they and you are
apparently too lazy to bother with researching the issue directly. The FAQ
addresses this very issue, very specifically. It's hard to imagine the
issue explained any more clearly.

Pete

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:


It's the easiest ... although I'd put the multi engine in the same category, so
to speak. Certainly the private license is harder and the IFR rating the most
difficult. Frankly, I'd assume the private license to be tougher than the ATP,
if only because the learning curve is so steep. By the time you're taking an
ATP checkride you've been around for a while.


That's funny, I thought instrument was easier than private. I certainly
was
ready for the checkride in a lot less hours.

Other than wow factor, reassuring potential passengers that you're a
real
pro hot stick, can you think of any reason for getting a commercial if
you don't intend to compete with 20-year-olds for non-existant entry-
level minimum wage jobs?

Maybe I'll do commercial next time I need a BFR if I somehow magically
get
all the night flying done by then. This seems unlikely, though, as I
haven't
logged a single night hour in years and don't have any plans to change
that.

xxx wrote:
Other than wow factor, reassuring potential passengers that you're a real pro
hot stick, can you think of any reason for getting a commercial if you don't
intend to compete with 20-year-olds for non-existant entry- level minimum
wage jobs?


Not a one.



Maybe I'll do commercial next time I need a BFR if I somehow magically get
all the night flying done by then. This seems unlikely, though, as I haven't
logged a single night hour in years and don't have any plans to change that.


Then again, maybe you won't. If you've been flying for years and haven't needed
it yet, you never will.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

xxx wrote:
Other than wow factor, reassuring potential passengers that you're a real pro
hot stick, can you think of any reason for getting a commercial if you don't
intend to compete with 20-year-olds for non-existant entry- level minimum
wage jobs?

Not a one.

Do insurance companies look favorably at those who have a commercial
certificate?

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Other than wow factor, reassuring potential passengers that you're a
real
pro hot stick, can you think of any reason for getting a commercial if
you don't intend to compete with 20-year-olds for non-existant entry-
level minimum wage jobs?

You can split costs any way you like under certain circumstances (i.e. a
passenger rents a plane, and hires you to fly them for costs).

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
You can split costs any way you like under certain circumstances (i.e. a
passenger rents a plane, and hires you to fly them for costs).

Even so, you would want to be careful about how you arranged that. The FAA
would (if they got wind of it) probably look closely at whether your
passenger regularly rented a plane and hired various pilots, or if you were
in the habit of flying for people who just happened to rent an airplane from
the same place every time.

Of course, "fortunately" the FBO is likely to be trying to avoid this sort
of thing as well. That is, they probably won't rent to someone without
their own pilot certificate, unless a pilot on their staff is flying the
airplane, under the usual Part 135 rules.

It is theoretically possible for a plain old Commercial pilot to be paid to
fly someone in an airplane they neither own, nor have a long-term lease for,
but I've never heard of it happening with any regularity in practice.

Pete

The FAA
would (if they got wind of it) probably look closely at whether your
passenger regularly rented a plane and hired various pilots, or if you were
in the habit of flying for people who just happened to rent an airplane from
the same place every time.

Why would this be an issue. You are a commercial pilot, you are being
paid to fly a plane, and since you are not arranging the plane, you
don't need to be a commercial =operator=.

Especially as you are essentially flying for costs, which is what a
private pilot is supposed to be able to do (and =was= able to do back
before the FAA did this "pro-rata" mess with the rules).

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
Why would this be an issue. You are a commercial pilot, you are being
paid to fly a plane, and since you are not arranging the plane, you don't
need to be a commercial =operator=.

If you habitually had customers rent an airplane from the same FBO, one of
your choosing, you would very likely be found to be holding out, engaging in
an illegal Part 135 operation. The fact that your customer was the renter
on paper would not hold water, once the FAA looks at the situation and
realizes that it's you who's actually putting together the whole deal,
airplane and all.

It would essentially be a holding out operation, which is the classic
example of what the holder of a Commercial Pilot certificate is NOT
permitted to do without meeting the other requirements found in Part 135.

Especially as you are essentially flying for costs, which is what a
private pilot is supposed to be able to do (and =was= able to do back
before the FAA did this "pro-rata" mess with the rules).

A holder of a Private Pilot certificate was not, at least in the last 15
years, able to fly for costs. He was always required to share costs
equally, and those costs were always limited to direct operating costs,
which meant either rental costs, or fuel and oil (for an owned airplane).

For both the Commercial and Private pilot, it has been held by the FAA that
flight time in and of itself is compensation. Any situation in which the
pilot is not paying their fair share of the costs (and that has always meant
the pro-rated share among all passengers) has been found to be compensatory,
and thus not allowed without meeting the other common carriage rules.

Pete

A holder of a Private Pilot certificate was not, at least in the last 15
years, able to fly for costs. He was always required to share costs
equally, and those costs were always limited to direct operating costs,
which meant either rental costs, or fuel and oil (for an owned airplane).

Fifteen years ago I was on hiatus. Before that, a private pilot could
fly for costs. The old rule made sense to me. The new one does not.

For both the Commercial and Private pilot, it has been held by the FAA that
flight time in and of itself is compensation.

This further drains the sense out of the regs. But this is just my opinion.

If you habitually had customers rent an airplane from the same FBO, one of
your choosing, you would very likely be found to be holding out, engaging in
an illegal Part 135 operation.

Perhaps. But if I did it only occasionally, and the FBO was only an
initial reccomendation (or one of several I'm checked out at), and I was
not taking any more than costs, only the FAA would see that as "holding
out an illegal part 135."

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.