![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bart" wrote in message oups.com... Wade Hasbrouck wrote: "Mxsmanic" wrote If you have understanding passengers, fine. If they are going to a wedding or job interview, though, this is a serious problem. Again you are inferring that the Private Pilot can ignore FAR Part 91 and FAR 61.113 when they want to help out friends. If a friend comes to me and says "I have a wedding or job interview to go to, could you fly me there?", this would most likely be considered a violation of 61.113, and would be illegal for a Private Pilot to do. That's absurd. Someone asking to be flown somewhere is in no way a violation of the FARs. If it were, most GA pilots would be in violation almost every time they fly. Bart, Who said the FAA rules aren't absurd? A passenger cannot initiate a flight, that's the ruling, whether you or I like it or not. Karl "Curator" N185KG |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bart" wrote in message ups.com... As long as the pilot pays for the entire cost of operating the aircraft (ie - no pro rata sharing of expenses), it is legal. Logging flight time is considered compensation on flights where there is sharing of expenses. The added "compensation" to the pilot (beyond the sharing of expenses) of being able to log flight time violates the pro rata. No! There must be "commonality." Karl "Curator" N185KG |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
karl gruber wrote:
... 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. IOW, if I log the time in my own plane, it's 135. If not logged, it's permissible. FAA's legal opinions on 135 are on their web site, and I don't think there's one which would stretch a favor for a friend that far. They often decide a 135 issue based upon the expectations of the passenger. So, if I fly a pilot/friend to another field to retrieve his airplane, for no payment (cost sharing prohibited if no common purpose), that pilot/friend is under no delusion I'm an air taxi operator. And one who flies charter for free. I make it up in volume. :-) Fred F. |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote in
news ![]() Judah writes: A VFR Flight plan doesn't do more to improve your visibility with ACT except to inlude a name, contact phone number, and aircraft color. That's an improvement, especially if they are trying to figure out what happened to you, or if they are looking for your crash site. You gonna answer the phone from your crash site? |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Wade Hasbrouck" wrote in
news:LNydnZoqtMjE0tnYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@cablespeedwa .com: If you are "committing to friends and family to transport them", and that is the only reason for the flight, you are now an "air taxi". Just because I have a Private Pilot Certificate doesn't mean I can be a "taxi service" for my friends and family and transport them around where ever they want to go when they want to go. So what you are saying is that if I give my sister a ride to LGA so she can catch a commercial flight, I am considered a Taxi even if I don't ask for compensation? Will the government require me to have a Hack License and a Medallion? Does that mean I can use the Taxi lanes instead of the Passenger Pick Up/Drop off lanes? |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. They empasized that unless you were going to make the trip regardless of whether or not your friend was going along, you would be violating the FARs. Ok - well maybe I'm wrong. I read an article in AOPA awhile back that was on the legalities of this very subject that said it illegal *if* there are shared expenses. Can anyone point to any official statements or rulings by the FAA? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!! | Eliot Coweye | Home Built | 237 | February 13th 06 03:55 AM |
Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 12:56 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | May 1st 04 07:29 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 2 | February 2nd 04 11:41 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |