Common instruments on small aircraft

"Jose" wrote in message
...
If you are flying because your passenger wants to go somewhere (and you
don't have a legitimate reason to go as well...and even if your
passenger doesn't give you a penny) you are being given an
opportunity to log time that you might not otherwise be logging...this
is considered compensation.

Does this "opportunity" not exist in other circumstances?

Such as?

Right now I am not flying. But the opportunity to log time that I might
not otherwise be logging exists right now, since I can go to the airport
and go flying. I can even take my wife.
Or I can choose not to.
The opportunity exists.

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.


Every time I fly I have the opportunity to log time I might otherwise not
be logging. Every time I wake up I have the opportunity to fly.

You're splitting hairs. The difference is that there is no concern
regarding "commonality" if you are solo.

The FAA splits hairs. In fact they split short hairs.

No argument here...but I hope the FAA never gets near my short hairs.

And I never mentioned being solo. I can take my sister to visit a friend
while I enjoy the fall colors. No commonality. This is an opportunity to
log time.

The way I think this situation gets interpreted, If you suggest the
flight...no problem. 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.

....and if I'm wrong, I'm sure the correction bus will be along very shortly.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Bart" wrote in news:1162078725.590455.253850
@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:

Weather limitations are greatly over-rated. As others have pointed
out, the inconvenience of waiting out weather can be less than an
hour, and most of the time less than a day.

When the meeting is at 10 AM, that's a show-stopper.

People who "must be there" at a particular time miss a lot of meetings,
regardless of their mode of transportation.

But you're much more likely to miss it if you're depending on GA.

Bad weather affects nearly all modes of transportation. It creates traffic
and accidents on the roads. It delays commercial airliners. And it can
cause delays for GA. However, I would point out that if you are instrument
rated and current, and not flying into a major metro airport like EWR, IAD,
ORD, or LAX, you will likely suffer fewer and shorter delays in a single
engine spam can than you will in a CRJ or 737 flying to one of the major
metros...

The commercial flight can generally be relied upon; the GA flight
cannot. Commercial aviation has spent decades and billions of dollars
to ensure that airliners can fly in all but the worst weather.

That is not my experience at all. Within the last 5 months, my wife and
have missed connecting flights due to airline issues 2 out of 2 times. I
have yet to miss my arrival times flying GA.

I haven't missed a connecting flight for about the last 20 times I've
flown commercially. On average, many more people make their connecting
flights than not.

I think it may depend on the connection, but I also think you are mistaken.
Again, the above airports, which are the hubs for many airlines, have the
worst records.

As for GA, I've been trying to make a trip for two weeks now, but
haven't been able due to weather. If I had needed to, I could have made
the trip in a car and been back home the same day two weeks ago. I put
it off because I'm using it as an excuse to fly - which I believe is
what most GA pilots probably do.

Are you instrument rated? If you are not instrument rated, then I agree
that flying GA is not dependable. Get your Instrument Rating and you will
see a whole other level of practicality to GA.

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.

"Jose" wrote in message
...

The FAA splits hairs. In fact they split short hairs. And I never
mentioned being solo. I can take my sister to visit a friend while I
enjoy the fall colors. No commonality. This is an opportunity to log
time.

Is Big Brother actually watching to the degree of tin-hat paranoia that some
people seem to express about it?

Given the choice to "log time" --ie, stay proficienct flying-- and not --ie,
let proficiency lapse-- I'll take the former when family or friends are
involved. As always, safety comes first, bureaucracy second.

Increasingly the options a

1) Fly and risk somebody telling you not to
2) Never fly because somebody might tell me not to

-c

Mxsmanic wrote:
Judah writes:

But what if the weather is bad or there is low visibility?

I walk IFR.

Just because it doesn't present value for you doesn't mean it has no value.
Evidence would suggest that GA presents value to some number of people in the
world, because there are many people, both pilots and otherwise, that use
General Aviation as a form of transportation. If there is no value in it,
they wouldn't use it.

I think it more likely that many private pilots use the pretext of
transportation as an excuse to fly. Not that there's any harm in
that, but they should just admit it and not try to pretend that
aircraft are actually practical transportation for general purposes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Self deception is an integral part of the GA game. They have an
organization, the AOPA, that puts out complete propaganda about the
utility of GA for travel, as well as how simple it is to fly. Look at
the GA Serving America Website. It is replete with nonsense about the
utility of VFR GA for transportation. It really is quite humourous.

Rather than focusing on improving pilots' skills (though they devote
much of their efforts to this), the AOPA strays into political matters
such as whether taxpayers should keep providing subsidies to
recreational pilots. It also successfully lobbies the FAA (which it
has huge influence over) to create new categories of licenses, the
weakest of which (Sport Pilot) requires NO MEDICAL WHATSOEVER. It
constantly tries to get medical rules loosened, so that some geezer on
his last gasp still has the legal right to fly 1000 feet over private
properties. In short, it is a very nefarious special interest lobby
that has contempt for all but its pilot members, who it refers to as
the "elite". Reading a few entries on the NTSB GA crash website puts
the notion of private pilots being elite to rest. As you know, there
are quite a few boobs flying around. Some of the pilots themselves
admit to this.

"Wade Hasbrouck" wrote in message
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.

Has anyone considered the possibility that these supposed rules are pure
unadulterated bull**** and perhaps we should just ignore them? With this
type of logic, when my daughter finally goes off to college, I would not be
able to give her a lift up there in my own plane... It's a form of
transportation just like a car... Instead of trying to 'work around' the
rules, we should be revolting against this sort of bull****...

It also successfully lobbies the FAA (which it
has huge influence over) to create new categories of licenses, the
weakest of which (Sport Pilot) requires NO MEDICAL WHATSOEVER. It
constantly tries to get medical rules loosened, so that some geezer on
his last gasp still has the legal right to fly 1000 feet over private
properties.

Do you realize that it takes NO MEDICAL WHATSOEVER for that same geezer
to drive a fully laden SUV down the highway at 55 mph, only ten or
fifteen feet away from ONRUSHING traffic?

Medicals for all drivers! Damn the AAA!

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.

Instead of trying to 'work around' the
rules, we should be revolting against this sort of bull****...

Agreed. Got any ideas?

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.

Judah writes:

Are you instrument rated? If you are not instrument rated, then I agree
that flying GA is not dependable. Get your Instrument Rating and you will
see a whole other level of practicality to GA.

Just out of curiosity, what percentage of private general aviation
pilots have an instrument rating?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Skylune writes:

Self deception is an integral part of the GA game. They have an
organization, the AOPA, that puts out complete propaganda about the
utility of GA for travel, as well as how simple it is to fly. Look at
the GA Serving America Website. It is replete with nonsense about the
utility of VFR GA for transportation. It really is quite humourous.

If GA were practical for transportation, it would be a lot more
widespread. If it were as practical as cars, it would be as common as
cars. The fact that is actually extremely rare implies that GA is
only useful to people who like to fly for the sake of flying, in most
cases.

Rather than focusing on improving pilots' skills (though they devote
much of their efforts to this), the AOPA strays into political matters
such as whether taxpayers should keep providing subsidies to
recreational pilots.

How do taxpayers subsidize recreational pilots?

It also successfully lobbies the FAA (which it
has huge influence over) to create new categories of licenses, the
weakest of which (Sport Pilot) requires NO MEDICAL WHATSOEVER.

A driver's license doesn't require much of a medical, either. Why is
that a problem?

It constantly tries to get medical rules loosened, so that some geezer on
his last gasp still has the legal right to fly 1000 feet over private
properties.

He already has the right to drive past them or even through them in a
car. Why should flying be different?

Besides, a skilled old geezer is a lot safer than a careless or
incompetent young athlete.

In short, it is a very nefarious special interest lobby
that has contempt for all but its pilot members, who it refers to as
the "elite". Reading a few entries on the NTSB GA crash website puts
the notion of private pilots being elite to rest. As you know, there
are quite a few boobs flying around. Some of the pilots themselves
admit to this.

Yes. GA is its own worst enemy.

What puzzles me is how so many manifestly incompetent and stupid
people can still get private pilot's licenses. There are way more
idiots flying than I would expect, given the difficulty of obtaining a
license.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.