Why? You'd have to ask the lawyers, but the FAA Chief Counsel's repeated position is that "goodwill as compensation" only applies when there is a business relationship. However, if you do have a business relationship with your sister-in-law (selling turnips to her), then technically I suppose it would apply there, too.
You don't get the cost of the flight covered out of the farm budget, and thus some cut-rate flying off the tax deduction?
Then it's not business.
I suppose if you try hard enough, you can turn it into a business relationship where goodwill applies and technically it's not legal. But as R&W says, the FAA has better things to do with their time than to go after people like that even if it is technically illegal.
As long as you're learning, I'm happy to help.
Read the reg -- what's generally prohibited is flying with property for compensation/hire. No compensation, no prohibition.
Not my answer, the Chief Counsel's, and yes, it surprised me, too. See the Cox interpretation, and read the fourth paragraph under "Bookkeeping Services", where a PP flies a balloon which advertises his own bookkeeping company and the FAA says it's legal.
Given the six-month "stale complaint" limit on FAA enforcement actions, no that would not be possible regarding something which happened in 1976. But since the US Court of Appeals said it's OK for the Chief Counsel to advance a new interpretation for the first time as part of an enforcement action, I suppose the Chief Counsel could do that as long as the action was initiated within 180 days of the FAA finding out it had happened.
It's your obligation to know the regulations and the conduct they allow/prohibit. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", and all that. If your instructor didn't teach you what you are allowed/not allowed to do as a PP, then your instructor failed in his/her duty to prepare you for the PP practical test, for which very first thing in the PP Area/Task list in the PTS is to explain "private pilot certificate privileges, limitations, and recent flight experience requirements" (Area I, Task A1a).
Again, unless you have a business relationship with the pilot of the plane with the tailwheel issue (in which case goodwill comes into play), and you don't accept a $20 bill or free gas or anything like that from him, then there is no compensation and no need for a CP ticket. The FAA has never indicated that the opportunity to move your "good turn" coin from your left pocket to the right is considered "compensation".
Any number of things can go wrong that don't require spare parts.
Is firmware on a ROM chip "property"?
The tech doesn't have the business relationship -- the company does. But either way, the FAA grants permission in 61.113(b) for PP's to fly on business when there's no transportation of persons or property.
My reading of numerous interpretations is that if it's just the tools of your trade that don't get delivered to the customer, and go back with you, it's OK.
That would be true if the FAA did not consider "goodwill" in a business context to be relevant, but they do.
That might be relevant if the regulation said "the property of another", but it doesn't -- just "property". Whether ownership of the property changes hands at the destination or somewhere else is not germane.
Not relevant to whether or not the pilot needs a CP ticket when there is no compensation/hire involved. From that section of 8900.1:
...and the Chief Counsel said in Cox that advertising your own company is OK with a PP ticket. Sure, you need the 91.311 waiver, but you don't need a CP ticket.
I think so.
I don't think the FAA would agree with Henning.
Except that 61.113(b) and the Mangiamele letter say this is legal since the flight is only incidental to the job and the pilot is not carrying persons or property for compensation/hire.
Apparently not, as long as it's done as discussed in the Cox letter. But if that balloon pilot was advertising someone else's firm, that would be another story -- see "Balloon corporation" further down the Cox letter.
No doubt about what I think (that's clearly not unknown :wink2Maybe, maybe not. Unknown at this point.
, but there is always doubt about what the Chief Counsel would say until they say it -- nobody I know thought they'd come down the way they did on Mangiamele, which said that it wasn't legal to do what pretty much everyone flying thought for decades was legal. But if you track the history, when it comes to PP's and compensation, the Chief Counsel always seems to come down more strictly (e.g., the ride-board business with the original Alkaly RC letter versus the recent Chief Counsel letter), which is why I think what I do about their likely response.
This is no more than a couple of guys sitting at a bar arguing football tactics during the Superbowl.
Patriots WILL win btw
Until money changes hands, neither does title, and that is regardless of possession. Whether title is explicate or expressed is irrelevant.
