A hypothetical - Legal or not?

RyanB

RyanB

Super Administrator
Management Council Member
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
16,576
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Display Name
Display name:
Ryan
Steve is at the hangar at 6:45PM in Kansas City, MO., on December 22. The days are short and it’s long been dark. Good thing, he’s a PPL, non-instrument, and both day and night current. He’s wiping down the airplane thinking about his day. He had a huge lunch with an old friend, and isn’t planning on eating dinner that evening. It’s been dark for some time, he’s working in his lit-hangar. Wife calls, says, “I’d like to meet the Petersons for dinner at the airport restaurant in Columbia Missouri. I’ll be ready in 10 minutes. Shall I meet you at the hangar?” He says to his wife: “Really, honey? I had a huge lunch and really didn’t want dinner.” (Columbia MO, is > 50 miles from Kansas City, just FYI.)

Is it LEGAL for him to cave-in to his wife and do the trip?
 
Is his relationship with his wife such that the FAA would consider her the "general public"?
 
Ryanb said:
Steve is at the hangar at 6:45PM in Kansas City, MO., on December 22. The days are short and it’s long been dark. Good thing, he’s a PPL, non-instrument, and both day and night current. He’s wiping down the airplane thinking about his day. He had a huge lunch with an old friend, and isn’t planning on eating dinner that evening. It’s been dark for some time, he’s working in his lit-hangar. Wife calls, says, “I’d like to meet the Petersons for dinner at the airport restaurant in Columbia Missouri. I’ll be ready in 10 minutes. Shall I meet you at the hangar?” He says to his wife: “Really, honey? I had a huge lunch and really didn’t want dinner.” (Columbia MO, is > 50 miles from Kansas City, just FYI.)

Is it LEGAL for him to cave-in to his wife and do the trip?
Click to expand...

Legal, but I would not do it. "Commonality of purpose" is the key to legality.

Bob
 
bobmrg said:
Legal, but I would not do it. "Commonality of purpose" is the key to legality.

Bob
Click to expand...
No, commonality of purpose is the key to sharing expenses. This is Steve taking his wife to dinner...the determination of legality would be "is this a commercial operation?"
 
Ryanb said:
That was the basis of this hypothetical.
Click to expand...
Well, then, if Steve is sharing expenses with his wife, their relationship is probably not a normal husband-wife relationship, so she would be considered the "general public" (my term) by the FAA, and therefore it would be "holding out" (the FAA's term) as a commercial operator, for which Steve is not rated or qualified.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Is his relationship with his wife such that the FAA would consider her the "general public"?
Click to expand...

That's something that needs to be defined hard and fast. Is a long term live in girlfriend the GP? What if you don't live together? What about a roommate? Blood relatives? Step-relatives? A friend you've known since you were in diapers? Out of currency of the same flying club member?

My opinion is if I have a non-business association with the person that extends beyond flying, the FAA can **** off on who pays what share, where we go, or whose idea it was.
 
If he says no, there are going to be airplane legal problems in the future, IMO... Unless this was a safety of flight deal, there's no question that flight ought to be made.
 
I’m trying to figure out if this scenario is posed as a joke or not... because duh, it’s legal. So why even ask as a hypothetical question?
 
EdFred said:
That's something that needs to be defined hard and fast. Is a long term live in girlfriend the GP? What if you don't live together? What about a roommate? Blood relatives? Step-relatives? A friend you've known since you were in diapers? Out of currency of the same flying club member?

My opinion is if I have a non-business association with the person that extends beyond flying, the FAA can **** off on who pays what share, where we go, or whose idea it was.
Click to expand...
I've never talked to an FAA inspector who didn't hold the same opinion as you.
 
I have a friend. Both he and his wife work at the FAA but both started as contractors. For a while, he was an FAA federal employee and she was still a contractor. He said "According to Federal rules, I can sleep with her, but I can't buy her dinner." :)
 
I always thought the whole common carriage thing only applied when money changes hands. If Joe Blow walks in off the street and asks me to take him to East Bumphuck West Egypt, I can take him so long as I'm paying for the flight and all the incidentals, i.e. I don't collect any money. If I want to share costs I'd best have good reason to be in East Bumphuck West Egypt. Otherwise I've broken the FARs.
 
Skip Miller said:
Forget legal vs illegal. If he says no, he may find that he is not welcome to share conjugal service(s) in the future.
Click to expand...
You mean he may find himself sleeping in the dog house?
 
steingar said:
Best be ready to cite some regs there partner. What you guys are saying is my pal committed a crime flying me up to get my airplane. Doesn't really make a lot of sense, and I think you're WRONG.
Click to expand...
You might want to start reading anything that the FAA writes on "holding out". Maybe find the depositions for the FlyteNow stuff. maybe read FAA Safety magazine...this one discusses it starting on page 14. https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2010/media/SepOct2010.pdf

By the way, I'm not saying your pal committed a crime...In fact, I seriously doubt that he did. But that doubt has nothing to do with whether or not money changed hands.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2010/media/SepOct2010.pdf "the sole purpose of your flight can’t be just to transport your passengers from one point to another."

In the OP scenario, the pilot has a very specific need to get to the dinner at the same time as his wife.
Click to expand...
keep in mind that that portion of the article IS talking about compensation for a Private Pilot (or someone with a higher certificate level exercising Private Pilot privileges)...it's easy to confuse the two, but Private Pilot compensation and commercial operations are two very different topics.
 
Ryanb said:
Steve is at the hangar at 6:45PM in Kansas City, MO., on December 22. The days are short and it’s long been dark. Good thing, he’s a PPL, non-instrument, and both day and night current. He’s wiping down the airplane thinking about his day. He had a huge lunch with an old friend, and isn’t planning on eating dinner that evening. It’s been dark for some time, he’s working in his lit-hangar. Wife calls, says, “I’d like to meet the Petersons for dinner at the airport restaurant in Columbia Missouri. I’ll be ready in 10 minutes. Shall I meet you at the hangar?” He says to his wife: “Really, honey? I had a huge lunch and really didn’t want dinner.” (Columbia MO, is > 50 miles from Kansas City, just FYI.)

Is it LEGAL for him to cave-in to his wife and do the trip?
Click to expand...

You're worried about a 91.113 violation with your wife? Can I remind you that as the PIC logging hours, you NEVER have commonality of purpose. Therefore 91.113 prohibits you from every carrying passengers. Sorry, your wife will just have to have a peanut butter sandwich for dinner and the Petersons can dine alone.

Besides, I'm calling BS on the whole story. No wife was ever ready for a dinner out in 10 minutes.
 
well if they’re married and have a joint bank account what’s the difference.
 
What time does the train leave Columbia for Kansas City and how fast is it going?
 
MauleSkinner said:
You might want to start reading anything that the FAA writes on "holding out". Maybe find the depositions for the FlyteNow stuff. maybe read FAA Safety magazine...this one discusses it starting on page 14. https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2010/media/SepOct2010.pdf

By the way, I'm not saying your pal committed a crime...In fact, I seriously doubt that he did. But that doubt has nothing to do with whether or not money changed hands.
Click to expand...
What you're citing confirms my point. So long as no money changes hands, you can take anyone anywhere. That FAA doesn't ask where you go or why if it's in your private airplane and you're paying the bills. Until you cite an actual regulation otherwise, YOU"RE WRONG!
 
steingar said:
What you're citing confirms my point. So long as no money changes hands, you can take anyone anywhere. That FAA doesn't ask where you go or why if it's in your private airplane and you're paying the bills. Until you cite an actual regulation otherwise, YOU"RE WRONG!
Click to expand...
So " you decline any monetary payment, but still log that flight time while not paying the costs of operating the aircraft, you’ve received compensation" indicates that logging flight time is "money changing hands"?

Regs:
119.5(k) No person may advertise or otherwise offer to perform an operation subject to this part unless that person is authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct that operation.

119.21, Commercial operators engaged in intrastate common carriage and direct air carriers.
119.23, Operators engaged in passenger-carrying operations, cargo operations, or both with airplanes when common carriage is not involved.
119.25, Rotorcraft operations: Direct air carriers and commercial operators.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2010/media/SepOct2010.pdf "the sole purpose of your flight can’t be just to transport your passengers from one point to another."

In the OP scenario, the pilot has a very specific need to get to the dinner at the same time as his wife.
Click to expand...
Gee, so if I take my grandson for a ride and drop him off in another town to stay with his other grandparents, I've just committed a heinous rules violation? And does he get handcuffed too, or just me? I'm going to log the flight time... which is essentially meaningless, since I'm in no way eligible for a commercial ticket (can't get a medical) and there's no other earthly benefit from logging it.
 
DaleB said:
Gee, so if I take my grandson for a ride and drop him off in another town to stay with his other grandparents, I've just committed a heinous rules violation? And does he get handcuffed too, or just me? I'm going to log the flight time... which is essentially meaningless, since I'm in no way eligible for a commercial ticket (can't get a medical) and there's no other earthly benefit from logging it.
Click to expand...
no, you have the same misconceptions as @steingar .
 
DaleB said:
Gee, so if I take my grandson for a ride and drop him off in another town to stay with his other grandparents, I've just committed a heinous rules violation? And does he get handcuffed too, or just me? I'm going to log the flight time... which is essentially meaningless, since I'm in no way eligible for a commercial ticket (can't get a medical) and there's no other earthly benefit from logging it.
Click to expand...
Is said grandson paying for your gas?
Are you advertising for free grandson transport on the airport bulletin board?
I would log it.
 
MauleSkinner said:
no, you have the same misconceptions as @steingar .
Click to expand...
Ya lost me. What misconception, exactly? No sane person would have a problem with my example, even though I have no purpose other than taking a 5-year-old for a ride and dropping him off.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Is said grandson paying for your gas?
Are you advertising for free grandson transport on the airport bulletin board?
I would log it.
Click to expand...
No, no, and yes, I will.

And to be clear, personally, I think it's legal. Someone else may disagree, or not, but personally, I really don't care.
 
DaleB said:
Ya lost me. What misconception, exactly? No sane person would have a problem with my example, even though I have no purpose other than taking a 5-year-old for a ride and dropping him off.
Click to expand...
OK...I missed the sarcasm. You don't have the misconception that any reasonable person would believe that what you're talking about is illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top