Illegal charters

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, unless a charter company
lost business to it.


It's a matter of standards for public safety mandated by the FAA.

You lost me there. Is a flight safer if a pilot pays for part of it?


Well yes, a charter operator has much higher standards it must meet to be a
charter operator. Are you saying because there happens at this moment in
time to be no charter operators where I'm based I should be able to rent out
my PP-SEL R-H skills to those that would use the service if it were
available? I mean otherwise the people are going to drive and no charter
operator is going to be out any business.

You lost me there. Is a flight safer if a pilot pays for part of it?
Well yes, a charter operator has much higher standards

Which is the answer to a different question. When a pilot pays for the
flight, it does not become safer.

Are you saying because there happens at this moment in
time to be no charter operators where I'm based I should be able to rent out
my PP-SEL R-H skills

No, I don't think that's what he was saying. I also don't think that a
PP should be able to "rent out" one's skills just because there isn't a
charter operation out there. However, there's a large area between
"taking a friend on a flight that you would have made anyway, to a place
he was going anyway" and putting a shingle at the airport "I'll fly
anyone anywhere for money". For example, a college student who is a
pilot offers to fly people in his dorm for costs. I see no reason this
should be prohibited, nor where safety is enhanced by requiring the
pilot to subsidize the flight. In fact, overall safety is increased the
more the pilot flies.

The difference I see is in whether a pilot =represents himself= or
passively =allows= himself to be represented as a charter pilot of
sorts. Doing so is what I believe the FAA wants us to believe it is
going after with its "holding out" rule, but I think the FAA's holding
out rule is too stringent.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
news
You lost me there. Is a flight safer if a pilot pays for part of it?
Well yes, a charter operator has much higher standards

Which is the answer to a different question. When a pilot pays for the
flight, it does not become safer.

Are you saying because there happens at this moment in time to be no
charter operators where I'm based I should be able to rent out my PP-SEL
R-H skills

No, I don't think that's what he was saying. I also don't think that a PP
should be able to "rent out" one's skills just because there isn't a
charter operation out there. However, there's a large area between
"taking a friend on a flight that you would have made anyway, to a place
he was going anyway" and putting a shingle at the airport "I'll fly anyone
anywhere for money". For example, a college student who is a pilot offers
to fly people in his dorm for costs. I see no reason this should be
prohibited, nor where safety is enhanced by requiring the pilot to
subsidize the flight. In fact, overall safety is increased the more the
pilot flies.

The difference I see is in whether a pilot =represents himself= or
passively =allows= himself to be represented as a charter pilot of sorts.
Doing so is what I believe the FAA wants us to believe it is going after
with its "holding out" rule, but I think the FAA's holding out rule is too
stringent.


I agree the rule is very stringent. BUT I don't see how you could loosen it
much without opening a ton of loopholes that will be quickly used and will
result in accidents that cause a whole new set of even more stringent rules
to be enacted.

Gig

BUT I don't see how you could loosen it
much without opening a ton of loopholes that will be quickly used and will
result in accidents that cause a whole new set of even more stringent rules
to be enacted.

No rule is free of loopholes. I posted elsewhere (a week ago?) my
proposal; it was essentially to go back to what we had twenty years ago.
A private pilot may accept compensation up to the total amount of the
flight, but no more. He is not required to make any minimum payment,
but the passengers may not pay more (in sum) than the flight costs. The
pilot cannot make a profit (in the dictionary sense).

I would add that all passengers must be informed that the flight is
under the "private pilot" rules, not the "commercial pilot" rules which
are more stringent in regards to safety. (I don't think that it is
necessary to go into what the rules really are - the point is to prevent
mis-representation of the venue)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
BUT I don't see how you could loosen it much without opening a ton of
loopholes that will be quickly used and will result in accidents that
cause a whole new set of even more stringent rules to be enacted.

No rule is free of loopholes. I posted elsewhere (a week ago?) my
proposal; it was essentially to go back to what we had twenty years ago. A
private pilot may accept compensation up to the total amount of the
flight, but no more. He is not required to make any minimum payment, but
the passengers may not pay more (in sum) than the flight costs. The pilot
cannot make a profit (in the dictionary sense).

I would add that all passengers must be informed that the flight is under
the "private pilot" rules, not the "commercial pilot" rules which are more
stringent in regards to safety. (I don't think that it is necessary to go
into what the rules really are - the point is to prevent
mis-representation of the venue)



At which point every PP looking to be an ATP stands at the airport offering
rides like a cab driver in aircraft that isn't anywhere close to the Part
135 standards.

At which point every PP looking to be an ATP stands at the airport offering
rides like a cab driver in aircraft that isn't anywhere close to the Part
135 standards.

I don't think so. For many years the rule allowed a pilot to fly with
no restriction on having to pay a certain share of the flight. To my
knowledge, pilots weren't hawking themselves at the airport like that.

I did offer rides in my college dorm to people who wanted to fly. Made
some nice flights that way. It was a small college, we all pretty much
knew each other. Now it would be considered "holding out" even if I
paid the whole thing and I'd be in the hoosegow. Is this the problem?

Does anybody here know why the rule was changed?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Which is the answer to a different question. When a pilot pays for the
flight, it does not become safer.

True. But if the pilot must pay for the flight entirely out of his own
pocket, an unsafe flight is less likely to be made. The pilot lacks
the financial incentive to make the flight.

It's not that there are not other possible incentives that can cause a
pilot to make a less-than-ideal go/no-go decision, but as long as he is
not holding out nor accepting compensation, the only people at risk are
the pilot and his friends and family - presumably people who know him
well enough to make an informed decision as to whether the risk is
acceptable.

This is actually one of the few times the FAA got it right. The
regulation as written is totally unenforceable if the pilot and
passengers know each other and collude to violate the regulation. Make
the payment in cash behind closed doors, and it's totally impossible to
prove anything happened. However, in such a case the passenger knows
that regulations are being violated and that he is trusting his life to
a pilot deemed not qualified for the operation - and knows the pilot
well enough to decide if this is a good idea. Gotta tell you, this
goes on all the time.

Next step up is pilot services. If you own (or can lease or rent) an
airplane, you're presumed to be knowledgeable enough about what you're
getting into to be permitted to hire any random commercial pilot to fly
you. No charter rules apply. You can hire a 300 hour pilot with an
instrument rating and a commercial ticket who has never flown outside
the instructional environment and has zero actual IMC experience to fly
you and your family in your A-36 Bonanza at night in IMC over the
Rockies.

And then there's a member of the general public. You're not a pilot or
an owner. You are presumed not competent to make any decisions, and
your only option is a certified charter operation. Now the pilot will
need 1200 hours total time, 100 hours in make and model, an autopilot,
redundant electrical and gyro systems, a monitoring program for the
engine, an operating manual. regular checkrides - and of course it will
all cost a lot more. But it will be safer.

Michael

Which is the answer to a different question. When a pilot pays for the
flight, it does not become safer.
True. But if the pilot must pay for the flight entirely out of his own
pocket, an unsafe flight is less likely to be made. The pilot lacks
the financial incentive to make the flight.

The next flight will be made with a less experienced pilot, as will all
subsequent ones. This is the same argument I make for hand flying
rather than relying on the autopilot, and using pilotage rather than
just following the GPS. The more you use your skills, the more skilled
you'll become.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

The next flight will be made with a less experienced pilot

Yes, but these passengers won't be on the next flight - they will be on
this one. From the pilot's perspective, safety is indeed degraded by
these rules - but it's not the pilot the rules are intended to protect.

Michael

Yes, but these passengers won't be on the next flight - they will be on
this one.

Other passengers will be on the next flight, and other people will be in
the houses below.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.