Head slap!

lancie00

lancie00

Line Up and Wait
Joined
May 12, 2016
Messages
864
Display Name
Display name:
lancie00
I'm not sure what to say about this. I guess you can't fix stupid.
For anyone that doesn't know, this is illegal and if you didn't know that, you need to look it up before offering to do it. (FAR 91.146) And yes, I blocked out his name because there's no reason to get him in trouble. No, that's not his airplane, just a stock photo.Idiot pilot.jpg
 
If it's a charitable flight and 91.146 is followed how is it illegal?
 
idahoflier said:
If it's a charitable flight and 91.146 is followed how is it illegal?
Click to expand...

91.146 (b) 1. "The flight is nonstop and begins and ends at the same airport and is conducted within a 25-statute mile radius of that airport;"
 
lancie00 said:
91.146 (b) 1. "The flight is nonstop and begins and ends at the same airport and is conducted within a 25-statute mile radius of that airport;"
Click to expand...

Well, there you have it...
 
At the risk of painting a big(ger) target on my butt:

A) I don't dispute the illegality of this.
B) I'm not a CPL, I'm a PPL, with no desire to achieve CPL.

Question 1. Even if the pilot was CPL, I believe this would technically be illegal, presuming the pilot owned or rented this plane himself/herself. Something about wet leases 'n stuff.

Is this correct, or am I incorrect?

Question 2. Why SHOULD something like this be illegal? It seems to me that the whole CPL curriculum and all the rules that encompass this section of the law were written by the airlines. They're written so as to be worried, because should "Larry the PPL/CPL" offer to fly someone to an airport 100 miles away, they'll be immediately forced to file for bankruptcy.
 
I'm still learning myself but I believe even if he had his CPL, this is still illegal because he is providing plane and pilot and he's advertising. The way I understand it is if he had his CPL, someone else provided the plane and it wasn't advertised, it would be legal.

I'm not sure why these rules exist but I believe it came more from the 135 guys than the airlines.
 
Ryanb said:
Does it concern you or put others at any inherent risk? If not than don’t try to police it, because it’s none of your business.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, I just think it's stupid that they posted it on facebook.
 
lancie00 said:
I'm still learning myself but I believe even if he had his CPL, this is still illegal because he is providing plane and pilot and he's advertising. The way I understand it is if he had his CPL, someone else provided the plane and it wasn't advertised, it would be legal.

I'm not sure why these rules exist but I believe it came more from the 135 guys than the airlines.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's really easy for any "Mr./Mrs. Citizen" to find a pilot, and go rent an airplane. Right? (Hardly)
 
lancie00 said:
I couldn't agree more, I just think it's stupid that they posted it on facebook.
Click to expand...
Of course, it is stupid, but people post their every movement on social media nowadays, so it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.
 
Rgbeard said:
Question 2. Why SHOULD something like this be illegal? It seems to me that the whole CPL curriculum and all the rules that encompass this section of the law were written by the airlines. They're written so as to be worried, because should "Larry the PPL/CPL" offer to fly someone to an airport 100 miles away, they'll be immediately forced to file for bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

It's all about public safety and the perceived level of safety the winner of such a charitable flight has. Unfortunately there have been incidents with flights of this type...
 
idahoflier said:
Unfortunately there have been incidents with flights of this type...
Click to expand...
There have been incidents with all types of flights, so that doesn’t conclusively prove anything.

PaulS said:
How do we know this isn't a commercial operation?
Click to expand...
Read the advertisement, it says ‘instrument rated private pilot.’
 
I have donated and done flights for charity of children's brain cancer research.
 
Ryanb said:
There have been incidents with all types of flights, so that doesn’t conclusively prove anything.
Click to expand...

Prove what? The question was "Why SHOULD something like this be illegal?" The angle the FAA takes on this is public safety...
 
idahoflier said:
Prove what? The question was "Why SHOULD something like this be illegal?" The angle the FAA takes on this is public safety...
Click to expand...
It proves that just because ‘there have been incidents with these types of flights’ doesn’t make them a public safety risk, as you seemed to correlate the two with.
 
The ONLY things that can't be legal under Part 91 is exceeding the 25 sm radius and landing at a different airport than the point of origin. (That's assuming that it otherwise qualifies under 91.146 or 91.147.) Even some private pilots can do charity flight if they meet the criteria under 91.146, but not 91.147.
 
Everyone should also be thinking for all flights, 'is there anything about this flight that will cause the claims adjuster to deny, after the accident?'
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Everyone should also be thinking for all flights, 'is there anything about this flight that will cause the claims adjuster to deny, after the accident?'
Click to expand...

Ummmm, wouldn't that be the same "anything" that would also make it illegal per the FARs? Most policies I've seen have a simple requirement that the operation comply with the FARs, and most will have specific pilot qualifications that typically relate to PIC time in make and model, but what else would you need to consider????
 
dbahn said:
Ummmm,
Click to expand...

Ummmm (lol) they were discussing Part 134&1/2. I would be full on the binders thinking insurance, way before I thought of the FARs.
(think; what is more painful; sanction by the FAA after an accident, or a successful civil suit in which you lose $1M to the family of the beloved deceased?)
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Ummmm (lol) they were discussing Part 134&1/2. I would be full on the binders thinking insurance, way before I thought of the FARs.
(think; what is more painful; sanction by the FAA after an accident, or a successful civil suit in which you lose $1M to the family of the beloved deceased?)
Click to expand...

What is "Part 134&1/2"? :confused:

I'm definitely not familiar with that one . . .
 
Rgbeard said:
At the risk of painting a big(ger) target on my butt:

A) I don't dispute the illegality of this.
B) I'm not a CPL, I'm a PPL, with no desire to achieve CPL.

Question 1. Even if the pilot was CPL, I believe this would technically be illegal, presuming the pilot owned or rented this plane himself/herself. Something about wet leases 'n stuff.

Is this correct, or am I incorrect?

Question 2. Why SHOULD something like this be illegal? It seems to me that the whole CPL curriculum and all the rules that encompass this section of the law were written by the airlines. They're written so as to be worried, because should "Larry the PPL/CPL" offer to fly someone to an airport 100 miles away, they'll be immediately forced to file for bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

Part 119.1 lays out what the holder of a commercial certificate can and cannot do.

Bob
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Ummmm (lol) they were discussing Part 134&1/2.
Click to expand...
'

I'm not sure I'd even call this 134 and 1/2, given the pilot has only a private certificate. Better hope the local FSDO doesn't catch wind of this. A ramp check may be awaiting.
 
Bill Greenwood said:
I don't know the details but it seems a low form of jealousy to try to bring problems to another pilot.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I could care less what this guy does. Once again, I only posted this because I couldn't believe how stupid people can be. I'm just trying to get others to THINK before they do things that endanger their certificate.
 
midwestpa24 said:
'

I'm not sure I'd even call this 134 and 1/2, given the pilot has only a private certificate. Better hope the local FSDO doesn't catch wind of this. A ramp check may be awaiting.
Click to expand...

It's blatantly illegal whatever you call it. The OP has access to the pilot's email address and phone number. I'd suggest that the more "noble" thing to do at this point is to contact him, maybe direct him to this discussion. I realize there might be more satisfaction in seeing him get busted, but I'd like to think the "aviation community" is more helpful than that. Maybe not though, and at this point he could still be the subject of a ramp check if the FSDO becomes aware, but I think most of us would prefer a ramp check to certificate action. Just my opinion . . .
 
dbahn said:
It's blatantly illegal whatever you call it. The OP has access to the pilot's email address and phone number. I'd suggest that the more "noble" thing to do at this point is to contact him, maybe direct him to this discussion. I realize there might be more satisfaction in seeing him get busted, but I'd like to think the "aviation community" is more helpful than that. Maybe not though, and at this point he could still be the subject of a ramp check if the FSDO becomes aware, but I think most of us would prefer a ramp check to certificate action. Just my opinion . . .
Click to expand...

I'm writing him an email right now. Thanks for the idea to direct him to this page. I think that's a great idea.

And for anyone that thinks I'm jealous or trying to bust him, you are wrong. If I were trying to get him in trouble, I wouldn't have hid his name and email and I wouldn't have posted here. I would have sent it to the FSDO.
 
Follow up. I sent the pilot an email explaining that this may be against the FAR's. Here's his response:

"Hi Lance, Thanks for the heads up about this. I’ll look into the FARs. I had heard of some other pilots doing similar things, and it’s possible they are unaware, too. I’ll let them know, too."
 
Ryanb said:
It proves that just because ‘there have been incidents with these types of flights’ doesn’t make them a public safety risk, as you seemed to correlate the two with.
Click to expand...

LOL! I'm not correlating anything, the FAA is. Why do you think 91.146 exists as written? Why have the 25NM radius? Why all the FSDO hoops?
 
idahoflier said:
LOL! I'm not correlating anything, the FAA is. Why do you think 91.146 exists as written? Why have the 25NM radius? Why all the FSDO hoops?
Click to expand...

The FAA reacts to public concerns. Just look at the impact of Colgan 3407 near Buffalo and the changes that followed.

To the FAA's credit they were responding to public outcry about sightseeing operation safety (helicopter, I believe) and created "91 sightseeing light" along with "91 sightseeing charity" with the former having many components of Part 135 and that latter being a very much watered-down but limited version of the same thing.

The regulatory framework is all based on "oversight" protection of members of the public who pay for flights. They already have that oversight over pilots via their certificates (commercial, ATP), and the other parts (91.14x, 135, etc) all add specific oversight on the operational aspects, including maintenance, abuse prevention, etc.
 
I have donated flights to Make a Wish, and Pilots N' Paws.
I doubled checked with my insurer, who got back to me a few days later, put a small rider on as extra, it was only $63 year, I just leave it in place for the small fee, so I can do this whenever I want to. Just volunteering usually has a cost.
 
Ryanb said:
Does it concern you or put others at any inherent risk? If not than don’t try to police it, because it’s none of your business.
Click to expand...

Jesus, thank you!!! We need more people like this.
 
Suggested value: $400

You’re not flying an GA aircraft capable of flying 5 individuals for a day trip at close to $400 dollars. That’s less than half the expenses, he’s in the clear
 
This brings up a different question, but it could be a grey area as well. You take family or friends flying, you have for this scenario lets say a PPL, a 172, and of course no commercial use insurance. They show up to go flying and are so happy that you are taking them, they hand you some cash because they know planes don't fly for free.
Right?
Wrong?
Who cares?
What does that do to your insurance policy if something happens, even a minor incident?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top