Search results

As of 7 AM this morning (6/9/2011) the runway at Gaston's is firm, dry, smooth, and wonderful.

As of 6/10/2009, 3:45 PM, Gaston's runway is bone dry, bullet proof firm, and smooth. Grass is brown in the center zone but no dirt showing as yet. TS on the way this afternoon/evening so above obviously subject to change, but that's your test sled report for today.

I have booked fly fishing Thursday and Friday, all day, with a professional fly fishing guide (1998 Orvis "Guide of the Year) on the Norfork River. Originally I planned to fish with my daughter but at the last minute she had to cancel. I realize this is too late for tomorrow (Thursday) as the...

According to the official Mooney 201, grass runway test sled, as of Wednesday night, 7 PM local time Wednesday (0000 UTC 05/05/2008) the Gaston's runway is in fine condition. It is a bit damp on the west end (roll out), but nothing worth any concern.

You need to file in accordance with 91.177. Off airway the absolute floor is the 1,000'/2,000' above anything within +/- 4 nm rule. You need not necessarily file for the highest compliant altitude for the entire route, but even if you don't file it you'd better know it--you'll need to bump up...

What can I say? Bad week. YMMV, again, but I would leave out the pro rata discussion, or simply ask what it means. My read is that it means pro rata of the annual aircraft operating cost (i.e. divide total direct costs by hours flown for charity/hours flown total), YMMV, but your question will...

Well, one decent speculation is that the FAA intended to code/allow the private pilot's IRS tax deduction for charity flying into the FARs. However, whatever it's purpose might be, the intent definitely wasn't to provide a means for Part 135 or Part 91 sightseeing flights to legally charge for...

Tim, I struggled through both of your prosposed "letters". Might be me, but my suggestion is that you simplify your question to what you wrote here. IOW, keep it simple and direct. YMMV, just a suggestion. It would hurt to wait a month or so only to get an answer to the question legal...

The typical Ron Levy duck and jive. Good try, but I doubt you head faked anyone. The quotes are there for all to read--we'll see if anyone thinks you were misunderstood. Don't hold your breath. #1 is allowed in Part 135; #2 is allowed under other applicable sightseeing regulations. Which...

Ron, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt as I misquoted the number of the regulation in my replies; I quoted "91.147" while you cited "91.146" and it was that (91.146) to which I was referring. So, with that in mind, let's back up to your original statement, again: "However, I think the...

Ron, here's your quote for your memory help: "However, I think the Chief Counsel will tell you that reimbursement under 91.146(b)(7) may be accepted only by an operator already authorized to provide air transportation for hire, i.e., a Part 135 operator or a Part 91 commercial operator with a...

Explain how a PPL may legally fly for a charity airlift and you'll figure out how Part 91 can relieve Part 61. A Part 135 operator doesn't need the Part 91.147 allowance--the Part 135 certificate is sufficient allowance within itself.

Unfortunately the commercial pilot certificate doesn't really clear you from the morass; it just adds another level of confusion. Yes, you can fly the charity event flights legally (the events where the passengers make a donation to the charity), but now you need to comply with drug testing...

Tip of the iceberg. You have a CFI/CFI-IA/MEI who is presented an FAA legal opinion letter yet persists in presenting an answer counter to the authoritative source he is provided. What you have is a classic example of a very poor CFI. Fixing one specific misinformation issue with a FSDO won't...

Correct. FWIW, the FAA doesn't care what you get paid/expensed if it is legitimately "incidental" to your business. The IRS is a different topic.

Obviously is isn't simple enough for some. Correct. What part of the previous FAA legal opinion letter didn't you understand? A leased (or rented) aircraft is not, in and of itself, a "for hire" operation. Almost correct; if you had written "paying passenger" you might have gotten at least part...

Call FAA legal, they'll be happy to explain the concept to you and your FSDO. Trust me.

I took the "do it yourself" route when my Mooney's engine needed an overhaul. I used the cost savings to buy new parts versus re-conditioned. At that time (~10 years ago?) Pen Yan would do the cleaning, inspection, & manage any necessary repair stuff for a flat inspection fee plus the shop costs...

Other than a zero time logbook there need not be any physical (mechanical) difference between a field A&P overhaul and a factory zero time overhaul. None at all.

"Overhaul" according to the FAA means disassembled, inspected, all parts found not to be within service limits repaired or replaced, some mandatory parts replaced with new, re-assembled, and test run. Shops vary as to what they do when they "overhaul". Some up the anty and insist on "new limit"...