Common instruments on small aircraft

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:
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 following case is one where no _material_ compensation was paid, but
the FAA prevailed against the pilot:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/do...ation/5061.PDF

It seems goodwill is considered compensation. Of course "goodwill" is
sometimes rather vague, though in certain contexts like accounting a
monetary value can be (and is) assigned for purposes of computing assets.

Here's a case where no material compensation _or_ goodwill was "earned" and
so the pilot managed to win the case on appeal:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/do...ation/4791.PDF

The cases I cite aren't the most relevant, but the U.S. court system (and
the NTSB) have placed only a fraction of the available case law on the net
for public access. I know there are commercial databases which would
provide comprehensive access but I'm not inclined at this time to subscribe
to them.

The NTSB provides a search mechanism of some of the case law regarding the
FARs he

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/query.asp

(By the way, several 61.113 case are filed under the subsection 61.118
which is listed in the current FARs as non-existent. I can only presume
that the numbering changed sometime after the year 2000.)

Jim Logajan wrote:
It seems goodwill is considered compensation.

Goodwill per NTSB always means a business context, such as
expectation of possible future $$ benefit. The two cases you
cited have complicating facts. In Murray, the pvt pilot had done
subcontract work for the tavern owner who threw on the Super
Bowl party deal which included Part 135 transport of the pax to
the party site. In both cases, the pilot showed up as a
substitute for a prearranged Part 135 flight where the charter
aircraft or 135 pilot was OTS. The pax likely assumed the
substitute guy was a commercial operation also.

I'm alluding only to a pure (and rather common) case of a favor
to a friend/relative, no business context, the pax know who you
are as not comm'l/charter, and the only "compensation" is your
logging time in your own airplane at your own expense.

Fred F.

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

Fred F.


Bingo!

Sense when did the FAA make sense?

Karl
"Curator"

In article ,
"karl gruber" wrote:

No! There must be "commonality."

Does the "regulation" require the commonality to one-to-one
and on-to?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
The pilot or operator of a Part 91 aircraft can replace the aircraft
batteries...you don't need an A&P. Read 14CFR 43.3(g) and Appendix A (c).

Ok - but we still have to wait on the battery to be ordered which takes
at least a day.

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
The pilot or operator of a Part 91 aircraft can replace the aircraft
batteries...you don't need an A&P. Read 14CFR 43.3(g) and Appendix A (c).

We still have to wait on the battery to be ordered which takes at least
a day. And assuming the best case scenario of it getting put in
sometime tomorrow, I will then be forced two wait at least another two
days due to weather.

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.

Another point (not saying that I'm right or you're right) is that if
you are paying for the entire cost of the flight, how can logging
flight time which *you* are paying for be perceived as being received
from the passenger?

The logged time cannot (should not) be considered compensation from the
passenger because the passenger in now way provided it to you. However,
if there are shared expenses, then it could be seen that the passenger
payed for some of the logged time.

karl gruber wrote:
"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."

No! Only if sharing expenses.