Renting an airplane? Need Expert FARS Advice??

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
If the different AOPA article quoted by Peter Clark in this thread really
interprets the case, for which the ruling is available for all to read, as
supporting this view, then I'm not convinced they're doing you a favour.

Not sure what you're talking about. The case Peter Clark is quoting is a
completely different issue, where the pilot is not the person being
compensated, even though the flight was made "for compensation". The case
doesn't address whether free flight time is compensation at all, since the
case involved a much more clear-cut situation of paying passengers, nor does
the AOPA Pilot article make a claim that the case does.

I'm not really going to be convinced except by docket numbers! This seems
to be an area where rumours reinforce themselves.

The cases have been quoted. Just because I don't have them in front of me
doesn't mean they don't exist. Regardless, it's not really any of my
concern whether you agree or not. I know that I would never accept free
flight time where the donor had anything other than simply doing me a favor
in mind; that includes just flying the airplane to keep it from sitting
idle.

Pete

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:28:18 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
If the different AOPA article quoted by Peter Clark in this thread really
interprets the case, for which the ruling is available for all to read, as
supporting this view, then I'm not convinced they're doing you a favour.

Not sure what you're talking about. The case Peter Clark is quoting is a
completely different issue, where the pilot is not the person being
compensated, even though the flight was made "for compensation". The case
doesn't address whether free flight time is compensation at all, since the
case involved a much more clear-cut situation of paying passengers, nor does
the AOPA Pilot article make a claim that the case does.

Actually, I was only quoting that case in the context that the FAA and
NTSB appear to take the view that intangible things (including good
will) can and are also considered compensation WRTexamining whether
61.113 was violated or not. The specifics of the case are immaterial
to the concept that, according to the ruling, one of the tests to be
used in deciding if there is a violation of 61.113 or not includes
looking to see if there is evidence of (in the absence of direct
monetary compensation) any intangible benefits to be found, and if
they are present a violation has occurred. If I'm wrong in
interpreting the ruling to establish/use one prong of a multi-prong
test to see whether a violation has occurred, great, I'd like to
understand the dissenting opinion's logic.

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
Actually, I was only quoting that case in the context that the FAA and
NTSB appear to take the view that intangible things (including good
will) can and are also considered compensation WRTexamining whether
61.113 was violated or not.

The Super Bowl party case doesn't show that. The problem there was actual,
paying passengers, who paid for transportation. That's tangible
compensation, and has nothing to do with whether intangible compensation
(like logging hours) is considered "compensation" by the FAA.

In spite of the NTSB's comments regarding "goodwill", I don't read the
article as saying that that was a core component of their judgment, but
rather a secondary issue. The real problem was that the pilot participated
in what was a commercial operation, complete with paying passengers. (It
certainly didn't help things that the airplanes used were not Part 135
certified either).

I agree with your views with respect to 61.113, but I don't think that
particular case is the best example of how the pilot himself receives what
the FAA considers "compensation" even if he isn't paid in cash. There's too
many other distracting factors (after all, Julian apparently failed to
notice that, in addition to the other "commercial operation" issues, the
NTSB found that the pilot *did* receive compensation himself; I think that's
because the other issues distracted him from that one).

It *does* illustrate that *even if the pilot himself pays for the flight*,
he could potentially get into trouble, if the operation otherwise looks like
a commercial operation, or if the FAA and NTSB find that the pilot *still*
received some sort of compensation (even in the form of "goodwill"). That
latter point delves more deeply into what the FAA might not approve of than
the comments I've made do.

Frankly, with such liberal interpretations of "compensation" by the FAA and
NTSB, it boggles my mind that anyone might think that the FAA *doesn't* view
free flight time as compensation. (Hi Julian ).

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

I don't understand your comments.

Ok, then I've not phrased things well. In the case I mentioned, the key argument the
FAA advanced was that the towplane pilot was time-building; that is, he intended to
use the time flying the towplane to fulfill part of the requirements for his next
certificate. As such, the time was valuable and he would have had to pay for it had
he not volunteered to fly the towplane. That made it compensation. The fact that he
was competing with professionals for the towplane job got him busted but did not
otherwise figure in the case.

So, the real question here is whether or not NW_PILOT is intending to pursue another
rating or certificate and intends to use this time as part of the time necessary to
fulfill the requirements for that rating. If so, he could be busted for violation of
this FAR, and there is precedence for a guilty verdict. If not, there is no
precedence for a bust or guilty verdict (though I suppose he could be the first).

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Ok guys, I am waiting for a return call form the FSDO, But from the initial
call it was a BIG NO the way it was proposed to be done. But there is a way
around it they think? and they are checking on it further may take them a
week or so to get back with me, it would consist of either a Joint account
at the FBO in witch deposited money from a third party that was given as a
gift in to that joint account or 2 accounts and money deposited in to them
accounts and all rental fees deducted from both accounts equally.

Sorry for the delay in writing back.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
So, the real question here is whether or not NW_PILOT is intending to
pursue another
rating or certificate and intends to use this time as part of the time
necessary to
fulfill the requirements for that rating.

Hmmm...well, I see what you mean. But I'm not sure the FAA bothers to make
that distinction. That is, I believe that they say that logged time is
compensation, whether or not you ever intend to use it for another rating.

If you don't even log the time, then yes...I'd agree that even the FAA would
be hard-pressed to find a "compensation" facet to the operation.

Pete

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...

Actually, I was only quoting that case in the context that the FAA and
NTSB appear to take the view that intangible things (including good
will) can and are also considered compensation WRTexamining whether
61.113 was violated or not.

That "compensation" is broader than a simple payment is not in dispute.
That compensation for a flight would include the mere privilege of making
that particular flight, is.

The specifics of the case are immaterial
to the concept that, according to the ruling, one of the tests to be
used in deciding if there is a violation of 61.113 or not includes
looking to see if there is evidence of (in the absence of direct
monetary compensation) any intangible benefits to be found, and if
they are present a violation has occurred. If I'm wrong in
interpreting the ruling to establish/use one prong of a multi-prong
test to see whether a violation has occurred, great, I'd like to
understand the dissenting opinion's logic.

If I misinterpreted your reason for quoting that ruling, I apologise. You
quoted it in a paragraph where you started with the assertion

It seems to me that the underlying implication of the rule is that in
the eyes of the FAA the pilot is supposed to be paying for the flight
expenses in all cases.

and I thought you were using that in support. The "goodwill" referred to by
the NTSB in that ruling is the expectation that the pilot would get paid, or
equivalent, at some future date for doing this "favor". In essence, neither
the law judge nor the Board believed that this was just a favor, and the
"goodwill" precedent seemed to be cited to contrast with the lack of
evidence that money changed hands. It did nothing to broaden the
interpretation of compensation to support your assertion above.

Julian

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

I agree with your views with respect to 61.113, but I don't think that
particular case is the best example of how the pilot himself receives what
the FAA considers "compensation" even if he isn't paid in cash. There's
too
many other distracting factors (after all, Julian apparently failed to
notice that, in addition to the other "commercial operation" issues, the
NTSB found that the pilot *did* receive compensation himself; I think
that's
because the other issues distracted him from that one).

They didn't find that he received compensation in the form of anything as
intangible as you would like it to be. They found that it "strained
credulity" that he didn't expect to get paid. In other words, they simply
didn't believe that there was no compensation, even though they couldn't
find the check stubs.

Julian

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
They didn't find that he received compensation in the form of anything as
intangible as you would like it to be. They found that it "strained
credulity" that he didn't expect to get paid. In other words, they simply
didn't believe that there was no compensation, even though they couldn't
find the check stubs.

That wasn't my interpretation of that statement. After all, it "strains
credulity" to think that your comments were not acts of trolling, even
though ultimately I have to believe that they were not. Further, why
comment on the "compensation" in the form of "good will", if they really
believed there was actual payment?

Regardless, the actual interpretation is irrelevant to this discussion.
Please interpret the NTSB's statement however you like.

Pete

Peter Duniho opined

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
[...] If the owner says "make this
flight for me and I'll lend you the aircraft for a few hours for free next
week" then that could be construed as compensation. If he just says
"please
make this flight for me", I don't think it can.

This has been covered so often in this newsgroup, it's hard to give you the
benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just trolling, but...

The flight itself is what the FAA would consider compensation. Even just
the one. In this particular scenario, the Private Pilot would be required
to pay his own way while operating the airplane. Otherwise, he is being
compensated (by the free use of the airplane).

As a quick and dirty rule, if you are better off after a flight than before,
then the FAA will connsider it illegal.



-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?