Angel Flight and Part 91

If memory serves, the above document restricts the waiver to
something like "carrying passengers for the purpose of receiving
medical treatment".

Well, it also includes compassion flights, such as carrying a child to
visit a dying relative.

I am
seeing lots of requests for pilots to volunteer to transport kids to a summer
camp where they can have fun with kids with similar disabilities. Is it legal
for me to fly these missions? Would you accept such a mission?

Is it legal? Of course. Would I accept? Sure. But you need to
understand that there is a history behind FAA Order 8400.10, Vol 4,
Chap. 5, Sect. 1, Para 1345 12/20/94 (which is what you are looking
for) before you make your own decision.

The first thing you need to understand is that this order does not
create, rescind, or change any regulation, and is aimed at inspectors,
not pilots. It does not make Angel Flights legal - they were legal to
begin with, snce the pilot bears the entire cost and thus issues of
commonality of purpose and such do not arise. It merely makes clear
that taking a tax deduction on an eligible flight does not constitute
compensation. So why would such a thing have to be stated?

Basically, because an FAA inspector took a dislike to a pilot and
decided to get him. He chose to treat the tax deductions the pilot was
making (I believe he actually flew for AirLifeLine) as compensation,
which would have put the pilot in violation of 61.113 (formerly 61.118)
and possibly parts of 135 as well. Instead of rolling over, the pilot
(who was reasonably well connected) called his congressman and the
congressman called his buddy on the transportation committee who called
someone senior in the FAA, and since they all decided this was
outrageous, the order came down the pike and the inspector had to drop
it. To put a good face on all this, the order was then advertised as
showing the FAA supported such activities.

Just because the specific mission of taking sick kids to summer camps
is not covered by the order does not mean it puts you in violation of
61.113, because a tax deduction is not compensation. There is ample
precedent for this. For example, transporting people in your own car
as a volunteer effort for a charity doesn not require you to get a CDL,
even if you take the allowable tax deduction, when charging for the
same service would require a CDL. Doing the same in your boat does not
require you to get a master's ticket from the Coast Guard. It is a
well established precedent that for purposes of distinguishing personal
from commercial activities, taking a charitable tax deduction does not
constitute compensation.

Unfortunately, the FAA is a law unto itself, and an FAA inspector could
easily decide that what you are doing is not covered by the scope of
the order and issue a violation. If you are well connected, you can
make it go away. If you have the money and time to fight it, you will
probably win (the facts are not in dispute, and the ALJ is highly
unlikely to support such a twisted interpretation of compensation,
especially in view of the order). The only question is - do you want
to take the chance?

Michael