How about the part of the incidental exception that says, "The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire"? in simple terms, the Mangiamele Chief Counsel interpretation says that means no passengers on a compensated incidental business flight.
He seems to be asking about regulatory compliance rather than getting away with something.
That's definitely true.
its his business, he is not being compensated.
so it’ll be a moot point when he goes out of business because he’s not making any money?
First, no compensation changes hands, so the FAA gives you slack in the interpretation. Second, common sense says you're doing a good deed supported by a non-profit organization well known to the FAA and like it or not, there is ambiguity in the regulations. From the FAA's perspective, that ambiguity is a feature not a bug because like Justice Potter Stewart, they can't define it clearly but they know it when they see it (just ask them).
And more importantly, two of them have specific documentation from the FAA saying they’re acceptable operations WRT 61.113, and the third only gives local rides, so the reg doesn’t apply.
Oh, I thought when you said it was incidental to his business, you were referring to 61.113(b) which allows being compensated (with exceptions) for flights incidental to business. My mistake. Sorry.
You’d probably have to go to court to find out for sure, but contrary to popular opinion, the FAA treats everyone pretty much the same.
Yes they could (not necessarily that they will), and the FAA doc I linked above says this.
Whether the FAA would do this depends on the "totality of the situation" as perceived by the FAA on a case by case basis - which BTW they also state in the doc linked above.
Might not know the difference? The fact that nobody asked for nor paid anyone a penny might have been a clue that they weren't hiring a commercial operator. A sizeable number of local pilots were airlifting people and supplies for a few days when a town got essentially cut off from the outside world. Everyone was perfectly well aware (I know, because I was there when they were all told) that these were private pilots doing this at their own expense in their own planes. There weren't any 135 operators in evidence, and the FAA was well aware of everything going on -- the newspapers and TV stations covered it both days. I'm sure if they heard or saw something they objected to, they'd have showed up or picked up the phone and called one of the FBOs people were using and let them know. None of that happened.
Thanks. But I still read it as applying to shared expenses. Especially this phrase explaining it in what you cited:
Indeed, and the FAA says this in the document with phrases like, "There is no specific rule or criteria as to how holding out is achieved. Instead, holding out is determined by assessing the available facts of a specific situation." and "Compensation does not require a profit, profit motive, or the actual payment of funds. Reimbursement of expenses, accumulation of flight time, and good will in the form of expected future economic benefits can be considered compensation."
Ahhh...so you agree the OP is within the regs but just believe the FAA will manufacture some trumped up charge because they will have a beef with him? OK... I guess I'm just not that cynical.
OK...you also don't trust the Feds. I get it. And you have some experience with officials busting the rules in your area. I agree that some low-level lackey can flash a badge and make life miserable for someone totally innocent.
Or, in the OP's case, it may INDEED be completely allowed by the regs.
If you do something that comes to the FAA's attention and they don't like it, they will find a way to bust you, even if that involves creative interpretation of the regs. Plenty of examples of this. That's where concepts like "common purpose" and "logged hours as compensation" came from - they are not in the statutory regs, but came from cases where the FAA got creative in order to bust someone.
So The most important thing is to be known to and on good terms with the FAA.
And don't test the limits of the regs, have a common purpose with your passengers. None of us wants to be the test case for anything.
But
And you are known and have a good relationship, the capriciousness assumed by @MRC01 will more likely work in your favor.
I don't mean to imply that the FAA is capricious. Yes it's true that the regulations and case law interpretations have ambiguity that works in the FAA's favor when they pursue enforcement. But I believe most of the time the FAA uses this judiciously not capriciously. Reviewing the case history, one can always find a few examples of capricious enforcement, but I believe these are the exceptions not the norm.
That’s not the impression I (and apparently others) get from your posts.
Well then, I'm glad I clarified.That’s not the impression I (and apparently others) get from your posts.
I would love to see some of these cases. The only ones I've heard of are of pilots trying to get away with some of their own creativity. If you can point me to some, I'd appreciate it.
I'm glad to hear that. I feel the same way. I know a few people at the local fsdo and they are very nice. I don't see them doing anything untowardly. And they are very busy with other things.
Research the Bob Hoover case from years ago.
Didn't that one have to do with medical or something. Yeah...bad. but I was hoping for something closer to this particular topic.