The Most Expensive Ironing Boards in the World...

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
However, it can boil down to how Jay phrased the thing as
far as I understand it; if Jay calls his friend, ask him
to please deliver the part, and offer to pay his expenses;
and then the friend decides to fly there rather than drive,
cycle, use a pogostick or public transportation, i.e., if
flying is incidental to the business of delivering the part,
then Jay is in the clear; if however Jay asks the friend
to specifically *fly* the part there, then he is potentially
in trouble....

I don't see how Jay is in trouble at all, either way (for this particular
aspect of the adventure, anyway). It's his friend that may or may not have
violated the FARs, not Jay. And that hinges on whether his friend was
compensated...how and when Jay offered compensation is irrelevant.

Whether compensation occurred is the only issue, and there's no way that his
friend can argue that flying was incidental to the business of transporting
the part. Not only would the friend have to already HAVE a business
transporting things, he would not successfully be able to argue that in the
course of transporting a part by airplane, the action of transporting that
part was incidental to the business.

Pete

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
Did you hear they were stuck somewhere and say "Hey, what can I do?"
or did the phone ring with them asking you for help? I think that's
the first test they use when examining this isn't it?

Nope. In all cases, I was specifically asked. And it's perfectly legal for
me to help. What I can't do is receive any compensation.

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
I am not even sure that offering to do so gratis puts you in the clear;

It does, and I am sure that it does.

I am trying to find the reference, but there was an incident where
an helicopter pilot helped some friends pro bono in a similar situation
and got himself in trouble...

The only cases like that which I'm aware of involve a pilot who (may or may
not have) thought they were operating without compensation, but in which
someone else (such as their employer or an FBO or something like that) did
receive compensation. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of.

It's important to keep in mind that the "for hire" element of the
no-compensation rules don't just apply to the pilot. They apply to the
entire operation. A Private Pilot may not operate an airplane in any
operation that is "for hire", whether or not that pilot is compensated.
This is a more subtle distinction than the question of the pilot himself
being compensated, and one that trips up someone every now and then. Even
if the pilot isn't himself compensated, as long as *someone* has been
compensated the pilot is in violation.

Thankfully, the FAA hasn't quite gotten so twisted in their logic that the
person being helped is considered to have been "compensated", thus
eliminating any possibility of free help.

Pete

I have a slight reservation about flying "gratis" as a complete defense. I
recall a case with a tow plane pilot who was prosecuted for not having his
commercial. He received not a penny for towing gliders all day, but the
flight time he was logging was found (or contended, I'm not entirely sure)
to be compensation, because he could use the time for an additional rating.
Of course, the distinction is that here it's the pilot's plane and gas, but
he is still logging time.

This is a good example of how ridiculous the rules are, and the mischief
created when one agency can be prosecuting attorney and executioner, and
direct the judge and jury exactly what to do. Just another reason I would
never let my children pursue a career in aviation without one helluva good
back-up plan.



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
I am not even sure that offering to do so gratis puts you in the clear;

It does, and I am sure that it does.

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:44:04 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :


Sorry Larry and Jose, but there's at least one case which is similar in
facts to that which transpired between Jay and his friend and the FAA lost
the case on appeal:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/do...ation/4791.PDF

So it would seem.

However Mr. Honeck offered his friend a free flight. That would have
been a violation of FAR 61.113, if the friend had accepted the
compensation Mr. Honeck had offered.

"LWG" wrote in message
...
I have a slight reservation about flying "gratis" as a complete defense.

I don't. Not in the context in which I presented it.

I recall a case with a tow plane pilot who was prosecuted for not having
his commercial. He received not a penny for towing gliders all day, but
the flight time he was logging was found (or contended, I'm not entirely
sure) to be compensation, because he could use the time for an additional
rating.

Did he pay for the use of the airplane himself? If not, that's entirely
consistent with the FAA's finding of "compensation". Even if he did pay for
the airplane, there is of course the issue of whether the sailplane pilots
were paying someone (anyone, whether the tow pilot or not) for the tow.
That would also be consistent with the FAA's regulation against a Private
pilot flying in an operation "for hire".

I would be surprised -- VERY surprised -- if you could show me an FAA
judgment where the pilot covered all of the expenses, received no
compensation directly or indirectly, and no one else received any
compensation directly or indirectly, and yet was still found to be in
violation of the "no compensation" rules. (Note, of cou

Of course, the distinction is that here it's the pilot's plane and gas,
but he is still logging time.

To my knowledge, the FAA has only ever found "logging time" to be
compensation when the pilot did not otherwise pay the expenses related to
the logging of that time.

Jim Logajan posted the URL to the search page for finding various NTSB
rulings, so if you disagree it should not be hard to find a case
contradicting that understanding.

This is a good example of how ridiculous the rules are, and the mischief
created when one agency can be prosecuting attorney and executioner, and
direct the judge and jury exactly what to do. Just another reason I would
never let my children pursue a career in aviation without one helluva good
back-up plan.

That's good advice in any case, especially in aviation but for any career.
It's true that the application of the rules and findings in the environment
of aviation is a bit non-intuitive, but in reality the FAA appears to be
targeting pilots who appear to actively be getting "something for nothing".
Whether that something is flight time, actual money, bartered goods,
whatever, they are very hardcore about it. But as long as an operation
involves zero payment from any third party to anyone else, I've yet to hear
of the FAA taking action in that case.

Pete

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:22:09 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in :

I wish I could find the link to that interpretation.

John Lynch's Part 61 FAQ is here now:
http://www.lanierflightcenter.com/re...s/pt61_FAQ.doc

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

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.

so what?

Do I really need to explain it to you? Or are you just fishin'?

ain't fishing.


What FAR did Jay violate?

The issue is more a matter of Mr. Honeck's friend's violation if what
Mr. Honeck reported is accurate.

So the answer to "What FAR did Jay violate?" is: None.

Anyway, Jay reported an offer. Jay's original post did NOT indicate that his
friend received any compensation - unless you think Jay gave him
beer.

So, there is NO evidence of a FAR being violated.

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

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:32:40 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
:


Anyway, Jay reported an offer.

Mr. Honeck made the offer he reported. That was a tacit offer for his
friend to violate FAR 61.113. That offer, although reasonable, was an
invitation for his friend to potentially become involved in an FAA
enforcement action. Because Mr. Honeck reported his offer in a public
forum, it indicates to me, that he didn't understand what he was
doing. That is my point.

I specifically pointed out the distinction that here, the pilot was
providing his own airplane at his own expense. I was just trying to tell
you that in some cases, the FAA has interpreted the logging of time as
compensation in and of itself. I think that's just nuts, and subject to all
manner of abuse. I didn't say that the tow pilot case was controlling, just
that it made me have some reservations about concluding there was no
possibility of prosecution simply because no money was received by the
pilot. The argument that someone, somewhere is paying money to someone else
is a red herring, to me. In the soaring operation I was involved in, other
than yelling out the altitude of the last release, the tow pilot had nothing
to do with invoicing, billing or collecting a dime from anyone. If the
simple acquisition of time is compensation, then any other transaction is
not necessary for a violation.

Did he pay for the use of the airplane himself? If not, that's entirely
consistent with the FAA's finding of "compensation". Even if he did pay
for the airplane, there is of course the issue of whether the sailplane
pilots were paying someone (anyone, whether the tow pilot or not) for the
tow. That would also be consistent with the FAA's regulation against a
Private pilot flying in an operation "for hire".

I have seen my share of occupations and professions, and I have never seen
anything that approaches the arbitrariness and malevolence, without the
right of meaningful appeal, that is in aviation.

That's good advice in any case, especially in aviation but for any career.
It's true that the application of the rules and findings in the
environment of aviation is a bit non-intuitive, but in reality the FAA
appears to be targeting pilots who appear to actively be getting
"something for nothing". Whether that something is flight time, actual
money, bartered goods, whatever, they are very hardcore about it. But as
long as an operation involves zero payment from any third party to anyone
else, I've yet to hear of the FAA taking action in that case.

I don't see how that tow pilot was "getting something for nothing."