Door to door air cargo… By a private pilot??

schmookeeg said:
I'm reading a lot of talk about the compensation part of the equation, but isn't this kid able to get burned by the "or hire" part of the reg?

Aren't these people "hiring him" (for no pay) to carry cargo?

...setting aside the practical matter of whether the FAA has time to meddle with this.
Click to expand...
That would completely change the meaning of the word "hire." Let's not do that!
 
kayoh190 said:
Not quite old enough to remember, but did we argue and do this much pearl clutching in the days of CompuServe and usenet? ;)
Click to expand...

With little effort, I identified this thread from rec.avaiation, posted in 1990. I can't find when rec.aviation was founded.

Logging Hours is NOT compensation (google.com)

Side trivia note: The daily volume of usenet today is approx 10TB
 
Brad Z said:
Since young eagles flights take off and land at the same airport, and no one is being transported from place to place, would it even be considered common carriage even if they did charge money?

But I understand and agree with your point.
Click to expand...
By that logic I could hold out for sightseeing flights as a private pilot. Why flying between airports should be more dangerous than sightseeing is somewhat opaque to my muddle headed self.
 
Palmpilot said:
That would completely change the meaning of the word "hire." Let's not do that!
Click to expand...

Huh, you're right... I thought the engagement of services was the "hire" part, but I can't find a definition of "hire" that doesn't also mention compensation.

...making me wonder why they used both "hire" and "compensation" in the reg if hire on its own will suffice.

:dunno:
 
I think some of you are overreacting to those who interpret it to be illegal.They aren’t saying lock the dude up and they aren’t hoping for the FAA to use enforcement action. They’re just scrutinizing the verbiage as it applies to holding out. I’d say it’s a gray area and worth discussing.

Third party compensation could very well apply here. Do I care? Hell no. Does the current FAA and their compliance philosophy care about this? Probably not. But, like all policies, regs, rules, etc., not everything is black and white. We as pilots should at least strive to come to an understanding of what might be legal or illegal. If you don’t have that mindset now, don’t bother flying for hire because knowing legal from illegal might cost you your job.
 
Brad Z said:
I would go as far to say that the pizza place could charge delivery costs associated with delivering the pizza to the airport.
Click to expand...

Delivering pizza to the origin, yes... Except then it gets really hard to argue that the delivery fee was ONLY for that part and not for the rest, unless you can show that the other pizzas they're selling are only being charged a delivery fee for part of the journey.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Delivering pizza to the origin, yes... Except then it gets really hard to argue that the delivery fee was ONLY for that part and not for the rest, unless you can show that the other pizzas they're selling are only being charged a delivery fee for part of the journey.
Click to expand...

iu
 
I just spoke with an Aviation Safety Inspector in Texas regarding an unrelated issue. I brought this scenario up to him. Interestingly, they are aware of this case. His (the FAA’s) opinion (at least in this office) is there is a component of compensation, and therefore it is not permitted.

Since this analysis came from the FAA, it’s good enough for me. You can’t deliver pizzas for free to build time if the pizza store is receiving a benefit from the delivery. Third party benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ttexrbomb said:
I just spoke with an Aviation Safety Inspector in Texas regarding an unrelated issue. I brought this scenario up to him. Interestingly, they are aware of this case. His (the FAA’s) opinion (at least in this office) is there is a component of compensation, and therefore it is not permitted.

Since this analysis came from the FAA, it’s good enough for me. You can’t deliver pizzas for free to build time if the pizza store is receiving a benefit from the delivery. Third party benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And I spoke to an ASI (on a unrelated issue) and brought this up as well. His (the FAA's) opinion (at least in this office)? "I've got much more pressing issues to deal with than chasing minutia around".

Since this analysis came from the FAA, it’s good enough for me. ;)
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
By that logic I could hold out for sightseeing flights as a private pilot. Why flying between airports should be more dangerous than sightseeing is somewhat opaque to my muddle headed self.
Click to expand...
You could hold out sightseeing flights, but you'd need a commercial pilot certificate, a LOA from the local FSDO, and set up a drug and alcohol testing plan. You would not however, need an air carrier certificate because you would not be conducting common carriage.
 
Doc Holliday said:
And I spoke to an ASI (on a unrelated issue) and brought this up as well. His (the FAA's) opinion (at least in this office)? "I've got much more pressing issues to deal with than chasing minutia around".

Since this analysis came from the FAA, it’s good enough for me. ;)
Click to expand...
And I spoke with half a dozen ASIs (on an unrelated issue) today and had more important things to do than to bring this issue up.
 
flyingron said:
IT MATTERS NOT if he gets compensated (either tangibly or intangible). The issue here is that he's got an illicit air common carriage operation here. Even if he had a commercial pilot certificate, this would be illegal.
Click to expand...
And it matters not the reg, the reg is immoral. Disclaimer, immoral or not, I'm NOT advocating breaking it, but we should recognize it's a rule that should be thrown out, or at least modified, and we should be willing to advocate for that by at a minimum calling our congressman. It's also environmentally irresponsible not to allow it. If pilots need to burn fuel to be able to get their needed hours, allow them to do something useful while burning the fuel.
 
It seems like some folks want to out-FAA the FAA on these interpretations. It reminds me of a quote from one of Shakespeare's plays: "It out-Herods Herod." ;)
 
With luck he will just get a nice talk with the FSDO and some coaching that will be helpful when he goes for his commercial.
 
So answer me this: If those pizzas were to "accidentally" fall out of the airplane and be "lost," would there still be compensation? The customer could request a refund and the pizza joint would take a loss...

No, I guess that wouldn't work since the dude delivering the pizzas would eat the cost of the pizzas.

I'm trying to think of ways to even further overthink this idiotic thread...
 
WDD said:
POA - where else can someone find Shakespeare and FAA in a post. Love this place!
Click to expand...
My favorite was the reference to pearl clutching! :)
 
When I flew my girlfriend...now wife of 37 years...for the first time...I admit I was looking for some compensation in the eyes of the FAA...like banning koolaid stands for 10 year olds not paying sales tax...
 
Ah - when you flew with your girl friend you ran afoul of regulation 67.900002476.5379GJ-NOOKY-NOOKY
 
Initial Fix said:
With luck he will just get a nice talk with the FSDO and some coaching that will be helpful
Click to expand...
Yep. Such as

When carrying the complimentary bottles of soda place them on the floor in the back so they don’t roll around.

Make sure delivery labels are clearly marked and securely attached.

Keep the insulated delivery bags tightly zipped up

Do not put the suction cup delivery flag on your windshield.
 
Warlock said:
..like banning koolaid stands for 10 year olds not paying sales tax...
Click to expand...

should the neighborhood kid be allowed to set up a lemonade stand next to a food truck that has all its city permits, health inspections, and state business license?
The local 135 operator who makes a living at servicing the lake Erie islands must be upset that a neighborhood kid has set up a lemonade stand in their backyard.
 
Brad Z said:
You could hold out sightseeing flights, but you'd need a commercial pilot certificate, a LOA from the local FSDO, and set up a drug and alcohol testing plan. You would not however, need an air carrier certificate because you would not be conducting common carriage.
Click to expand...
You don't seem to get it. Young Eagle pilots definitely hold out, there can be no doubt of that. None of the ones I fly with have commercial privileges, I don't even even have the IR. These are sightseeing flights. You doing to run right over to your FSDO?
 
steingar said:
You don't seem to get it. Young Eagle pilots definitely hold out, there can be no doubt of that. None of the ones I fly with have commercial privileges, I don't even even have the IR. These are sightseeing flights. You doing to run right over to your FSDO?
Click to expand...

That's not the point. If you were running a sight seeing operation for compensation, you'd be doing so under part 91 and your pilots would need a commercial pilot certificate, a 91.147 LOA, and a drug and alcohol program. You wouldn't need an air carrier certificate.

If you were transporting pizzas point to point for compensation, you would be doing so under part 135 and would need to hold an air carrier certificate and your pilots would need to hold the certificate appropriate for the part 135 operation.

My point is that Young Eagles flights are not analogous to the Kelly Island Pizza Pilot because if his operation was determined to be conducted for compensation, he would be violated for not holding an air carrier certificate. Conversely, someone doing a Young Eagles flight for compensation would only be violated for 91.147 and 61.113(a). Two different operations that must comply with two very different sets of regulations.
 
Brad Z said:
That's not the point. If you were running a sight seeing operation for compensation, you'd be doing so under part 91 and your pilots would need a commercial pilot certificate, a 91.147 LOA, and a drug and alcohol program. You wouldn't need an air carrier certificate.

If you were transporting pizzas point to point for compensation, you would be doing so under part 135 and would need to hold an air carrier certificate and your pilots would need to hold the certificate appropriate for the part 135 operation.

My point is that Young Eagles flights are not analogous to the Kelly Island Pizza Pilot because if his operation was determined to be conducted for compensation, he would be violated for not holding an air carrier certificate. Conversely, someone doing a Young Eagles flight for compensation would only be violated for 91.147 and 61.113(a). Two different operations that must comply with two very different sets of regulations.
Click to expand...
Neither involve any compensation beyond logging hours for the flights themselves. Where's the violation? By the time you tase it out this hard the milk run to the local airport diner bust the regs somehow.
 
steingar said:
Neither involve any compensation beyond logging hours for the flights themselves. Where's the violation? By the time you tase it out this hard the milk run to the local airport diner bust the regs somehow.
Click to expand...
There isn't. I've been saying that all along in this thread. I don't think the pizza pilot is in violation of anything, based on what is reported. I agree with you.

I was merely pointing out that You Eagles isn't a good comparison to the pizza pilot because it's not a point-to-point operation. A better comparison would be flying angel flight patients, airlifting WW2 veterans to DC for a monument dedication, or flying dogs from kill shelters to animal rescue groups.
 
I spoke with an FAA safety inspector on Friday. He seems to be of the opinion that the pizza operator is afoul of the regs. And that is whose opinion matters. The FAA.

If you don’t like a regulation, work to change it. But don’t disregard it just because you don’t agree with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ttexrbomb said:
I spoke with an FAA safety inspector on Friday. He seems to be of the opinion that the pizza operator is afoul of the regs. And that is whose opinion matters. The FAA.

If you don’t like a regulation, work to change it. But don’t disregard it just because you don’t agree with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I spoke with the Administrator on Friday. He said "Don't you have anything else better to occupy your time with?" o_O
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top