"Rescue" flight, PPL

Anyone who honestly thinks this is wrong, please convince me.


I think everyone here more or less agrees with you but the point of this
discussion is what the actual rules say and when the FAA might go after
someone for bending them.

So in other words, if you're just an average guy with a PPL, have no
intention of going for a commercial rating (or even an instrument ticket,
since the aircraft you usually fly isn't equipped for such), and have spent
(and intend to spend) your flying time just buzzing around, doing
aerobatics, visiting friends, taking trips to fly-ins, and buying expensive
hamburgers, then they won't really care?

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
Anyone who honestly thinks this is wrong, please convince me.


I think everyone here more or less agrees with you but the point of this
discussion is what the actual rules say and when the FAA might go after
someone for bending them.

So in other words, if you're just an average guy with a PPL, have no
intention of going for a commercial rating (or even an instrument ticket,
since the aircraft you usually fly isn't equipped for such), and have
spent
(and intend to spend) your flying time just buzzing around, doing
aerobatics, visiting friends, taking trips to fly-ins, and buying
expensive
hamburgers, then they won't really care?


That seems to be the general consensus, yes.

However, get someone annoyed at you enough and something like this could
become an issue.

To all in the group!

I did the unforgivable mistake last night of posting after a party....

Someone was probably insulted by my attempts at sarcasm (war on terror
etc...)

So here goes:

I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post
I will never drink & post


There....


Apologise to anyone offended.

Frode




"Frode Berg" skrev i melding
...
All this seems like big BS!

Are you really this concerned with this in the US?????

Surely, war on terror is more important....?

hehe....

Seriously.

I am a hobby pilot. I do not intend ever to consider a CFI rating.
However, I log all my hours.

OK, say I'm really broke.
Honestly, I can't afford to fly 5 minutes, but a friend really wants a
short
hop over town.
He says, he'll pay the 30 dollars or whatever it costs.

We do it, and nobody cares.

So what??????

Now, if i do this ever once in a while, and 15 years down the line, I
figure
i don't wanna be a musician anymore, but a full time parachute jump
pilot....

OK, I get my CFI rating.

Would I have to confess to God for this, or take 40 beatings of the FAA
whip?

It doesn't make sense.

Isn't the idea that we should all be safe up there???

I'd say that it's far better that some geezer pay my 30 bucks and I get my
30 minutes of flying now and then rather then making the sky unsafe to all
the paying passengers of airliners caose I am not allowed to fly without
spending my own money.

Oh well, maybe US is different.....or I'm probably ignorant...(or too
drunk...hehe)

Here in my country we probably have the same rules.

However, most pilots bend them in this regard, but in my opinion, this
makes
a safer sky.

This is one rule bent that actually makes it way safer to do this! Letting
someone else pay for you fyling them around, therefore beeing a better
pilot.

This must be the goal for all of us right?

Anyone who honestly thinks this is wrong, please convince me.
And please, no BS about commercial planes loosing gigs. Which commercial
firms would even start up their planes for 30 bucks???

Frode




"Robert M. Gary" skrev i melding
om...
(BllFs6) wrote in message
...
The FAA has said in the past that flying for free is compensation and
requires a commercial. For CFIs its very easy since we already have a
commercial, we just need to keep up our class 2 medical. Most CFIs do
because it allows you to do the occasional local sight seeing pax
too.

-Robert



What if you did the "rescue" flight but you DID NOT log the hours?

Would that count? Or would you get in trouble for some OTHER rule
violation for
not logging some hours you actually flew?

take care

Its not the logging its the enjoying. You would have to prove that you
did not enjoy the flight, therefore its not compensation.

-Robert

Frode Berg wrote:

I did the unforgivable mistake last night of posting after a party....

Whatever.

Thing is, you are right. It is an overly restrictive regulation, and
only the wisdom (and workload) of most FAA types keeps it from being
applied as it might be.


Jack

"Roger Long" wrote in message
.. .
Yes, you were bad. You broke the rules and the FAA could suspend your
license. I've seen the opinion letter.

I went round and round on this since our club doesn't make members pay
when
they move the plane for maintenance.
I called up our local FSDO and asked if this kind of thing was a
violation.
They said, "Of course not, that's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
Who told you that?"

I faxed them a copy of the FAA counsel's opinion letter and they called
back
to say sheepishly that I was right. However they said that they have far
too much to do to ever worry about something like that.

In what way do you believe that the scenarios described in the FAA counsel's
opinion letter relate to the scenario described by Joe Johnson, or in fact
to the scenario of accepting free flying for maintenance?

All the scenarios in the letter involve an explicit payment in respect of
the flight by an Organization B to an Organization A. The counsel's opinion
revolves around this payment.

"A private pilot may not get paid to carry passengers or cargo and, even if
he does not get paid, he may not carry paying passengers or cargo if the
carriage has been paid to someone else. It should be further noted that a
private pilot may not serve as pilot in command of such an operation
even when he/she elects to forego actual monetary compensation..." (my
emphasis )

The "operation" cannot be conducted by a private pilot only because one
organization has paid a carriage fee for those passengers to another
organization. To do so would violate the first part of 61.113(a). The
counsel's opinion (Answer 2) is that the circumstances of the flight are not
covered by the exemption of 61.113(d).

If no such payment takes place, the passengers are not being carried for
compensation or hire. The counsel offers no opinion on this scenario in his
letter. It's quite clear that the counsel note is reinforcing the principle
that a private pilot cannot act as PIC of an air transportation operation
even if the private pilot is not reimbursed.

This is not hair-splitting as you suggest in your response to Peter
Gottlieb, but reading the answers in the context of the questions.

Julian Scarfe

There's the regs as they're written and then there's the regs as they
are enforced. In order for the FAA to really go after you for this
you'd have to really tempt them in some way. If someone were "hanging
around the office and heard something" odds are you'd just get a
letter saying "don't do that anymore."

As for the insurance company (the regulatory agency that *really*
determines how many of us fly), it's a question of how they would
know? Let's say on your way up there, the engine quits and you put it
down in a field. Where I rent, I pay for the rental after I come back.
How does mister insurance man know I was breaking the rules?

Just remember a rule I learned when I was in a fraternity in college.
If you're doing something you shouldn't be, don't take pictures. It's
not the act that gets you in trouble, it's the paper trail. Stupid
laws mostly teach honest people how to break them.

-cwk.

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
om...
There's the regs as they're written and then there's the regs as they
are enforced. In order for the FAA to really go after you for this
you'd have to really tempt them in some way. If someone were "hanging
around the office and heard something" odds are you'd just get a
letter saying "don't do that anymore."

If you're going to break the law, minimize your chances of getting caught.
Good advice, but surely it's useful to differentiate between that which is
illegal but not enforced, and that which is perfectly legal in the first
place?!

Julian