Commercial Ticket Endeavor

Peter Duniho wrote:

To the FAA, profiting as a result of your flying means it's a commercial
enterprise.

Perhaps it's because your native language isn't English...but honestly, it
didn't occur to me I should have to be so explicit about that statement.

Well, you wrote:

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.

If this means that it's only the FAA's opinion and not yours, then I
agree that I have a language problem.

Stefan

I personally find the distinction odd, but it's the way the FAA has decided
to draw the line. Inasmuch as the line-drawing is arbitrary anyway, I don't
have any serious problem with their choice.

The oddness of the distinction is my point. I don't think line-drawing
needs to be arbitrary, the FAA seems to go out of its way to find odd
places to draw lines.

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

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

A "friend" is one with whom one has a prior personal relationship. I
would not define "friend" in a legal sense for the FARs, because I
believe that the private pilot privilage of flying somebody who pays for
the flight (but no more than the cost of the flight) should be extended
beyond friends, just like it is extended beyond friends in an automotive
sense. I also believe that a commercial operation should be reserved
for commercial pilots, just like automotive livery services are reserved
for licensed livery operators. The boundary is always fuzzy, moving the
boundary does not make it less fuzzy.

The important pieces are (IMHO):
1: Protection of the flying public from the perception that they are
receiving a greater degree of safety and oversight than they are. (this
is more of a disclosure issue - "I'm a private pilot, not a commercial
pilot, I have not been tested to the higher commercial standards and
neither has the aircraft.")

2: Protection of legitimate charter operations from fly-by-nights that
are really trying to undercut them by skimping on safety. This is more
of a business issue, and is primarily aimed at operations that are
intending to make a profit that they can take to the bank.

3: Protection of the freedom in this country to manage our own affairs
the way we wish, so long as it does not adversely and unfairly impact
others.

I believe that private pilots should be able to fly passengers, whether
they are friends, friends-of-friends, new-found acquantances, or cub
scouts they've never met. I believe they should be able to do so even
if the pilot doesn't have any independent reason to fly to the
passenger's destination. Joy of flight is reason enough to take off.

I believe that private pilots should be prohibited from running a
commercial operation in disguise, but should be able to recover all
costs of operating the aircraft for an individual flight. I believe
that posting on a college ride board in the same manner as an automotive
posting does not establish commercial intent.

My beliefs are more liberal than the FAA's present rules allow, and one
could rightly conclude that I disagree with the FAA's rules on this
matter. However, I think that the present rules draw a line that is
more arbitrary than the ones I would draw.

To address the question above, I would replace 61.113 (c) with something
like: "A private pilot may share the operating expenses of a flight
with his passengers in any mutually agreed upon manner. A private pilot
may not receive compensation for the flight over and above these
expenses. Except as otherwise provided in this part, a private pilot
may not operate in a manner resembling a commercial operation; this
resemblance being considered overall rather than flight by flight."

No, this is not a clear-cut division either, no rule (except an outright
ban) is. However, I believe the wording provides a clear enough picture
so that a judge is likely to interpret it the same way a pilot is likely
to have done (making a violation likely to be deliberate rather than a
trap), while preserving the maximum reasonable freedom for a private
pilot to operate.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Lotsa luck...

denny