If that were true, then we wouldn't need Parts 119, 121 or 135, but the record proved otherwise sufficiently to move the Federal government to write legislation on these matters and create those Parts of the regulations.
Then why bother taking it to the courts? Why not just do it and then argue that the court lacks the rationality to hear your case? Point is, the alternative is anarchy, and that's not on offer today.
Maybe that's what it says to you but I am not so sure that cost-sharing is "compensation".
Maybe we don't need those. You assume all laws are just and reasonable. Not so Bro.
I am sure, and so are both the FAA and the Federal courts -- just ask them. The fundamental definition of that term is "something of value given in exchange for something else," in this case, money in return for air transportation. If that were not so, there would be no need for 61.113(c) since 61.113(a) prohibits only "compensation", not "cost sharing". In any event, the regulations involved do not use the term "cost sharing", so it really doesn't matter.
See you at the next Buddy Holly concert -- no doubt Richie Valens and The Big Bopper will open the show.
As I have said to others, we'll see how the court case goes. I'm not convinced one way or another.
And John Denver rules would've saved that guy
As I told Ron. We'll see how it all shakes out. I'm not convinced one way or another.
That one is truly on point for this discussion -- new private pilot in his privately owned aircraft hauling friends who were ill-equipped to judge the risks, although I can find no record of who was paying whom for what. But it is the sort of accident which makes the FAA generally opposed to letting PP's take money from passengers, and like the Buddy Holly accident, ii involved VFR into IMC.
I want to make sure I understand you -- you're saying you think money paid to a pilot by a passenger in return for air transportation is not "compensation" as the law defines that term if it's only a pro rata share of the direct expense of the flight?
If you read the post you quoted you'll see that I said that I'm not convinced one way or another.
Well, can you at least point to something in the regulations, legal interpretations, or case law which you think leads you to believe it might be true? Or is this just wishful thinking on your part?
I wouldn't say it's wishful thinking because it doesn't affect me, but I don't necessarily interpret the reg you and David quoted the same way. My mind is open to both sides.
I guess the point is that the term "cost sharing" isn't in the regs at all. The only term they use is "compensation", and the so-called "cost sharing" paragraph exists only as a specific exception to the prohibition on receipt of compensation. So, if what you call "cost sharing" wasn't "compensation", there'd be no need to exempt it from that prohibition. What I'm trying to understand is your basis (some legal definition, regulation, interpretation, court case, whatever) for thinking there's any doubt at all that money paid to a pilot by passengers in return for a ride in that pilot's airplane can ever be considered anything but "compensation" to the pilot in return for providing air transportation.
Try page 21 of the document in the original post.
May not be worth much and doesn't really answer the questions raised in the suit but I think it's pretty clear from the language of 61.113 itself that a share of the cost is "compensation."
If we go out to dinner and split the bill is one person compensating the other? Or are you just sharing the cost of the dinner?
If we go out to dinner and split the bill is one person compensating the other? Or are we just sharing the cost of the dinner?
I see repeated use of the term "expense-sharing" by the plaintiff's attorney in that brief, but not in any regulatory, FAA interpretation, or case law reference. All I see is plaintiff's contention that:
...which is not accurate. Let my quote the "plain language" of 61.113(c) in its entirety:
I see nothing in that paragraph which "expressly exempts a pilot’s receipt of a pro rata share of flight operating expenses from the definition of compensation". Or can you point out some part of that paragraph which you think does that expressly?
If Suzy Staxxx and I go to dinner and she pays her share then I'm prolly compensated...YMWVYup. Pilots are stuck on the notion of how the FAA redefined 'compensation.' Don't accept that frame folks.
I think it could go either way, with the dinner and also the ruling we are talking about.
The situation is not analogous. A closer analogy would be if I invite you to dinner at my house, but only if you pay for the food you eat. If I make that an open offer to anyone on the internet, and the local health people hear about it, they will be around looking for my restaurant license.
If I go out to dinner with Suzy Staxxx then I probably won't feel as compensated as some others of you here. Even if she pays her share.That depends entirely on the circumstances (before and/or after dinner) and the attributes of those sharing the dinner.
But if I offer to pay you for the ingredients, or better yet, bring an expensive bottle of wine, the heath people wouldn't care at all.
Neither can I. So we would be grounded.
If I go out to dinner with Suzy Staxxx then I probably won't feel as compensated as some others of you here. Even if she pays her share.
Well, there's that.You could always try out batting for the other team...
