Charging for our services?

[John Baker]

This is a take off on the thread What would you do?

The issue is about private pilots charging people to transport their property, or for that matter, them. We all know that charging others our operating costs to transport them or their property is against our FAA regulations. It is even a worse crime against humanity if we actually make a profit doing it.

So, now I am wondering, why? What is the motive behind this? The FAA checks our ability to fly safely and confirms it with a license to fly. We are authorized to carry passengers or property, as long as we do not charge more than our pro-rated costs.

Since the FAA feels we are safe to fly with, safety is not an issue. So, what is the issue?

John

 

[gismo]

This is a take off on the thread What would you do?

The issue is about private pilots charging people to transport their property, or for that matter, them. We all know that charging others our operating costs to transport them or their property is against our FAA regulations. It is even a worse crime against humanity if we actually make a profit doing it.

So, now I am wondering, why? What is the motive behind this? The FAA checks our ability to fly safely and confirms it with a license to fly. We are authorized to carry passengers or property, as long as we do not charge more than our pro-rated costs.

Since the FAA feels we are safe to fly with, safety is not an issue. So, what is the issue?

John

There's really two issues involved. One is that whenever people or cargo is flown "for hire" the operators are held to higher standards than the FAA applies to part 91 flying. The other is that the FAA intends to "protect the turf" of charter operations that they sanction. If pilots were able to get away with psuedo charters it would be harder for legitimate charter operations to survive. All that really doesn't relate to the situation where a pilot's close friend is willing to cover the cost of a flight knowing full well that he's not paying for the same level of regulated safety available at a much higher price but the line has to be drawn somewhere and the FAA chose to draw it in a way that makes it easier for them to enforce.

 

[wabower]

Same logic that says you need a CDL to drive a truck or school bus, or the reason you can cut your kids' hair, but if you open a shop you have to have a barber license. Doh.

This is a take off on the thread What would you do?

The issue is about private pilots charging people to transport their property, or for that matter, them. We all know that charging others our operating costs to transport them or their property is against our FAA regulations. It is even a worse crime against humanity if we actually make a profit doing it.

So, now I am wondering, why? What is the motive behind this? The FAA checks our ability to fly safely and confirms it with a license to fly. We are authorized to carry passengers or property, as long as we do not charge more than our pro-rated costs.

Since the FAA feels we are safe to fly with, safety is not an issue. So, what is the issue?

John

 

[RotorAndWing]

If you go read US Code Title 49, subtitle VII it's all explained there.

 

[John Baker]

Same logic that says you need a CDL to drive a truck or school bus, or the reason you can cut your kids' hair, but if you open a shop you have to have a barber license. Doh.

You can charge others to cut their hair in your home. You can agree to haul a load of junk in your pick up to the city dump for a hundred bucks.

You can pick someone up at the airport for twenty or so bucks. You can drive someone to another town for whatever they want to pay.

You can do these things as much as you want until you reach six hundred dollars in earnings. Then you must report your earnings. If this becomes a significant source of income, then you must have a business license and all other appropriate licenses or required qualifications.

So why can't you fly a wallet to another town for a hundred bucks?

John

 

[wabower]

Why don't the FAR altitude requirements for pilot use of oxygen bear any resemblance to known physiological limitations?

You can charge others to cut their hair in your home. You can agree to haul a load of junk in your pick up to the city dump for a hundred bucks.

You can pick someone up at the airport for twenty or so bucks. You can drive someone to another town for whatever they want to pay.

You can do these things as much as you want until you reach six hundred dollars in earnings. Then you must report your earnings. If this becomes a significant source of income, then you must have a business license and all other appropriate licenses or required qualifications.

So why can't you fly a wallet to another town for a hundred bucks?

John

 

[jason]

You can charge others to cut their hair in your home. You can agree to haul a load of junk in your pick up to the city dump for a hundred bucks.

You can pick someone up at the airport for twenty or so bucks. You can drive someone to another town for whatever they want to pay.

You can do these things as much as you want until you reach six hundred dollars in earnings. Then you must report your earnings. If this becomes a significant source of income, then you must have a business license and all other appropriate licenses or required qualifications.

So why can't you fly a wallet to another town for a hundred bucks?

John

Because it's against the regs.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Because it's against the regs.

I was going to post exactly that about 10 minutes ago but let it go.

 

[John Baker]

Because it's against the regs.

Yea but, but, but, why is there such a reg? What is the motivation behind the regs to stop someone from making a few bucks now and then?

Why is it so critical that it is a priority item in any ground school?

Seems to me that there should just be a cap on what you can make off your airplane pilots license per year rather than an out and out ban on engaging in such a horrendous activities, so much so that the very foundation of GA itself appears to be in jeopardy.

I would go so far as to suggest that it is entirely possible that this regulation is turning honest pilots into scofflaws. People who are normally honest good Americans doing sneaky things that are against regulations.

For my own part, I certainly hope this is not the case, but you just never know though, do you?

John

 

[wabower]

I was going to post exactly that about 10 minutes ago but let it go.

I just assumed John had been in the sauce and was throwing stuff against the wall to see what would stick.

 

[John Baker]

I just assumed John had been in the sauce and was throwing stuff against the wall to see what would stick.

I don't do sauce, don't like it. On the other hand, I do like to see what would stick, stir things up a little.

This seems like such a nice taboo subject, I thought it would be fun to bat it around a bit.

John

 

[wabower]

The MC passed the hat a while back, raised enough money to put teflon coating on the walls. Nice try.

I don't do sauce, don't like it. On the other hand, I do like to see what would stick, stir things up a little.

This seems like such a nice taboo subject, I thought it would be fun to bat it around a bit.

John

 

[Leavitt]

cause we are a nanny state, and the lawyers rule now

It has nothing to do with safety it has to do with protecting the airlines and the one's with the pull in the right places, if the free market was there it would be allowed but too many sued and people wanted the gov to fix it so this is what you left us THANKS FOR THAT.

Same thing with a CDL its just BS you all talk smack about pilot farms what about CDL farms.

rant over

 

[Leavitt]

And I think if people would think with their head instead of a lawyer, then GA would be cheaper, and the airlines would make more money.

 

[Leavitt]

COMMEN SENCE SHOULD RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Leavitt]

ok now the rant is over

 

[Palmpilot]

Since the FAA feels we are safe to fly with, safety is not an issue. So, what is the issue?

Safety is not a binary quantity, where 1 = safe, and 0 = unsafe. In reality, there is no such thing as safe and unsafe. There is only more safe and less safe.

Roughly speaking, the FAA believes that pilots and operations that meet higher standards are more safe, and that people who pay to have their person or their belongings flown deserve to receive a higher level of safety for their money.

 

[Bob Bement]

They had a funeral a few years back and they buried old " Common sence" God I hated to see him go. but things are changing. The Lawyers are shooting over our heads at the Insurance companies and we are out there in the middle in the cross fire. FAA uses knee jerk reaction to make regs. I am glad that my flying days are about over.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It has nothing to do with safety it has to do with protecting the airlines and the one's with the pull in the right places, if the free market was there it would be allowed but too many sued and people wanted the gov to fix it so this is what you left us THANKS FOR THAT.

The "free market" has given us crappy regional airlines even with the amount of regulation that's in place.

Part of the FAA's job is to protect the public, both those on the ground and those that fly. Each level of certification is all about who you're allowed to kill.

Student pilots can only kill themselves.
Private pilots can kill themselves and their family and friends.
Commercial pilots can kill the above, plus employees of the company they work for (part 91 corporate example).
135-qualified commercial pilots can kill unsuspecting paying passengers.
Airline Transport Pilots can kill large numbers of unsuspecting paying passengers.

Also, along the way, bigger, faster planes are being flown and thus the risk to those on the ground is increased as well.

Same thing with a CDL its just BS you all talk smack about pilot farms what about CDL farms.

So because CDL farms exist, we should simply stop requiring a CDL at all?

A CDL is required for any for-hire motor vehicle in excess of 26,000 pounds, or one that has air brakes or hauls hazardous materials (those last couple may vary from state to state).

Frankly, the way most people drive, IMHO there should be further requirements - IE, anyone driving something as big as a full-size van, large SUV, or larger should be required to have additional training and a license endorsement.

COMMEN SENCE SHOULD RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll assume you mean "common sense."

Unfortunately, common sense goes out the window rather quickly when a chance to make a profit presents itself. Greed beats common sense every time, thus common sense is no longer allowed to rule.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Each level of certification is all about who you're allowed to kill.

Student pilots can only kill themselves.
Private pilots can kill themselves and their family and friends.
Commercial pilots can kill the above, plus employees of the company they work for (part 91 corporate example).
135-qualified commercial pilots can kill unsuspecting paying passengers.
Airline Transport Pilots can kill large numbers of unsuspecting paying passengers.

That is a hell of a way to look at it, Kent.

 

[bbchien]

Student pilots can only kill themselves.
Private pilots can kill themselves and their family and friends.
Commercial pilots can kill the above, plus employees of the company they work for (part 91 corporate example).
135-qualified commercial pilots can kill unsuspecting paying passengers.
Airline Transport Pilots can kill large numbers of unsuspecting paying passengers.

I think he's got it!

Private pilots can deny they have serious illnesses and still fly until their next medical. "I'm not a doctor and I felt fine!!"

Commercial Pilots can deny they have serious illnesses and still fly until their next medical, unless company has anything to say about it.

CFIs are responsible for having none of the 15 DQing conditions in part 67 as they had to read 67 to pass their CFI exams.

ATPs just use ALPA medical or the equivalent. "On advice of flight surgeon, this was not (yet) a grounding condition".

ATPs

 

[SCCutler]

...
Frankly, the way most people drive, IMHO there should be further requirements - IE, anyone driving something as big as a full-size van, large SUV, or larger should be required to have additional training and a license endorsement...

Kent:

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

You cannot have "additional training" when you have not had meaningful original training.

/Rantlet

 

[RotorAndWing]

Kent:

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

You cannot have "additional training" when you have not had meaningful original training.

/Rantlet

True. Getting a driver's license is a joke. Personally I would like to see mandated drivers training.

My wife is getting her driver's license right now. She's from another country and has never driven an automobile. I enrolled here in a driving course and have bought additional instruction for her. While she was in her classroom training it was pretty sad to see the kids there who were flunking out because they couldn't see the point. With them it was "give me my license and let me drive" mentality.

I told my wife to keep one thing in mind while driving...."Everyone else out there driving around you is out to kill you." Drive defensively.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That is a hell of a way to look at it, Kent.

Maybe so, but that's how the FAA has to look at it - If you screw up, you might kill x people. So, ATP's are held to much higher standards so the chances of their screwing up are greatly reduced and thus the level of safety increased. Most people don't have an ATP friend and thus are giving their trust to their pilots via the FAA's standards.

 

[dillardrg]

I for one would not allow my family to be transported in an aircraft flown by a pilot who has demonstrated the MINIMUM requirements for a PPL.

There was a fatal accident recently which clearly demonstrated that FAA minimum requirements for an ATP license mean very little in the real world. There was also a recent incident in the Hudson River that clearly demonstrates the value of experience and training over and above the minimum requirements.

If you want to be paid for your flying services get the minimum required experience and training, pass the required exams and go for it.

If you either don't want to do, or don't qualify for the minimum requirements then you are legally and morally forbidden to fly for pay.

I don't see a problem with that.

Oh, by the way, the FAA does not say you are safe when they issue a license, they just say that you have completed the minimum requirements for that license. No one can make you safe but you.

 

[wabower]

When the pilots with lowest common denominator of training and experience are combined with the fleet of aircraft with the least capability and redundancy (ASE) the accident rate shouldn't come as a big surprise.

Unfortunately, most of the pilots think they're quite a bit better than they are and they are flying all the airplane they can afford. Then they make decisions that defy any semblance of rational behavior, like full-load departures from short grass strips like Gaston's.

Splat!

 

[poadeleted20]

You can charge others to cut their hair in your home. You can agree to haul a load of junk in your pick up to the city dump for a hundred bucks.

You can pick someone up at the airport for twenty or so bucks. You can drive someone to another town for whatever they want to pay.

I don't think this is a universal truth, or even a limited one. Around here, if you pick folks up at the airport for money without an airport taxi license, the County busts you for violating the county ordinance on the subject. Also, at least in Maryland, there is no "in home" exception to ACM section 4-301 which requires a license before barbering anywhere in the state. So I don't think your analogies are fitting.

 

[poadeleted20]

That is a hell of a way to look at it, Kent.

Perhaps, but like Bruce, I think he's got it exactly right, and examination of the law cited by R&W and a general review of the concepts of common carriage and carriage for hire across all modes of transportation supports that thesis.

 

[RJM62]

Before I took CDL training, I figured that learning to drive a CMV was a matter of getting in, being shown where the controls are, and practicing until I could pass the road test. What I found was that driving a heavy vehicle is much more complicated than most people realize -- and very little of it is about the mechanics of manipulating the controls.

It doesn't take much thought, nor even very much skill or dexterity, to learn how to shift through 15 gears, make wide turns, or even back a trailer into a loading dock. In fact, I think I could probably teach any driver to drive a truck in about a day -- if by driving we're talking about getting it to roll and keeping it on the road on a sunny day with little traffic.

Most of the CDL training, however, has little to do with that. Most of the classroom training has to do with physics and psychology (plus a little chemistry for HazMat), and most of the behind-the-wheel training (once the student has learned how to make the thing roll) has to do with applied physics, predicting human behavior, and calmly handling emergency situations.

I rarely drive CMVs any more. But I still like to entertain passengers by predicting what other drivers are going to do. I also still find myself doing math and physics in my head to calculate following differences at various speeds and road conditions, and to predict the possible paths of other vehicles (especially at intersections). Often I wonder if my driving record would be as good as it's been (one chargeable accident in 32 years of driving) had I not taken that training.

I also wonder if a certain non-chargeable accident I had some years back would have turned out differently. I was driving down a mountain road that was covered in snow. As I came around a bend, two kids on a sled were headed down a hill into my path. I did some quick math in my head and determined that I couldn't stop in time. I also determined that the "natural" response -- to turn "away" from them -- would kill them if they continued moving in the same direction. I then determined that there was no reason to believe that they wouldn't keep moving in the same direction. They were kids. On a sled. In the snow. Moving quickly. Probably not noticing me.

So I had to do the unnatural thing and turn toward them, because that was the only place I could be sure they wouldn't be when I got there.

So that's what I did. I turned toward them to avoid them. I flipped the the car into a ditch in the process because I didn't know the ditch was there (I was unfamiliar with the road and the ditch was under a snowdrift). But once the EMS crew pulled me out -- I was shaken and bruised but not seriously injured -- I looked at the tracks of the sled, and my calculations had been right. Had I done what seemed natural, the kids would be dead.

What's notable is that I assessed the situation, did the mental math and physics, and made my decision in probably about a quarter second. Maybe half a second at the most. It was something they taught us in the first lesson in the CDL school: A vehicle's path is determined by physics and human behavior. Understanding both is essential to being a safe driver.

I'm almost certain that had I not had the CDL training, I would have done the opposite of what I did, and the kids would be dead. Either that or I would have tried to stop, and they still would be dead. The CDL training training taught me to stay calm, assess the physics and human behavior aspects of the situation, calculate the other vehicle's motion, and respond accordingly.

Based on this experience, I imagine that becoming a commercial pilot is much the same: You don't realize how much is really involved until you do it. Having not taken the training, I can only guess about it; but what I would guess is that it's not about "normal" flight in CAVU with no deadlines to meet. My guess is that it's about learning how to calmly handle difficult situations in a professional manner using systematic methods, for the maximum possible safety of your passengers.

Like I said, that's just a guess. I doubt I'll ever take commercial training. Age and finances make that rather unlikely. So I'm just speculating.

-Rich

 

[Palmpilot]

I wish CPL training was as good as what you got for the CDL. In my opinion, there's way too much focus on the mechanics of flying and too little on emergency management.

Lazy eights and eights on pylons, for example, seem to me to be a total waste of time. The justifications that are given for them seem thin to me.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I wish CPL training was as good as what you got for the CDL.

Meh - Most CDL schools suck. For example, Roadmaster, one of the big ones, teaches for the test and instills so many bad habits that I had to knock out of trainees afterwards that I could have someone with NO schooling ready faster than someone out of Roadmaster. It was a great demonstration of the law of primacy. (OBTW: 3-week course, $6,000.)

At the other end of the spectrum, the best CDL school is Fox Valley Tech in Appleton, WI. Most of the safety videos companies use were made there. They even do skid pad training and show people how to recover from a jackknife. The people I got from Fox Valley were as good after one day as most others were after two weeks or more. They were also ready to go out on their own WAY faster. Oh, and... 11-week course for under $2,000.

After they go through a school, generally they have to get hired at a company and go through training out on the road for 3-6 weeks with a trainer. Unfortunately, most "trainers" absolutely suck, don't care, and are simply using the trainee as an extra logbook. In fact, some companies run trainer/trainee pairs as a team, requiring the trainer to be asleep when the trainee is driving!

And some companies - Swift, Schneider, Werner, the biggies for the most part - treat their drivers so poorly that they leave ASAP and the company has very few drivers with even a year of experience, leaving them with nobody that's really qualified to be a trainer. In fact, one of my trainees kept in touch with another guy he went to CDL school with who went to work for Werner. Before my trainee was out of my truck (and he did well and got in his own truck right on schedule), Werner was already asking his friend to be a trainer. Swift is probably the worst. They even had one of their largest company-owned schools shut down by the DOT a couple years ago.

I used a lot of pilot-training ideas and principles when training commercial drivers. Pilot training, while not perfect, is FAR superior to commercial driver training.

 

[dillardrg]

Sadly, it is up to each individual to seek out the training that will teach judgement and decision making as pertains to piloting.

Most established pilot training is focused on the minimum requirements laid down by the FAA. Most pilots in training are focused on completing the minimum requirements laid down by the FAA.

If one is to get training that goes beyond the minimum required one must either seek out an experienced pilot/instructor and try to learn from his/her knowledge or redo that experience pool on one's own. It is much easier and cheaper to learn from someone elses mistakes than it is to make those mistakes oneself.

Our industry is structured in such a way that, in most cases, we have the most inexperienced teaching the new student. Kids teaching kids. Most, not all, instructors are only doing it to "build time" until they can get a "real job" and only have the experience to teach the minimum requirements.

Most pilots who have had enough experience to teach judgement and decision making skills aren't interested in "giving back" by instructing, so the new pilot is left with few choices (among these are reading, hangar flying, and forums such as this one) in learning how to make the decisions that make a good pilot.

 

[captvikki]

If you want to be paid for your flying services get the minimum required experience and training, pass the required exams and go for it.

If you either don't want to do, or don't qualify for the minimum requirements then you are legally and morally forbidden to fly for pay.

I don't see a problem with that.

Amen to That

 

[Henning]

This is a take off on the thread What would you do?

The issue is about private pilots charging people to transport their property, or for that matter, them. We all know that charging others our operating costs to transport them or their property is against our FAA regulations. It is even a worse crime against humanity if we actually make a profit doing it.

So, now I am wondering, why? What is the motive behind this? The FAA checks our ability to fly safely and confirms it with a license to fly. We are authorized to carry passengers or property, as long as we do not charge more than our pro-rated costs.

Since the FAA feels we are safe to fly with, safety is not an issue. So, what is the issue?

John

"Bye bye Miss American Pie, drove my Chevy to the levy but the levy was dry. Them good ole boys are drinking whiskey and rye singing "This'll be the day that I die"...

 

[poadeleted20]

For those unfamiliar, there have been two references above to "the day the music died." This refers to the 1971 Don McLean song talking about the aircraft accident in the early hours of February 3, 1959, which killed pop stars Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, and JP "Big Bopper" Richardson. This accident was the trigger for the creation of the Part 135 rules developed to better protect air taxi/on-demand charter customers from ill-equipped and underqualified operators. You can read the CAB accident report (predates the NTSB's existence) at http://www.fiftiesweb.com/cab.htm.

 

[Everskyward]

Based on this experience, I imagine that becoming a commercial pilot is much the same: You don't realize how much is really involved until you do it. Having not taken the training, I can only guess about it; but what I would guess is that it's not about "normal" flight in CAVU with no deadlines to meet. My guess is that it's about learning how to calmly handle difficult situations in a professional manner using systematic methods, for the maximum possible safety of your passengers.

Like I said, that's just a guess.

I'm going to guess that your guess is unfortunately a little off. Getting the commercial is much like the private except that there are more maneuvers and more regs to cover. "Learning to handle difficult situations in a professional manner using systematic methods..." is not part of the curriculum as I recall. That's more of a thing that you learn OTJ or through experience, hopefully.

 

[RJM62]

I'm going to guess that your guess is unfortunately a little off. Getting the commercial is much like the private except that there are more maneuvers and more regs to cover. "Learning to handle difficult situations in a professional manner using systematic methods..." is not part of the curriculum as I recall. That's more of a thing that you learn OTJ or through experience, hopefully.

Bummer.

 

[wabower]

I don't agree that it's because we aren't interested, it's because the educational system in the USA isn't based on the apprentice model, and the regs don't require any such training.

Think about it for a minute. How much time does the typical PPL applicant spend in the right seat watching and learning from an experienced pilot prior to taking the check-ride? Or afterwards, if he doesn't get on with a 135 or 121 carrier? All he knows is what some other snot-nose in the right seat has taught him, which may or may not have any value in "real-world" operations.

The Good Book says "that which ye soweth, that shall ye also reap." Our accident rates indicate we've had more of a crop failure than we'd like to admit.

Most pilots who have had enough experience to teach judgement and decision making skills aren't interested in "giving back" by instructing, so the new pilot is left with few choices (among these are reading, hangar flying, and forums such as this one) in learning how to make the decisions that make a good pilot.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm going to guess that your guess is unfortunately a little off. Getting the commercial is much like the private except that there are more maneuvers and more regs to cover. "Learning to handle difficult situations in a professional manner using systematic methods..." is not part of the curriculum as I recall.

I'm not sure that's true. 61.125 requires training in "safe and efficient operation of aircraft" and "aeronautical decision-making and judgment." The PTS includes aeronautical decision-making and checklist use (which is another way of saying "systematic methods") as "Special Emphasis Areas." In addition, the PTS says:

Crew Resource Management (CRM)​

CRM refers to the effective use of all available resources: human
resources, hardware, and information. Human resources include all
groups routinely working with the cockpit crew or pilot who are involved
with decisions that are required to operate a flight safely. These groups
include, but are not limited to dispatchers, cabin crewmembers,
maintenance personnel, air traffic controllers, and weather services.
CRM is not a single TASK, but a set of competencies that must be
evident in all TASKs in this practical test standard as applied to either
single pilot operations or crew.​

Applicant's Use of Checklists​

Throughout the practical test, the applicant is evaluated on the use of
an appropriate checklist. Proper use is dependent on the specific TASK
being evaluated. The situation may be such that the use of the
checklist, while accomplishing elements of an Objective, would be
either unsafe or impractical, especially in a single-pilot operation. In this
case, a review of the checklist after the elements have been
accomplished, would be appropriate. Division of attention and proper​

visual scanning should be considered when using a checklist.

The PTS also requires that the applicant:

1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to systems and
equipment malfunctions appropriate to the airplane provided for
the practical test.
2. Analyzes the situation and takes appropriate action for simulated
emergencies appropriate to the airplane provided for the
practical test for at least five (5) of the following:
...
3. Follows the appropriate checklist or procedure.​

If the instructor doesn't train the applicant to those standards, I don't think the standards or regs are at fault.

 

[Everskyward]

If the instructor doesn't train the applicant to those standards, I don't think the standards or regs are at fault.

But will you agree that there's a world of difference between learning something academically from someone who has never had to do it themselves and performing it in real life? Like wabower said, there is not really an apprenticeship model. The commercial certificate, like the private, is really only another license to learn.