The Most Expensive Ironing Boards in the World...

...That's one heck of a lucky coincidence. By any chance, did your a&p
acquire the part after you visited him about the oil problem or an
annual? (Not that I'm a conspiracist, or anything...) Most people in
aviation are true gems, but one does run into questionable characters
from time to time.

I just asked him, and it turned out that it belonged to a customer (who
owned a Skybolt) who had sent his oil cooler out for refurb after he
replaced his. When it came back, he made the deal with my A&P that he
could sell it and make a little profit on it, someday.

"Someday" arrived yesterday!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 04:29:08 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
Did he feel like flying for free today?

Not that I wouldn't have done something similar in your predicament,
but do you think it's wise to invite your friend to violate FAR, and
then publish on a public forum what a FSDO inspector might construe as
a violation of FAR?


Since when is it a violation of FAR to come pick up a stranded friend?

Since the FAA interpreted the FAR that way. It is my understanding,
that the pilot needs to have been planning on making the trip, and
invite his passengers to share the expense. It would appear that Jay
offered to foot the ENTIRE COST if the flight HE invited his friend to
make, and then posted it publicly.

Or deliver a needed part for a friend?

If the flight is at the bidding of another, it mandates part 135
operation, I believe.

For that matter, how do you even know whether the pilot is a private
pilot or not?

Granted, that is a presumption. However, if it wasn't a part 135
charter flight, nothing is changed.

And if he is or isn't, what difference does that make?

If it makes no difference, why do you ask the question?

What makes you think the FAA gives a rat's ass what anybody posts here?

Oh, I would hazard a guess, that some segment of the readership of
this newsgroup is employed by the FAA, given the assumption that only
about 10% of the readership actually posts articles. Given the fact,
that prospective employers now routinely search the Internet for
information about prospective employees before hiring them, it seems
reasonable to assume that something similar might occur in this
instance. Given the facts provided, it shouldn't be too difficult to
deduce Doug's identity. So it is now possible that the FAA may become
aware of the possible FAR violation. Hopefully, the FSDO inspector
won't be of the ilk of those overzealous individuals involved in the
Bob Hoover emergency revocation incident.

At any rate, there is the information, now permanently a part of the
publicly accessible newsgroup archive. I know I would prefer not to
have had Jay publicly disclose my participation in such a ferrying
operation, and I presume Doug would be similarly inclined.

But hey, what are friends for? :-)

It is my understanding,
that the pilot needs to have been planning on making the trip, and
invite his passengers to share the expense.

It is my further understanding that there has to be a "unity of
purpose". You both have to have the same reason for going to the
destination. It can't be one wants to go to a museum in Boston, and the
pilot just wants to see fall colors from the air and doesn't care where
he flies.

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.

On 6 Oct 2006 08:34:01 -0500, T o d d P a t t i s t
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

do you think it's wise to invite your friend to violate FAR, and
then publish on a public forum what a FSDO inspector might construe as
a violation of FAR?

My first thought when reading the excellent story was that I
was soon going to read an FAR/private pilot compensation
post referencing § 61.113. (Triggered by this sentence:
"Did he feel like flying for free today?")

My second thought was that I hoped no one would make that
comment.

Why? Would you prefer that Mr. Honeck remain ignorant of the
regulations?

What's the point of having a rating if you can't
help out a friend in distress?

I agree, but I'm just the messenger.

My third was that this rule is still stupid and reminders of
the stupidity are probably needed.

Ah, we do agree after all.

A PP is not endangering
anyone if he carries property, and he ought to at least be
able to carry such property for friends and family if he's
not holding himself out to do that job and he isn't
receiving compensation other than time and reimbursement.

That sounds reasonable to me, as long as he isn't compensated.

I don't suppose we'll ever get this rule changed, but I still
dislike it.

It is my understanding, that all it takes to begin a rule change is a
letter to the FAA. Perhaps the AOPA might take up the cause. Or
perhaps we newsgroup participants could draft a more reasonably worded
regulation, and submit it to the FAA.

On 6 Oct 2006 05:49:57 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in . com:

Not that I wouldn't have done something similar in your predicament,
but do you think it's wise to invite your friend to violate FAR, and
then publish on a public forum what a FSDO inspector might construe as
a violation of FAR?

I guess I didn't make it clear, but that part about "there's not enough
beer in the world to pay Doug back for what he did for us today" meant
that he refused to accept gas money for his flight.

Which FAR will I be violating by buying him beers for the next year?

More significantly, he is one of our few friends who actually *prefer*
light "beer", which means that we will be operating in violation of the
German Purity Laws of 1516 -- an act punishable by death in some
circles. See http://www.brewingmuseum.org/purity_law.htm for details.

:-)

You obviously don't even understand the issue.

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:03:31 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

It is my understanding,
that the pilot needs to have been planning on making the trip, and
invite his passengers to share the expense.

It is my further understanding that there has to be a "unity of
purpose". You both have to have the same reason for going to the
destination. It can't be one wants to go to a museum in Boston, and the
pilot just wants to see fall colors from the air and doesn't care where
he flies.

Jose

Right. I wish I could find the link to that interpretation. Then Mr.
Honeck might begin to understand the issue.

It is my understanding, that all it takes to begin a rule change is a
letter to the FAA.

My fear is that once the wheels are rolling, others in the FAA will use
it as an opportunity to tighten the noose even further. The rule was
once much looser. The pilot could accept reimbursement up to the total
cost of the flight (but no more than that) there was no "holding out"
rule (so one could post a message on the college dorm bulletin board),
there was no "unity of purpose" rule, so the pilot could take somebody
to a destination he didn't care about, just for the sheer fun of flying
and sharing that joy...

Somehow that all was changed to the present abomination. IT would be
useful to know why.

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.

Did you bring the old one back? If fixable, a spare never hurts...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:44:54 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On 5 Oct 2006 19:30:40 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com:

Did he feel like flying for free today?

Not that I wouldn't have done something similar in your predicament,
but do you think it's wise to invite your friend to violate FAR, and
then publish on a public forum what a FSDO inspector might construe as
a violation of FAR?

What we don't know is whether or not any money exchanged hands or
bartering occurred.

Which AFAIK doesn't matter any more. The way I understand it, logging
time is also considered compensation, so if the friend logged the
flight it's for compensation or hire and is a violation. Plus there's
no common cause here - the flight wouldn't have taken place without
his request to be rescued.

The way it was explained to me is that as long as there was no
money/barter/beer and the other pilot didn't log the flight, it's
cool.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Since when is it a violation of FAR to come pick up a stranded friend? Or
deliver a needed part for a friend?

Ever since they came up with the stupid "pro-rata" rule, and the
"interpretation" (which I consider erzats rulemaking) that "holding out"
equals "commercial" (i.e. telling your college dorm you're open to
flying people) and "logging time" is "compensation.

who has been "convicted" of this?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate