Does TANSTAAFL apply to this??

Henning said:
Yeah, but I don't think the FAA actually spends near the time and effort as on web boards....:lol:
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure you're right -- at least until someone complains to them about a specific situation. And in this situation, the instructor making the offer isn't breaking any rules -- only the pilot who accepts it. So, even "holding out" this offer doesn't violate any rules. I just hope it's not being done surreptitiously in order to entrap unwitting PP's who don't understand the rules as well as most of us here seem to do.
 
Not sure but, I do see Henning's point. The instructor (the second person) is offering compensation to pilots (the third person) to furnish a plane and pilot to an entity. He could get crossways to the FAA. If he had not put the offer on the internet it would never amount to a thing.
 
ronnieh said:
Not sure but, I do see Henning's point. The instructor (the second person) is offering compensation to pilots (the third person) to furnish a plane and pilot to an entity.
Click to expand...
Good so far.
He could get crossways to the FAA. If he had not put the offer on the internet it would never amount to a thing.
Click to expand...
The fact that the offer was made on the internet would only make it easier for the FAA to make the case. The deed itself (the pilot accepting compensation offered in return for transporting a third party by air) is the illegal act, not the offer on the internet.
 
The offer, maybe, maybe not. Certainly after the fact the instructor would in fact be breaking the regs. If one offers to do something illegal it is not a crime until he actually does it? Not sure on that reasoning.
 
ronnieh said:
The offer, maybe, maybe not. Certainly after the fact the instructor would in fact be breaking the regs. If one offers to do something illegal it is not a crime until he actually does it? Not sure on that reasoning.
Click to expand...
What reg would the instructor be breaking by making the offer? I can't think of one.
 
Head of a pin
Angels dancing
Which is what these what-if microscopic dissections of the regs amount to.

Listen to Nancy.
 
Ron, I am not a lawyer and I did not stay at the Holiday Inn last night. There may be nothing illegal at offering to do something illegal. I honestly don't know. Soliciting for prostitution is different than performing prostitution. Both are illegal and neither are covered in the FAR's:rofl:. I know of no FAR that prohibits advertising to do something illegal. I know of no FAR that prohibits planning to do something illegal. There may be no penalty for advertising/planning on breaking a Federal regulation. Still looks like thin ice to me.
Head of a pin, maybe so. The FAA is pretty serious about enforcement action in the area of PP's getting compensation and illegal 135 operations. If he had not advertised it, it would never be noticed. What he did however...
 
Henning said:
That's not how the guy worded his advert though. The guy worded the advert "You give these people a ride, I will give you instruction"
Click to expand...
I think the problem is the advertising since the CFI is making the offer specific to Angel Flights. On the other hand, if the AF pilot asked some CFI if they would ride along and provide instruction I can't see that there would be an issue unless AF has a problem with this.
 
ronnieh said:
Henning, the best I can tell we are agreeing:dunno:

Jim in Texas, the FAA is not trying to prevent part 91 aircraft from being used in business. What they are trying to prevent is private pilots being paid to fly or any situation where one entity is supplying air transportation for ANY compensation to another entity. Just trying to enforce the FAR's. Now whether the rules are fair is another thread, one which has been hashed to death on POA.
Click to expand...

I don't see where anyone is being 'paid to fly'. Angel Flight South Central has provided me with names of CFI's willing to fly with members on Angel Flights.
 
JimNtexas said:
I don't see where anyone is being 'paid to fly'. Angel Flight South Central has provided me with names of CFI's willing to fly with members on Angel Flights.
Click to expand...

Compensation does not have to be money, even the CFI said this is $150 worth IIRC, that is payment in kind, and he attached it to flying someone somewhere. That's the problem. Like I said earlier, if the scenario changes just a little bit in several different directions, there's no problem with getting the instruction along the way with the AF pax in the back. It's just that this guy worded it the exact wrong way lol, and he created a forbidden situation through it.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Is $150 more than 2/3 of the direct cost of getting there plus 1/2 the direct cost of the return trip?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter since there is no Common Purpose. If the pilot was already an Angel Flight member, or the CFI offered to provide the IR instruction as a premium for joining the ranks of AF pilots, there would not be a problem because the quid pro quo would be instruction for joining an organization. However that's NOT what happened. He worded it "Give a ride in your plane, get $150 worth of instruction free." it would be hard for him to word it any worse.:rofl: This is why lawyers make money reviewing advertisements.
 
I doubt that anyone cares but, the wording puts this flight if it takes place in direct conflict with the regs. Whether any laws were/are being broken with the solicitation, I am not sure.
 
ronnieh said:
I doubt that anyone cares but, the wording puts this flight if it takes place in direct conflict with the regs. Whether any laws were/are being broken with the solicitation, I am not sure.
Click to expand...

Solicitation of an offense is typically an offense in its own right and regard.
 
Henning said:
It doesn't matter since there is no Common Purpose.
Click to expand...

Say again?

The PP's ultimate purpose is to help the indigent passenger.
The CFI's ultimate purpose is to help the indigent passenger.

The PP and CFI could, individually, legally transport the passenger. Both have ceded the destination and departure time to third parties. These circumstances narrow the universe of possible motivations, and therefore purposes, to that of helping the passenger. If the PP was flying Angel Flights prior to seeing and accepting CFI's offer then that would undercut any claim that the PP was motivated only by compensation. Even absent that prior history the FAA would still need to present evidence proving their claim of what motivated the PP.

Once the FAA includes intangibles in determining compensation it cannot pick and choose when and which intangibles it will consider. As I've posted before, it takes a certain level of insanity to be selective in application of some claimed principle.

There is also the matter of political self-destructiveness that the FAA would encounter in the unlikely case it tried to prosecute any such flight; e.g.:

"FAA threatens to pull license of pilot who donated time and money to help girl dying of cancer."
 
Jim Logajan said:
Say again?

The PP's ultimate purpose is to help the indigent passenger.
The CFI's ultimate purpose is to help the indigent passenger.

The PP and CFI could, individually, legally transport the passenger. Both have ceded the destination and departure time to third parties. These circumstances narrow the universe of possible motivations, and therefore purposes, to that of helping the passenger. If the PP was flying Angel Flights prior to seeing and accepting CFI's offer then that would undercut any claim that the PP was motivated only by compensation. Even absent that prior history the FAA would still need to present evidence proving their claim of what motivated the PP.

Once the FAA includes intangibles in determining compensation it cannot pick and choose when and which intangibles it will consider. As I've posted before, it takes a certain level of insanity to be selective in application of some claimed principle.

There is also the matter of political self-destructiveness that the FAA would encounter in the unlikely case it tried to prosecute any such flight; e.g.:

"FAA threatens to pull license of pilot who donated time and money to help girl dying of cancer."
Click to expand...

Not the way this is worded it's not. If the pilot was already an AF member/pilot, yes. But that is not the wording here. The wording here is to get a pilot to fly the person for a value. If the FAA wanted to set up a sting here (NOT my belief, just sayin...) this would be the exact type of phrasing they would use to make it stick.

As I said elsewhere as well, I don't think that if the FAA would take notice of this that they would do anything about it, nor if it was brought to their attention through a complaint from a 135 ticket holder would they do anything except tell the parties to cease this particular action, they may even hint at how to simply change the wording of the offer to make it above board.
 
Last edited:
ronnieh said:
Ron, I am not a lawyer and I did not stay at the Holiday Inn last night. There may be nothing illegal at offering to do something illegal.
Click to expand...
Actually, I believe there is, but that's not the point, since there's nothing illegal about paying someone for air transportation. The problem is when the other party is not authorized to do whatever it is you are paying them to do that would be legal for an authorized person to do. For example, if you make a public offer to pay have your appendix removed, you have not violated the law if it turns out that person who accepts your offer is not licensed to practice medicine.
 
Everskyward said:
I think the problem is the advertising since the CFI is making the offer specific to Angel Flights. On the other hand, if the AF pilot asked some CFI if they would ride along and provide instruction I can't see that there would be an issue unless AF has a problem with this.
Click to expand...
I agree on all counts. The key would be that the instruction is not contingent on providing the air transportation.
 
If the guy just worded it, "Hey, we're looking for new Angel Flight pilots in the region. If you've considered joining before but weren't sure, I'm offering a joining premium of free instrument flight instruction for joining." That is perfectly legitimate as it ties the instruction to joining the organization, not providing transportation.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Say again?

The PP's ultimate purpose is to help the indigent passenger.
The CFI's ultimate purpose is to help the indigent passenger.

The PP and CFI could, individually, legally transport the passenger. Both have ceded the destination and departure time to third parties. These circumstances narrow the universe of possible motivations, and therefore purposes, to that of helping the passenger. If the PP was flying Angel Flights prior to seeing and accepting CFI's offer then that would undercut any claim that the PP was motivated only by compensation. Even absent that prior history the FAA would still need to present evidence proving their claim of what motivated the PP.

Once the FAA includes intangibles in determining compensation it cannot pick and choose when and which intangibles it will consider. As I've posted before, it takes a certain level of insanity to be selective in application of some claimed principle.

There is also the matter of political self-destructiveness that the FAA would encounter in the unlikely case it tried to prosecute any such flight; e.g.:

"FAA threatens to pull license of pilot who donated time and money to help girl dying of cancer."
Click to expand...
This doesn't support your position since Pt. 135 operators cede the destination and departure time to the customer.
 
kkoran said:
This doesn't support your position since Pt. 135 operators cede the destination and departure time to the customer.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that aspect of the flight would move it under Part 135 and make the pasenger a paying customer. Suddenly there are a lot of regulations that all these Angel Flights are going to be violating that they weren't violating under Part 91. I better stick to computer programming and physics where a simpleton like me can comprehend things.
 
The way I read the ad, it is an attempt to "rent" an aircraft for payment in kind.

The CFII is instrument rated. Since he is offering instrument training, it is assumed that the responding pilot is not instrument rated. Angel Flight requires that their pilot be instrument rated. Therefore, since only the CFII meets that requirement, he is the Angel Flight pilot.

So, the CFII is attempting to "rent" an airplane for the Angel Flight. He is willing to pay for the aircraft rental by instructing the owner during the flight.

Now, is that a violation? Is the CFII violating the rules by renting the aircraft and paying in kind with instruction? Is the aircraft owner in violation by renting his aircraft for payment in kind of instruction? Does the non-paying passenger have a say in the matter? Does the non-paying passenger change the rule?
 
AuntPeggy said:
The way I read the ad, it is an attempt to "rent" an aircraft for payment in kind.

The CFII is instrument rated. Since he is offering instrument training, it is assumed that the responding pilot is not instrument rated. Angel Flight requires that their pilot be instrument rated. Therefore, since only the CFII meets that requirement, he is the Angel Flight pilot.

So, the CFII is attempting to "rent" an airplane for the Angel Flight. He is willing to pay for the aircraft rental by instructing the owner during the flight.

Now, is that a violation? Is the CFII violating the rules by renting the aircraft and paying in kind with instruction? Is the aircraft owner in violation by renting his aircraft for payment in kind of instruction? Does the non-paying passenger have a say in the matter? Does the non-paying passenger change the rule?
Click to expand...
That's an interesting argument -- "you provide an airplane to be used for an Angel Flight mission, and I'll pay you $150 in flight training for the use of your plane." Of course, the aircraft provider can't pay a dime of the direct cost of the flight on which he is now just a passenger, since there is no "common purpose" for the flight, as the aircraft provider passenger has no reason to go to the medical passenger's destination, so they'd have to make sure that the value of the flight training exceeds the direct cost of the flight, and document the transactions accordingly. I also suspect Angel Flight will have a cow if an Angel Flight pilot lets a non-AF pilot fly the plane on an AF mission, but that's not an FAA matter. All in all, I don't see this as viable.
 
Henning said:
Solicitation of an offense is typically an offense in its own right
Click to expand...

Specific jurisdictions may have specific laws against attempting or conspiring to commit specific misdemeanors or felonies.

However, the CFRs are just regulations, not laws. There is no CFR that specifically prohibits soliciting violations of the CFRs. And as far as I know, there is no law that prohibits soliciting (or even accomplishing) CFR violation per se.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top