Commercial Ticket Endeavor

Peter Duniho wrote:

Net profit means commercial enterprise.

I don't fly in the USA, so I don't really care. And I agree that neither
your nor my opinion matter. This said:

Profit doesn't mean commercial enterprise. There are commercial
enterprises without profit (although, supposedly, they won't exist very
long), and you can make a profit without being a commercial enterprize.
(Winning a lottery, for example.)

Where I fly, the regulation is very different. Here, commercial means
"as a profession". I agree that theoretically this opens a grey area,
but in real life, things are pretty clear.

So as a private pilot, I am not allowed to offer flights to the public.
Even not if I ask less money than their share. On the other hand, I'm
allowed to fly with a friend, even if he pays everything and the lunch.
The idea is, that the reason of the commercial ticket is to protect the
public. Makes much more sense to me.

Stefan

So as a private pilot [licensed and operating outside the USA], I am not allowed to offer flights to the public. Even not if I ask less money than their share. On the other hand, I'm allowed to fly with a friend, even if he pays everything and the lunch. The idea is, that the reason of the commercial ticket is to protect the public. Makes much more sense to me.

That's the way it should be. Here in the US we've muddled things up.

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

Jose wrote:

So as a private pilot [licensed and operating outside the USA], I am not
allowed to offer flights to the public. Even not if I ask less money than
their share. On the other hand, I'm allowed to fly with a friend, even if he
pays everything and the lunch. The idea is, that the reason of the
commercial ticket is to protect the public. Makes much more sense to me.

That's the way it should be. Here in the US we've muddled things up.

Define "friend" for us NG folk. Now define "friend" in a 'legal' sense as
you would like to see it written in the FARs.

Hilton

Hilton wrote:

Define "friend" for us NG folk. Now define "friend" in a 'legal' sense as
you would like to see it written in the FARs.

I was expecting this. As I said: Theoretically a grey area, but in real
life, it works just fine. At least it does here, not sure whether it
would in the USA.

Stefan

"Hilton" wrote in message
nk.net...
Jose wrote:

So as a private pilot [licensed and operating outside the USA], I am
not
allowed to offer flights to the public. Even not if I ask less money than
their share. On the other hand, I'm allowed to fly with a friend, even if
he
pays everything and the lunch. The idea is, that the reason of the
commercial ticket is to protect the public. Makes much more sense to me.

That's the way it should be. Here in the US we've muddled things up.

Define "friend" for us NG folk. Now define "friend" in a 'legal' sense as
you would like to see it written in the FARs.

But the pro rata requirement doesn't obviate the need to distinguish friends
from the public. That distinction still comes up with regard to "holding
out", which private pilots can't do even if they pay their pro rata share of
the flight. So there'd be no additional complexity or ambiguity if the rules
permitted compensation of up to the full cost of the flight, rather than
arbitrarily insisting that the pilot pay a pro rata share.

--Gary

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
Net profit means commercial enterprise.

I don't fly in the USA, so I don't really care. And I agree that neither
your nor my opinion matter. This said:

Profit doesn't mean commercial enterprise.

To the FAA, profiting as a result of your flying means it's a commercial
enterprise.

Perhaps it's because your native language isn't English...but honestly, it
didn't occur to me I should have to be so explicit about that statement.

Peter Duniho wrote:

To the FAA, profiting as a result of your flying means it's a commercial
enterprise.

Perhaps it's because your native language isn't English...but honestly, it
didn't occur to me I should have to be so explicit about that statement.

Well, you wrote:

To me, the new rules make more sense than allowing a Private pilot's
entire costs to be paid by someone else. Any amount of money a pilot
spends less than his passengers is net profit. Net profit means
commercial enterprise.

If this means that it's only the FAA's opinion and not yours, then I
agree that I have a language problem.

Stefan