Common instruments on small aircraft

Marty Shapiro wrote:
Inspector's for at least 2 FSDO's that I'm aware of
say otherwise. They were very clear in different Wings
safety seminars that providing air transportation for a
friend is NOT permitted for a private pilot. One even
stated that the FAA added the definition of logging time
as compensation for this exact case, where the
pilot does not charge at all.

If it's your own airplane and you pay 100% of fuel and other
direct costs, logging the time can't possibly be compensation.
You can fly the plane any time you want. Having a friend in the
right seat doesn't make any difference. If I want to build time
for a rating, I can fly solo to places I rather not go to, like
the food at that airport restaurant sucks. Or I can do a favor
for a friend and take him there for free upon request.

The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an assumption that
logged time is of any value. I have my IR and am too old
(drawing Social Security) for an ATP to be worth anything. How
is my logged time in my plane compensatory?

Fred F.

The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an assumption that logged time is of any value.

Where? I'd like to see the case.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an
assumption that logged time is of any value.

Where? I'd like to see the case.


It was in the ruling issued to the warbird museum guys. The
issue was whether the motel bill paid for any private pilot who
ferries the warbirds to air shows is compensation. Yes it is, but
conceptually silly here. Like, “I’m not flying that B-17 unless
you pay for my motel!” The ruling also said, “We prefer not to
rule” on whether logging time is of any value, but not a problem,
it said, if you don’t log the time. Just about anyone would want
to log warbird time, so they left open the question were the
pilot to pay for the motel but log the time.

However, I don’t think there’s a single NTSB case where logging
time alone was compensatory in your own airplane. Conceptually,
the idea of a pax providing an opportunity to spend your own
money and calling it compensatory as to the mere opportunity I
think is absurd.

Fred F.

The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an assumption that logged time is of any value.

The ruling also said, “We prefer not to rule” on whether logging time is of any value, but not a problem, it said, if you don’t log the time.

It does not follow from this that they cannot make an assumption that
the logged time is of any value. They "preferred not to rule", which
leaves the door open for them to rule any way they want in the future.
In fact, they =deliberately= left the door open by not making a ruling
that would be seen as outrageously silly, or being forced to make the
opposite ruling and be held to it as precedent. Therefore I conclude
that the FAA =will= look at logging time as compensation whenever it
thinks it can get away with it.

However, I don’t think there’s a single NTSB case where logging time alone was compensatory in your own airplane.

What about renters and flying club members? The observation above is of
little comfort.

Conceptually, the idea of a pax providing an opportunity to spend your own money and calling it compensatory as to the mere opportunity I think is absurd.

I agree, which is why I think the FAA has it =so= wrong.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

TxSrv wrote in
:

Jose wrote:
The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an
assumption that logged time is of any value.

Where? I'd like to see the case.


It was in the ruling issued to the warbird museum guys. The
issue was whether the motel bill paid for any private pilot who
ferries the warbirds to air shows is compensation. Yes it is, but
conceptually silly here. Like, “I’m not flying that B-17 unless
you pay for my motel!” The ruling also said, “We prefer not to
rule” on whether logging time is of any value, but not a problem,
it said, if you don’t log the time. Just about anyone would want
to log warbird time, so they left open the question were the
pilot to pay for the motel but log the time.

However, I don’t think there’s a single NTSB case where logging
time alone was compensatory in your own airplane. Conceptually,
the idea of a pax providing an opportunity to spend your own
money and calling it compensatory as to the mere opportunity I
think is absurd.

Fred F.

Absurd or not, that is the FAA's interpretation. The FAA gets to
decide how its rules are interpreted. There was one case, written up
several years ago in AOPA Pilot IIRC where the FAA changed their
interpretation of the regulations in the middle of an NTSB hearing. The
pilot lost under this new interpretation and appealed. The courts ruled
that the FAA could do this and the penalty would apply.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Marty Shapiro wrote:
...
Absurd or not, that is the FAA's interpretation.
...

Help me find one FAA or NTSB document which says that, though.
I'm talking my airplane; I pay for fuel. Say a pilot/friend's
plane is at a nearby airport after maintenance was done. He asks
for a ride there to retrieve it, and no pmt for fuel, as two
months ago he did the same favor for me. How can FAA argue that
mere logging of time is a violation for both of us on this mutual
pair of flights? It's irrational.

The other hurdle they have is arguing the logged time is of any
benefit to me. How many people do we know, upon reaching 1500
hours in their retirement years, get an ATP for the heck of it?
In a 172-class airplane. That's the only advanced rating
requiring total hours I can get now.

Sillier yet would be where Dad owns a plane and asks me to fly it
now and then to keep it active. No pax; no problem. But if one
day I give a friend a ride, the logging of time magically becomes
compensation. That makes no sense.

Fred F.

TxSrv wrote in
:

Marty Shapiro wrote:
...
Absurd or not, that is the FAA's interpretation.
...

Help me find one FAA or NTSB document which says that, though.
I'm talking my airplane; I pay for fuel. Say a pilot/friend's
plane is at a nearby airport after maintenance was done. He asks
for a ride there to retrieve it, and no pmt for fuel, as two
months ago he did the same favor for me. How can FAA argue that
mere logging of time is a violation for both of us on this mutual
pair of flights? It's irrational.

Yes. But no one ever claimed that the regulations or, more
importantly, their interpretation by the FAA made sense. By regulation, if
you do not have a commonality of purpose, with a private pilot certificate
or less, you can not provide your friend this transportation, even if you
pay all the expenses. It may be irrational, but it's the regulation.


The other hurdle they have is arguing the logged time is of any
benefit to me. How many people do we know, upon reaching 1500
hours in their retirement years, get an ATP for the heck of it?
In a 172-class airplane. That's the only advanced rating
requiring total hours I can get now.

Sillier yet would be where Dad owns a plane and asks me to fly it
now and then to keep it active. No pax; no problem. But if one
day I give a friend a ride, the logging of time magically becomes
compensation. That makes no sense.

There is no problem with you giving a friend a ride as long as their
is commonality of purpose to the trip. The problem arises when there is
no commonality of purpose. And the NTSB ALJs are very strict on this.
Take the example of giving a friend a ride to a wedding. If you are going
to the same wedding, no problem. Let's say you are going to the same
destination, but not to the wedding and give your friend a ride. You have
no commonality of purpose. See Administrator v. Carter, Order EA-3730,
Docket SE12735, NTSB Decisions (1992).
Fred F.


Nobody ever said it made sense.

That's the regulations and, more importantly, the FAA interpretation
of their regulations.

Just like the regulations regarding Sport Pilot and medicals. Two
pilots develop the exact same medical condition which would result in the
failure of a class III medical but does not prevent them from keeping a
driver license. First pilot just lets his medical expire. The second
takes and fails a medical. The first pilot can continue to fly as a Sport
Pilot, the second can't. Makes no sense, but that's the regulation.

Google "NTSB compensation private pilot". Look at the Alameda Aero
Club Newsletter, Traps For The Unwary, and The FAA's Charitable
Contribution to Charities.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Marty Shapiro wrote:

There is no problem with you giving a friend a ride as long as
their is commonality of purpose to the trip. The problem arises
when there is no commonality of purpose.

Find a case which says that where no compensation is paid. The
Carter case you cited involved transporting a friend's sick
father for medical treatment, and who promised to reimburse the
full cost. Without common purpose, not even cost-sharing (1/2)
is permissible. It is implied that the pilot didn't get paid,
perhaps because the man passed on. Made no difference; it was
the promise which was the compensation.

I'm referring only to the logging of time in your own plane on
your own fuel as compensation. Find the case where that's
prohibited on such narrow grounds. As per another poster, I used
to pick up and return Mom/Dad to the big Class airport when they
visited. Look then to how the Carter case discusses the pax
expectation of the skills of a comm'l pilot. So let's see. If I
fly them to an apt restaurant and return, they don't expect me to
have comm'l skills. If I drop them off at said apt, they do.

Fred F.

"TxSrv" wrote in message
. ..
compensation. That makes no sense.

Fred F.


Bingo!

Sense when did the FAA make sense?

Karl
"Curator"

"TxSrv" wrote in message
. ..

The FAA has also ruled that they cannot make an assumption that logged
time is of any value. I have my IR and am too old (drawing Social
Security) for an ATP to be worth anything. How is my logged time in my
plane compensatory?

Fred F.

The rulings don't have to make common sense. You must have commonality,"
which means you can't fly someone around for their convenience. That's 135.

Karl
"Curaor" N185KG