Another "Does This Require a Commercial Pilot?" Thread

PPC1052 said:
Not that the FAA necessarily cares, but there is a real distinction to be made. The distinction is that people are paying for a product. They are not paying you to transport their property like they would FedEx. They are not coming to you and saying, "I'll pay you to ship my product to someone." They are saying, "I will buy your product." That the farmer is flying his own product isn't in the air carrier business. In fact, he is probably losing money on the deal. To the extent one can even say that they are transporting property for hire, it falls within the ordinary meaning of "incidental." The FAA has changed the meaning of "incidental" in it's interpretations. "Foreseeable and normal" is not the opposite of "incidental." "Goodwill" is a term of art that is defined in the law, but the FAA uses it as a catch all to allow them to find compensation when they can't prove actual compensation, but really want to shut someone down.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat::thumbsup:
 
Ron Levy said:
. You and your secretary (who will record the deposition) get in your plane, and you fly it there and back.
Click to expand...

You can't have an interested party serve as a court reporter for a deposition. What's wrong with you? :wink2:
 
Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Would somebody have gone and shut down the County of San Bernadino and all other municipalities flying orphans around when the later letter was written?



Ron Levy said:
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).
Click to expand...

I don't think we should be blaming my ground school instructor for his failings on teaching me to google the FAA's website for letters of interpertation, as he has been dead since BEFORE Google was invented.

And, all my subsequent BFR's have had a complete lack of learning Google, and instead have been more focused on flying the plane proficiently, safely, and the operating environment associated with that. Never have we discussed letters from any Counsel at the FAA, and, I would hardly think my CFI's would be qualified to have the discussion.
 
Henning said:
It never was a commercial flying enterprise regardless if he sold them at the fair or not. If the fair had bought them and asked for them to be flown in, that would be a commercial flying enterprise. Until he sells them, those turnips count the same as luggage.
Click to expand...

I am struggling with figuring out how turnips are property,


but, Hard Drives, Laptops, ROM chips, Banner Poles and Letters are not property.
 
If the FAA wants CFIs to teach students how to find CC interpretations and case law, they should include it in the Part 61 list of things that must be taught.
 
Palmpilot said:
If the FAA wants CFIs to teach students how to find CC interpretations and case law, they should include it in the Part 61 list of things that must be taught.
Click to expand...

They don't, and they don't even require Inspectors to know and use it. During C&E course at the Academy they mention it and show the web site, and that's it.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
well, ya ....but, that's how it is for a lots of things. :yesnod::ohsnap:
Click to expand...

Point being that the Inspector is an investigator, not a lawyer, and not a paralegal.

This forum is a perfect example of what happens when an amateur begins regurgitating "case law" and "interpretations". It also shows why the FAA doesn't want those types as Inspectors.
 
Henning said:
Exactly, just like the advertising is his business therefore the compensation gained by advertising exempt, so are the turnips.
Click to expand...
Turnips are "property" and he's transporting them by air for sale to a customer, i.e., there's compensation involved. That means "no can do" with a PP per 61.113(b)(2). The advertising on the aircraft is not the same, as stated by the Chief Counsel in the Cox letter.
 
JoseCuervo said:
I am struggling with figuring out how turnips are property,


but, Hard Drives, Laptops, ROM chips, Banner Poles and Letters are not property.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying those other things aren't property, but you're not being compensated for transporting them the way you are when you collect money from your customer for the turnips.

I've had enough of this. Anyone who really needs to know the answers to these questions can write to the Chief Counsel and ask.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm not saying those other things aren't property, but you're not being compensated for transporting them the way you are when you collect money from your customer for the turnips.

I've had enough of this. Anyone who really needs to know the answers to these questions can write to the Chief Counsel and ask.
Click to expand...


And, I guess the one that was the real head scratcher was not being able to go pick up a part for my broken down Turnip Harvester.

There is no compensation for me to go fly and get my own part.
 
JoseCuervo said:
And, I guess the one that was the real head scratcher was not being able to go pick up a part for my broken down Turnip Harvester.

There is no compensation for me to go fly and get my own part.
Click to expand...
no....but that harvester is making you millions....so, by association, it's a compensated flight. :rofl:
 
Ok Ron, let's say we have a PP dog breeder. A guy down the state would like to see one of them. He flies the dog down and the guy meets him at the airport and sees the dog, loves the dog, kid loves the dog, dog loves the kid, dog gets sold.

Under your interpretation the dog breeder just committed a violation.

It just doesn't work that way, and no interpretation letter you have presented comes close to confirming your interpretation.
 
Henning said:
Ok Ron, let's say we have a PP dog breeder. A guy down the state would like to see one of them. He flies the dog down and the guy meets him at the airport and sees the dog, loves the dog, kid loves the dog, dog loves the kid, dog gets sold.

Under your interpretation the dog breeder just committed a violation.

It just doesn't work that way, and no interpretation letter you have presented comes close to confirming your interpretation.
Click to expand...


How do the PnP flights with dogs pass muster? They are flying "property" around, and there is likely "compensation" with the "free flight time" and the "goodwill".
 
JoseCuervo said:
How do the PnP flights with dogs pass muster? They are flying "property" around, and there is likely "compensation" with the "free flight time" and the "goodwill".
Click to expand...

Never seen any free flight time involved with dogs. :lol: It's more a justification for spending the money it takes to go flying, give it a purpose.
 
Henning said:
Never seen any free flight time involved with dogs. :lol: It's more a justification for spending the money it takes to go flying, give it a purpose.
Click to expand...

But, those hours could be viewed as valuable toward future ratings, thus compensation. Compensation doesn't have to be $$$, it can also be flight time.
 
red4golf said:
See attached for the PnP issue.
Click to expand...


I haven't started drinking yet, but I am not sure what the letter says...

I think it says you can possibly deduct the cost of the flight due to Congress saying something. Or not.


And, that letter seems to be silent on the "free flight time" as compensation.
 
JoseCuervo said:
How do the PnP flights with dogs pass muster? They are flying "property" around, and there is likely "compensation" with the "free flight time" and the "goodwill".
Click to expand...

JoseCuervo said:
But, those hours could be viewed as valuable toward future ratings, thus compensation. Compensation doesn't have to be $$$, it can also be flight time.
Click to expand...

JoseCuervo said:
I haven't started drinking yet, but I am not sure what the letter says...

I think it says you can possibly deduct the cost of the flight due to Congress saying something. Or not.


And, that letter seems to be silent on the "free flight time" as compensation.
Click to expand...

The animals on PnP flights are not property in this case and you receive nothing in return for the flight except a tax deduction. The FAA says that receiving all or part of the costs as a tax credit for public benefit flying is not compensation in their eyes.

(Note: This interpretation is specifically addressed
in FAA Order 8900.1 (Volume 4, Chapter 5, Section
1, paragraph 4-922) which also states that “inspectors
should not treat the tax deductibility of costs as
constituting ‘compensation or hire’ when flights are​
conducted for humanitarian purposes.”)
 
Last edited:
JoseCuervo said:
But, those hours could be viewed as valuable toward future ratings, thus compensation. Compensation doesn't have to be $$$, it can also be flight time.
Click to expand...

Not when you pay for all of it it doesn't.:rofl: People are paying the whole bill to fly those dogs.
 
Henning said:
Not when you pay for all of it it doesn't.:rofl: People are paying the whole bill to fly those dogs.
Click to expand...



But, by paying for it, they get flight time. A and flight time is compensation, requiring a CPL.
 
Henning said:
Not when you pay for all of it it doesn't.:rofl: People are paying the whole bill to fly those dogs.
Click to expand...

they are getting compensation with a tax deduction.....:rolleyes:

wouldn't it be sweet to write off all of my aviation as an expense? :D
 
Last edited:
Forgive me if this has already been discussed (I don't have the patience to read through 13 pages right now), but can't we solve this problem by not logging the flight time? To be clear, this is not to thwart discovery when some bored FAA inspector comes snooping around, which almost certainly wouldn't happen anyway. If you don't log it, and thus don't use it in furtherance of any rating or currency requirement or anything, how are you being compensated?
 
jpower said:
Forgive me if this has already been discussed (I don't have the patience to read through 13 pages right now), but can't we solve this problem by not logging the flight time? To be clear, this is not to thwart discovery when some bored FAA inspector comes snooping around, which almost certainly wouldn't happen anyway. If you don't log it, and thus don't use it in furtherance of any rating or currency requirement or anything, how are you being compensated?
Click to expand...

There you go...
 
jpower said:
Forgive me if this has already been discussed (I don't have the patience to read through 13 pages right now), but can't we solve this problem by not logging the flight time? To be clear, this is not to thwart discovery when some bored FAA inspector comes snooping around, which almost certainly wouldn't happen anyway. If you don't log it, and thus don't use it in furtherance of any rating or currency requirement or anything, how are you being compensated?
Click to expand...

Heads are exploding everywhere!!!!

Look what you've done, I hope you are happy!!!!
 
jpower said:
Forgive me if this has already been discussed (I don't have the patience to read through 13 pages right now), but can't we solve this problem by not logging the flight time? To be clear, this is not to thwart discovery when some bored FAA inspector comes snooping around, which almost certainly wouldn't happen anyway. If you don't log it, and thus don't use it in furtherance of any rating or currency requirement or anything, how are you being compensated?
Click to expand...


LOL. Nicely played. Ha.
 
jpower said:
Forgive me if this has already been discussed (I don't have the patience to read through 13 pages right now), but can't we solve this problem by not logging the flight time? To be clear, this is not to thwart discovery when some bored FAA inspector comes snooping around, which almost certainly wouldn't happen anyway. If you don't log it, and thus don't use it in furtherance of any rating or currency requirement or anything, how are you being compensated?
Click to expand...

Le sigh. So the "official" answer to this (which is as stupid as the official answer to this whole situation, of course) is that it doesn't matter whether you log the time or not, as it's still "loggable" time. Just like today you can, if you'd like, write an entry for a flight you took three years ago without lying (assuming you have a fuel receipt or airplane log entry or note in your diary or some way to refresh your memory on the details), just because you "didn't log it" doesn't mean you can't go back and log it if the flight actually happened.

This argument comes up (with a lot more validity) when the pilot is a million-hour ATP who couldn't possibly apply for another rating. But the "I didn't log it" argument doesn't fly because there's nothing to stop you logging it the day after the FAA person leaves -- it's still "loggable time".

(The whole argument is silly, but it may as well be a little closer to complete.)
 
mcmanigle said:
Le sigh. So the "official" answer to this (which is as stupid as the official answer to this whole situation, of course) is that it doesn't matter whether you log the time or not, as it's still "loggable" time. Just like today you can, if you'd like, write an entry for a flight you took three years ago without lying (assuming you have a fuel receipt or airplane log entry or note in your diary or some way to refresh your memory on the details), just because you "didn't log it" doesn't mean you can't go back and log it if the flight actually happened.

This argument comes up (with a lot more validity) when the pilot is a million-hour ATP who couldn't possibly apply for another rating. But the "I didn't log it" argument doesn't fly because there's nothing to stop you logging it the day after the FAA person leaves -- it's still "loggable time".

(The whole argument is silly, but it may as well be a little closer to complete.)
Click to expand...

That so-called "official" answer is not what the Chief Counsel's office said:

"If these pilots are not paying the costs of operating the aircraft while ferrying the aircraft then the building up of flight time would be considered compensation. To avoid compensation, these pilots could either not log the flight time or they could log the flight time while bearing the full cost, including fuel and oil, for ferrying the aircraft [emphasis added]​

Harrington Letter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top