Commercial Ticket Endeavor

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
Fifteen years ago I was on hiatus. Before that, a private pilot could fly
for costs. The old rule made sense to me. The new one does not.

I don't see why not. To me, the new rules make more sense than allowing a
Private pilot's entire costs to be paid by someone else. Any amount of
money a pilot spends less than his passengers is net profit. Net profit
means commercial enterprise. That's ignoring the fact that there is benefit
to the pilot above and beyond any benefit to his passengers.

In any case, whether the new rule makes sense to you or not, it is the new
rule.

Perhaps. But if I did it only occasionally, and the FBO was only an
initial reccomendation (or one of several I'm checked out at), and I was
not taking any more than costs, only the FAA would see that as "holding
out an illegal part 135."

The FAA's opinion is the only one that matters. Of course, you also added a
bunch of qualifications to the operation that weren't in the original
discussion.

All that said, I would still be surprised if there are many FBOs that would
be willing to be party to the kind of arrangement being discussed here. It
may well be that the FAA's opinion is entirely moot, since no one could
actually attempt this particular end-run around the regulations.

Pete

I don't see why not. To me, the new rules make more sense than allowing a
Private pilot's entire costs to be paid by someone else.

I see no reason that [the regs should say that] a private pilot's costs
should not be able to be paid by somebody else, and can think of quite a
few examples where it would make sense.

1: My friend who owns a plane flies me for free on a skiing trip. He
breaks his leg. I am prohibited from flying his plane home without
ponying up cash, even if he doesn't want the money. We'd have to hire a
commercial pilot to do this. (well, guess what - in the scenario under
discussion, I would =be= a commercial pilot and could therefore do it,
but a private pilot could not.)

2: My father thinks I should be instrument rated, and offers to pay for
flying lessons and flying time so that I can get my rating. Nixed by
the FAA.

3: I fly three people on Monday, and one person on Tuesday. We share
costs equally. I pay more on Tuesday for the same flight.

4: I'm a member of a ski group - we drive up and whoever is driving
gets free lodging. We've been doing this for years, but this year we
fly. Free lodging is compensation - nixed... though I asked an FAA
official about this and they see it as a separate transaction, so as
long as they don't pay for the =flight=, they can pay as much lodging as
they want and I'm in the clear. Nixed or not? Depends on who has a
burr up which part of whose anatomy that day.

You can argue that these examples are unlikely, but that is besides the
point. The "new" rule (IMEO makes no sense.

Any amount of
money a pilot spends less than his passengers is net profit. Net profit
means commercial enterprise.

This is not the definition of net profit. Net profit is total intake
minus total outgo. The old rule meant "no net profit". The new rule
means something else. As for "net profit meaning commercial
enterprise", that's not true either. Granted a commercial enterprise
will need net profit to stay in business, and will need quite a bit of
net profit. But no commercial enterprise will stay in business (without
subsidy) if "net profit" means "loses as much as their customers", which
is what the new rule actually works out to.

That's ignoring the fact that there is benefit
to the pilot above and beyond any benefit to his passengers.

I like to fly. This joy is a benefit. But if you really mean it that
way then I'm a commercial enterprise when I fly solo.

I make a written record of what transpired, noting how long I was flying
and under what conditions, and keeping track of my flying experience.
This is a benefit inasmuch as I can use it for currency and future
ratings. I know the FAA has put its imprimateur on this twisting of the
meaning of words.

However I cannot =trade on= this "benefit". I can't trade my hours for
a new DG. I can't spend my logbook to buy a hamburger or pay my rent.
If you don't have enough hours for a rating, or lack recent night
landings, I can't "give you some of mine" in exchange for having you
paint my closet. I can't even trade my night landings for your
instrument approaches. The numbers in my logbook are merely a
historical record, they are =not= a medium of exchange.

Therefore, I do not see how the FAA can justify their stance that
logging time is "compensation" that makes one a "commercial operator"
under =any= circumstances (though I will agree that there may be =other=
circumstances which would do so by themselves).

The FAA's opinion is the only one that matters.

Of course. That's why I said it. But that doesn't make the FAA's
opinion make sense. And I didn't add a bunch of qualifications that
weren't in the original. The original (post) simply stated that there
were some circumstances (that is to say, there are not NO circumstances)
in which the commercial ticket would be of use for a pilot who was not
aiming to be a commercial operator. They might be rare, just like
having three pilots log PIC time would be rare, but they are possible.

All that said, I would still be surprised if there are many FBOs that would
be willing to be party to the kind of arrangement being discussed here.

So would I. But an airplane owner might do this. In fact, I think it's
rather common in some circles (such as a company plane used for company
business under part 91).

It
may well be that the FAA's opinion is entirely moot, since no one could
actually attempt this particular end-run around the regulations.

Well, I don't agree with this particular absolute. I'm not even sure
it's all that hard, though I agree that an ordinary FBO is not likely to
do this.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
I see no reason that [the regs should say that] a private pilot's costs
should not be able to be paid by somebody else

Well, I do. It happens, oddly enough, that the FAA agrees with me today.
Tomorrow, who knows.

and can think of quite a few examples where it would make sense.

Make sense to you, that is.

1: My friend who owns a plane flies me for free on a skiing trip. He
breaks his leg. I am prohibited from flying his plane home without
ponying up cash, even if he doesn't want the money. We'd have to hire a
commercial pilot to do this. (well, guess what - in the scenario under
discussion, I would =be= a commercial pilot and could therefore do it, but
a private pilot could not.)

I see no reason you should be permitted to fly for free, just because your
friend broke his leg. If anything allowing this gives you incentive to
break your friends' leg . Regardless, the rules aren't about
compassion...they are about preventing pilots from being paid to fly (and
that includes paying less than anyone else in the airplane).

2: My father thinks I should be instrument rated, and offers to pay for
flying lessons and flying time so that I can get my rating. Nixed by the
FAA.

This obviously is NOT "nixed by the FAA", since plenty of student pilots are
being paid scholarship money used to finance their education.

3: I fly three people on Monday, and one person on Tuesday. We share
costs equally. I pay more on Tuesday for the same flight.

So what? Why shouldn't you pay more for the same flight? If you don't, the
other guy has to pay three times what he paid on Monday. How is THAT fair?
This has to be one of the silliest so-called "examples" in your list.

4: I'm a member of a ski group - we drive up and whoever is driving gets
free lodging. We've been doing this for years, but this year we fly.
Free lodging is compensation - nixed... though I asked an FAA official
about this and they see it as a separate transaction, so as long as they
don't pay for the =flight=, they can pay as much lodging as they want and
I'm in the clear. Nixed or not? Depends on who has a burr up which part
of whose anatomy that day.

Presumably in the driving scenario, the riders don't pay gas and
maintenance? In this example, you simply share the cost of the flight with
your friends, rather than accepting the free lodging. In the end, you
should come out roughly the same. If not, then it seems to me that the deal
wasn't very fair to someone in the first place.

You can argue that these examples are unlikely, but that is besides the
point. The "new" rule (IMEO makes no sense.

I don't really care how likely or unlikely they are. I don't even see them
as "examples". If they are the best you can come up with, I don't even see
why YOU hold the belief you do, never mind am I swayed to change my own
position.

Any amount of money a pilot spends less than his passengers is net
profit. Net profit means commercial enterprise.

This is not the definition of net profit. Net profit is total intake
minus total outgo.

What isn't the definition?

I took it as granted I didn't have to throw the word "positive" in there for
you. And if you are complaining about the phrase "net profit means
commercial enterprise", you are willfully ignoring the correct
interpretation simply for the sake of being argumentative. That phrase is
obviously not intended to define "net profit". It describes what the
implication of a "[positive] net profit" is.

If the pilot's fair share of the flight is compensated for by any income,
that's profit. The legal way to compensate the pilot for the flight is for
the pilot to earn the money somewhere else, in a job unrelated to the
flight. The illegal way to compensate the pilot for the flight is for the
pilot to earn the money as part of the flight.

The old rule meant "no net profit". The new rule means something else.

I disagree. I don't know what the exact wording of the old rule was, but
the current rule clearly means "no net profit".

As for "net profit meaning commercial enterprise", that's not true either.

Of course it is. That is the FAA's definition of a pilot flying for
compensation. They have a net profit from the flight. That is, they
receive money offsetting their fair share of the cost of the flight.

Granted a commercial enterprise will need net profit to stay in business,
and will need quite a bit of net profit. But no commercial enterprise
will stay in business (without subsidy) if "net profit" means "loses as
much as their customers", which is what the new rule actually works out
to.

First of all, the only way for the pilot to "lose as much as their customer"
is for the pilot to pay his fair share.

Secondly, the thing you keep missing is that the pilot is both pilot and
customer. As customer, he is required to pay his fair share of the flight.
As pilot, he is not permitted to receive ANY compensation for his
participation in the flight. If he pays less than his fair share of the
flight, then he is still paying his fair share as a customer, but receiving
compensation as a pilot.

That's ignoring the fact that there is benefit to the pilot above and
beyond any benefit to his passengers.

I like to fly. This joy is a benefit. But if you really mean it that way
then I'm a commercial enterprise when I fly solo.

I wrote "that's ignoring the fact". What's so hard about "ignoring the
fact" for you to get on board with? The FAA has conveniently ignored the
joy of flying for the purpose of this discussion; you would do well to do so
as well.

I make a written record of what transpired, noting how long I was flying
and under what conditions, and keeping track of my flying experience. This
is a benefit inasmuch as I can use it for currency and future ratings. I
know the FAA has put its imprimateur on this twisting of the meaning of
words.

However I cannot =trade on= this "benefit".

Of course you can. You may be the sole pilot who doesn't bother to, but
other pilots trade on their recorded flight time all the time:

* Lower insurance rates
* Qualified to fly new types of airplanes (often due to FBO or insurance
rules, not FAA rules)
* Qualified for new pilot certificates
* Being chosen over a lower-time pilot for a paid flying job

There are plenty of other examples where flight time translated directly
into a net gain to the pilot, either in privileges, income, or both.

[...]
All that said, I would still be surprised if there are many FBOs that
would be willing to be party to the kind of arrangement being discussed
here.

So would I. But an airplane owner might do this. In fact, I think it's
rather common in some circles (such as a company plane used for company
business under part 91).

It would be perfectly legal for an airplane owner to do that, for a pilot
who holds a Commercial Pilot certificate. I don't know what your point was
supposed to be, but you're just making mine for me.

It may well be that the FAA's opinion is entirely moot, since no one
could actually attempt this particular end-run around the regulations.

Well, I don't agree with this particular absolute. I'm not even sure it's
all that hard, though I agree that an ordinary FBO is not likely to do
this.

"May well be" is an absolute? Um, okay. Whatever floats your boat.

Pete

I see no reason you should be permitted to fly for free, just because your
friend broke his leg.

Do you see any reason I should be able to ride for free? What's the
difference?

[the rules] are about preventing pilots from being paid to fly (and
that includes paying less than anyone else in the airplane).

Well, I disagree with you and with the FAA that "paying less..." is
"being paid to fly". Of course, you know that by now.

This obviously is NOT "nixed by the FAA", since plenty of student pilots are
being paid scholarship money used to finance their education.

What's the difference here? The instrument student IS being paid to
fly, and is logging the time to boot. Does it change if the father (who
is paying for the lessons) comes along on the flight? Why should it?

So what? Why shouldn't you pay more for the same flight? If you don't, the
other guy has to pay three times what he paid on Monday. How is THAT fair?
This has to be one of the silliest so-called "examples" in your list.

It shows silly results from the rule. It should be up to us how to
split it, so long as the pilot isn't making a net profit. Alas, it isn't.

Presumably in the driving scenario, the riders don't pay gas and
maintenance?

Nope. Or yep. Doesn't matter, it would work either way. But it
doesn't become a commercial (driving) scenario unless the driver is
charging for the ride like a taxi. But in the flying scenario, it
becomes a commercial endeavor from the getgo.

As for not being fair, we rotate driving each trip. When it's my turn,
I drive my airplane instead.

Any amount of money a pilot spends less than his passengers is net
profit. Net profit means commercial enterprise.
This is not the definition of net profit. Net profit is total intake
minus total outgo.
What isn't the definition?

The definition of "profit" is not "any amount of money a pilot spends
less than his passengers". It is "any amount the pilot receives, over
and above his costs". The pilot can receive exactly =all= of his costs
and not have a profit. If you reported "profits" the way you defined
them, and were running a publicly owned business outside of Hollywood,
the securities board would have a word with you.

If the pilot's fair share of the flight is compensated for by any income,
that's profit.

No. True, the FAA defines it that way, and we have to live with the
consequences. But no. And I don't think the FAA should tell me what my
"fair share" is.

the thing you keep missing is that the pilot is both pilot and
customer. As customer, he is required to pay his fair share of the flight.

No. "customers" are not required to pay anything. Only the pilot is
required to pay something.

Of course you can [=trade on= this "benefit"]. You may be the sole pilot who doesn't bother to, but
other pilots trade on their recorded flight time all the time:

* Lower insurance rates
* Qualified to fly new types of airplanes (often due to FBO or insurance
rules, not FAA rules)
* Qualified for new pilot certificates
* Being chosen over a lower-time pilot for a paid flying job

I am not "trading on" this "benefit" when I get any of these things. I
am not surrendering my hours like I would cash. I get these benefits
not by trading in hours like frequent flier miles, but rather, because
of the historical fact that I have flown those hours. This is not
"compensation" in any sense I understand the term.

All that said, I would still be surprised if there are many FBOs that
would be willing to be party to the kind of arrangement being discussed
here.
So would I. But an airplane owner might do this. In fact, I think it's
rather common in some circles (such as a company plane used for company
business under part 91).
It would be perfectly legal for an airplane owner to do that, for a pilot
who holds a Commercial Pilot certificate. I don't know what your point was
supposed to be, but you're just making mine for me.

My point was supposed to be that while an FBO might be unlikely to do
so, the situation (of a commercial pilot being able to benefit from
having the rating outside of commercial operations) is far from
impossible, and probably far from improbable. An airplane owner could
rent an airplane to a passenger, who would then independently hire a
commercial pilot to fly him, and treat the flight as a private pilot
would, though if the FAA gets picky, (say, claiming that having dinner
together counts as compensation) the pilot could fall back on it being
legal as a commercial part 91 enterprise. The FAA's creative
definitions of "compensation" would make me reluctant to go on a date in
an airplane if I'm being treated.

It may well be that the FAA's opinion is entirely moot, since no one
could actually attempt this particular end-run around the regulations.
Well, I don't agree with this particular absolute. I'm not even sure it's
all that hard, though I agree that an ordinary FBO is not likely to do
this.
"May well be" is an absolute?

No. "...no one could actually attempt..." is an absolute.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
I see no reason you should be permitted to fly for free, just because
your friend broke his leg.

Do you see any reason I should be able to ride for free? What's the
difference?

Of course I see a reason. The difference is obvious: the pilot isn't
receiving any compensation from you at all when you fly free. That makes it
very black & white clear that it's not a "for hire" operation.

[...]
This obviously is NOT "nixed by the FAA", since plenty of student pilots
are being paid scholarship money used to finance their education.

What's the difference here? The instrument student IS being paid to fly,
and is logging the time to boot. Does it change if the father (who is
paying for the lessons) comes along on the flight? Why should it?

I don't understand your question. As far as I know, it doesn't matter who
pays the scholarship money, it's still permitted.

As far as whether your father can come along on a lesson or not, I guess
you'd have to ask the FSDO. I don't know the answer. Passengers are not
prohibited on training flights, but the FAA certainly might start asking you
uncomfortable questions if it appeared your father was taking advantage of
your training in order to pay you to fly him around.

So what? Why shouldn't you pay more for the same flight? If you don't,
the other guy has to pay three times what he paid on Monday. How is THAT
fair? This has to be one of the silliest so-called "examples" in your
list.

It shows silly results from the rule. It should be up to us how to split
it, so long as the pilot isn't making a net profit. Alas, it isn't.

It IS up to you as to how to split the costs, so long as the pilot isn't
making a net profit. You just refuse to comprehend how the pilot makes a
net profit when paying less than his pro-rata share.

Presumably in the driving scenario, the riders don't pay gas and
maintenance?

Nope. Or yep. Doesn't matter, it would work either way.

My point is that you can easily rectify the presumed imbalance if you just
split the airplane costs, rather than having everyone foot the bill. It
DOES matter, the FAA rules give you a perfectly reasonable alternative given
your current tradition.

If you were to change the tradition to make the passengers pay not only for
the room, but also the car expenses, then the FAA would not allow the
equivalent in flying. But then it's possible you'd be running afoul of the
commercial driving regulations too (I don't know, not having studied them,
and not having been in any situation where someone was even remotely close
to paying me to drive them somewhere).

But it doesn't become a commercial (driving) scenario unless the driver is
charging for the ride like a taxi. But in the flying scenario, it becomes
a commercial endeavor from the getgo.

If your passengers are forced to pay you for your room, along with all of
the car expenses, that sure sounds to me like the driver is charging for the
ride.

As for not being fair, we rotate driving each trip. When it's my turn, I
drive my airplane instead.

So what?

The definition of "profit" is not "any amount of money a pilot spends less
than his passengers". It is "any amount the pilot receives, over and
above his costs".

Well, fortunately for this discussion, while I am using "profit" differently
than you are, the real issue is "compensation", which is the term the FAA
uses. Whether you think the pilot is profiting or not, that is irrelevant.
Any money provided to the pilot beyond his fair share of the cost of the
flight is "compensation".

If the pilot's fair share of the flight is compensated for by any income,
that's profit.

No. True, the FAA defines it that way, and we have to live with the
consequences. But no. And I don't think the FAA should tell me what my
"fair share" is.

Well, too bad. They do. They do so for very good reasons, mostly related
to other pilots abusing the more relaxed version of the rules. It may well
be you'd never abuse that version, but other pilots do and the FAA decided
it was more efficient to draw a very clear, dark line.

the thing you keep missing is that the pilot is both pilot and customer.
As customer, he is required to pay his fair share of the flight.

No. "customers" are not required to pay anything. Only the pilot is
required to pay something.

Customers are not required to pay anything? Gosh darnit...I've been doing
this whole "customer" thing all wrong. I keep handing my money over to
people in return for goods and services. And now you tell me I wasn't
required to pay anything. I sure feel dumb now.

I am not "trading on" this "benefit" when I get any of these things. I am
not surrendering my hours like I would cash.

You don't need to be able to "surrender" your hours for them to be a
benefit. Suppose that instead of money, your employer simply gave you food
for your work, but you were required to eat the food upon receipt. You
can't surrender that food (as food), but it is still compensation. Not all
compensation is tradable. Never has been.

Your requirement that you be able to "trade" your hours is unreasonable and
irrelevant.

[...]
My point was supposed to be that while an FBO might be unlikely to do so,
the situation (of a commercial pilot being able to benefit from having the
rating outside of commercial operations) is far from impossible, and
probably far from improbable.

Any time a pilot is paid (ie compensated) for flying, that's a commercial
operation. Whether it's legal or not. By definition, if the pilot is
exercising the privileges of his Commercial Pilot certificate, he is
engaging in a commercial operation.

Not all commercial operations require adherence to Part 135, Part 121, etc.

An airplane owner could rent an airplane to a passenger, who would then
independently hire a commercial pilot to fly him, and treat the flight as
a private pilot would,

Huh? How does the passenger treat the flight as a private pilot would?
What does that mean?

though if the FAA gets picky, (say, claiming that having dinner together
counts as compensation) the pilot could fall back on it being legal as a
commercial part 91 enterprise. The FAA's creative definitions of
"compensation" would make me reluctant to go on a date in an airplane if
I'm being treated.

So you'd skip the date rather than going Dutch? That seems silly. Though,
I suppose it does depend on the girl.

In any case, my point was that if the pilot is arranging the airplane for
the customer, the FAA is likely to consider that an illegal Part 135
operation, even if the customer actually pays for the airplane themself.

No. "...no one could actually attempt..." is an absolute.

It was an "absolute" preceded by a qualifier, one that disqualified it as
"absolute".

Again, you seem to be reading and interpreting selectively, simply for the
sake of being argumentative.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

Net profit means commercial enterprise.

I don't fly in the USA, so I don't really care. And I agree that neither
your nor my opinion matter. This said:

Profit doesn't mean commercial enterprise. There are commercial
enterprises without profit (although, supposedly, they won't exist very
long), and you can make a profit without being a commercial enterprize.
(Winning a lottery, for example.)

Where I fly, the regulation is very different. Here, commercial means
"as a profession". I agree that theoretically this opens a grey area,
but in real life, things are pretty clear.

So as a private pilot, I am not allowed to offer flights to the public.
Even not if I ask less money than their share. On the other hand, I'm
allowed to fly with a friend, even if he pays everything and the lunch.
The idea is, that the reason of the commercial ticket is to protect the
public. Makes much more sense to me.

Stefan

The difference is obvious: the pilot isn't
receiving any compensation from you at all when you fly free.

No, I mean any difference between flying and riding free. Of course
there is a difference, but is it one that should apply? My point is to
counter yours that "I see no reason you should be permitted to fly for
free, just because your friend broke his leg." I was already going to
=ride= for free, it just so happens I'm a pilot and qualified to fly his
plane home (even with him and his broken leg in it); I see no reason why
I should not be permitted to, or why the FAA gets to stick its nose in here.

I don't understand your question. As far as I know, it doesn't matter who
pays the scholarship money, it's still permitted.

On the one hand you are saying that if a pilot gets to fly for free,
that is compensation and makes it a commercial endavor. Well, when my
friend pays for the airplane, I am flying for free doing my instrument
training (or any other flight). The same is true when my father or my
fiancee pays. So why is one case commercial and the other not?

You just refuse to comprehend how the pilot makes a
net profit when paying less than his pro-rata share.

This new learning amazes me. Tell me again how the earth is banana
shaped. Profit is income minus outgo. Period.

the real issue is "compensation", which is the term the FAA
uses.

.... and with which I am taking issue. Of course I'm railing at the
wind, but this =is= Usenet, and there is plenty of wind.

Any money provided to the pilot beyond his fair share of the cost of the
flight is "compensation".

IOW if the pilot gets to fly for free, he is compensated. By what?
We're down to "joy of flying" and "historical record of experience".
Were this to be logically extended past the FAA (and that's my test of
reasonableness of word use), it would be compensation whenever I go to
the library and read a book. Now while I'd agree that I was
"enrichened" by the experience, any business that consideres itself to
have a profit whenever it learns something will not be in business long.

If your [car] passengers are forced to pay you for your room, along with all of
the car expenses, that sure sounds to me like the driver is charging for the
ride.

Well, yes, but the taxi and livery commission doesn't seem to have a
problem with this (except in France).

They do so for very good reasons, mostly related
to other pilots abusing the more relaxed version of the rules.

I'd like to see some of this. Do you have any cites?

So you'd skip the date rather than going Dutch? That seems silly.

I might not be able to afford to go dutch. And the pilot might be the
girl. Or the girl might be paying.

In any case, my point was that if the pilot is arranging the airplane for
the customer, the FAA is likely to consider that an illegal Part 135
operation, even if the customer actually pays for the airplane themself.

Correct. But the passenger could arrange for the plane himself, for
example through his business which owns an airplane. He could then come
to me (a friend) to fly that plane with him in it, and split the costs.
We would be safe from prosecution since, viewed as a commercial
enterprise, it is legal. Viewed as a private enterprise it is too grey
for comfort.

It was an "absolute" preceded by a qualifier, one that disqualified it as
"absolute".

The point where the absolute was is absolute, sort of like "it might be
because it is impossible"... when "it" is actually not impossible at
all. But I'll drop it.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

So as a private pilot [licensed and operating outside the USA], I am not allowed to offer flights to the public. Even not if I ask less money than their share. On the other hand, I'm allowed to fly with a friend, even if he pays everything and the lunch. The idea is, that the reason of the commercial ticket is to protect the public. Makes much more sense to me.

That's the way it should be. Here in the US we've muddled things up.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

So as a private pilot [licensed and operating outside the USA], I am not
allowed to offer flights to the public. Even not if I ask less money than
their share. On the other hand, I'm allowed to fly with a friend, even if he
pays everything and the lunch. The idea is, that the reason of the
commercial ticket is to protect the public. Makes much more sense to me.

That's the way it should be. Here in the US we've muddled things up.

Define "friend" for us NG folk. Now define "friend" in a 'legal' sense as
you would like to see it written in the FARs.

Hilton

Hilton wrote:

Define "friend" for us NG folk. Now define "friend" in a 'legal' sense as
you would like to see it written in the FARs.

I was expecting this. As I said: Theoretically a grey area, but in real
life, it works just fine. At least it does here, not sure whether it
would in the USA.

Stefan