![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I don't think you're using the same definition of "opportunity" as the FAA.
From what I'm hearing/reading, the FAAs definition of "opportunity" goes more toward the cirmcumstances from which the flight arose. If you are going flying and you invite me to come along for a ride from Buffalo to Flushing, NY...no problem. But, if I say to you, I've been meaning to go to Flushing, NY. Hey, I know, why don't you fly me up there? .. and you agree (and even if YOU pay all the costs involved...) then this is a violation of the idea of commonality. My needing to go to Flushing is providing you with an opportunity to log time because of me...not because you suggested it. "The idea of commonality" is something the FAA made up out of whole cloth, bypassing the normal rulemaking procedure. The "opportunity" to fly to Flushing was not provided by you. Icould still go to Flushing if I wanted to, irrespective of your request. Instead, what was provided was the opportunity to have my flight =benefit= you. You're splitting hairs... The FAA splits hairs. In fact they split short hairs. No argument here...but I hope the FAA never gets near my short hairs. Then it would behoove you to split long hairs. ![]() But if you go fly with the primary reason being the taking of your sister to visit her friend, (as a private pilot) IMO, you would be doing so in potential violation of the way in which the FAA has interpreted this situation in the past. This seems to be true. It is also asinine. (and my rants, if they be interpreted as such, are directed at the part of the FAA that comes up with and defends this kind of thing, not at you or any other poster) 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jose" wrote in message .. . I don't think you're using the same definition of "opportunity" as the FAA. From what I'm hearing/reading, the FAAs definition of "opportunity" goes more toward the cirmcumstances from which the flight arose. If you are going flying and you invite me to come along for a ride from Buffalo to Flushing, NY...no problem. But, if I say to you, I've been meaning to go to Flushing, NY. Hey, I know, why don't you fly me up there? .. and you agree (and even if YOU pay all the costs involved...) then this is a violation of the idea of commonality. My needing to go to Flushing is providing you with an opportunity to log time because of me...not because you suggested it. "The idea of commonality" is something the FAA made up out of whole cloth, bypassing the normal rulemaking procedure. I would agree. I think they thought they found a hole (hole cloth?) in the regs that was allowing a quasi-black market form of 135 flying (I could be wrong...) so they slammed the door on it (or tried to) by coming up with a grey area to cover a grey area. The "opportunity" to fly to Flushing was not provided by you. Icould still go to Flushing if I wanted to, irrespective of your request. Instead, what was provided was the opportunity to have my flight =benefit= you. The sticking point would be whether or not I suggested we go, or you suggested we go. Me = BAD .. You = OK. You're splitting hairs... The FAA splits hairs. In fact they split short hairs. No argument here...but I hope the FAA never gets near my short hairs. Then it would behoove you to split long hairs. ![]() Errr, let's not go there. ![]() But if you go fly with the primary reason being the taking of your sister to visit her friend, (as a private pilot) IMO, you would be doing so in potential violation of the way in which the FAA has interpreted this situation in the past. This seems to be true. It is also asinine. (and my rants, if they be interpreted as such, are directed at the part of the FAA that comes up with and defends this kind of thing, not at you or any other poster) Completely understood but thanks for saying so. Jay B |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The sticking point would be whether or not I suggested we go, or you
suggested we go. Me = BAD .. You = OK. Neither case "provides" an opportunity that didn't exist before. But you are right, that is the FAA's position. 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. |
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 |