Commercial Ticket Endeavor

"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

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 03:28:29 GMT, Jose
wrote:

2: My father thinks I should be instrument rated, and offers to pay for
flying lessons and flying time so that I can get my rating. Nixed by
the FAA.

He could gift you up to $11,500 (I think that's the current gift
exemption) per year. Then you pay the school.

2: My father thinks I should be instrument rated, and offers to pay for
flying lessons and flying time so that I can get my rating. Nixed by
the FAA.

He could gift you up to $11,500 (I think that's the current gift
exemption) per year. Then you pay the school.

That is a tax rule, and has nothing to do with the FAA. For that
matter, my neighbor could gift me $11,500 and pay the tax. Then I pay
the other tax and pay the school.

Does it then matter whether I get my instrument rating on this money, or
just fly my neighbor around for free?

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

Jose wrote:

2: My father thinks I should be instrument rated, and offers to pay for
flying lessons and flying time so that I can get my rating. Nixed by
the FAA.

Not at all. The FAA believes that in this case, you are being paid to *learn*,
not being paid to fly. The case is exactly equivalent to a pilot who has to go
to a business meeting and gets reimbursed by his company for flying there. He's
getting paid to attend the meeting, not to fly.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

Jose wrote:
2: My father thinks I should be instrument rated, and offers to pay for
flying lessons and flying time so that I can get my rating. Nixed by
the FAA.


A sweet deal if your dad would cough up that much cash. I don't see where it
becomes any of the FAA's business where it came from. Would your dad give you
up?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Not at all. The FAA believes that in this case, you are being paid to *learn*, not being paid to fly.

But I am getting =compensation= in the form of hours I can use for
additional ratings, ratings I can use for additional flying and
insurance discounts, I'm getting free flying (which is "joy of flight"
as compensation)...

So...

Suppose some of the required flights I take for the instrument rating
are paid by my friends in the back seat? I'm being paid to learn, just
this time not by my father.

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

Jose wrote:
Not at all. The FAA believes that in this case, you are being paid to
*learn*, not being paid to fly.

But I am getting =compensation= in the form of hours ...

*Not* for flying.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

*Not* for flying.

What for then, if not for flying? Learning? I learn something every
time I fly.

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

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
*Not* for flying.

What for then, if not for flying? Learning? I learn something every time
I fly.

It's the same reason that a primary instructor can work on a 3rd class
medical, even as they are being paid and are acting as PIC at the same time.
They are being paid to *teach*, not to fly.

I personally find the distinction odd, but it's the way the FAA has decided
to draw the line. Inasmuch as the line-drawing is arbitrary anyway, I don't
have any serious problem with their choice.

Pete

"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.