Legal Flight? You decide...

Cap'n Ron, I appreciate the fact that you back up your arguments with fact not emotion like some of these other bozo's.

Getting back to the question, I fly for compensation in some kind all the time even though I'm a PPL. I just don't get all this agonizing about legal "details". Just make sure you get paid in cash or untraceable services (like BJ's), and deny later if questioned and all is good.

So what I'm saying my response to the question posed by the OP is "who gives a flying f*ck, do whatever you want and keep yer yap shut about it".
 
BobThePilot said:
Cap'n Ron, I appreciate the fact that you back up your arguments with fact not emotion like some of these other bozo's.

Getting back to the question, I fly for compensation in some kind all the time even though I'm a PPL. I just don't get all this agonizing about legal "details". Just make sure you get paid in cash or untraceable services (like BJ's), and deny later if questioned and all is good.

So what I'm saying my response to the question posed by the OP is "who gives a flying f*ck, do whatever you want and keep yer yap shut about it".
Click to expand...

Not a bad point. Stupid laws should be circumvented.
 
I do have a .3 from my first lesson. We went through the initial talk, pre flight, start, ATIS, blah blah, taxied to the hold short line, and time was up, the plane had to go back (yeah, a sad first lesson).

My instructor logged that time and signed it. Will let you know if at the time of the checkride the DPE says something about it.

I think Ron has a point, the regulation does kind of read like that, but I don't think anyone would even stop to think about it unless it was fishy, as in, half of your 500 hours are those .2 taxis.
It's just there's no motivation to abuse this, why would anyone accumulate hours on the ground?
 
BobThePilot said:
Cap'n Ron, I appreciate the fact that you back up your arguments with fact not emotion like some of these other bozo's.

Getting back to the question, I fly for compensation in some kind all the time even though I'm a PPL. I just don't get all this agonizing about legal "details". Just make sure you get paid in cash or untraceable services (like BJ's), and deny later if questioned and all is good.

So what I'm saying my response to the question posed by the OP is "who gives a flying f*ck, do whatever you want and keep yer yap shut about it".
Click to expand...

Ok 93K/ChitDisturber.
 
EdFred said:
Captain,

Because Ron said so. That's the only explanation he ever needs, and the only explanation the rest of us are deserving of. When you provide an example that goes against him and catch him painted into a corner he takes his ball and goes home. I've watched it for 10 years. Even when shown to be obviously wrong, he will either disappear from the board for a few months, or say something along the lines of 'I may have been mistaken' still never admitting to being incorrect. Or the best is, "I had a letter but it was sent to me at my last job, and I don't have access to that anymore."

So, don't expect him to back up his opinion when it comes to hypothetical situations.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:


Mike
 
Interesting. I rented a 172, taxiied to the hold short line and engine failed the mag check (1 mag was completely inop). I taxied back, tied down the plane and called the owner. I was happy not to be an owner when I told him the plane was broken. :D It didn't occur to me to log or pay for the taxi time. So I reckon I'm 100% legal.

Johann said:
I do have a .3 from my first lesson. We went through the initial talk, pre flight, start, ATIS, blah blah, taxied to the hold short line, and time was up, the plane had to go back (yeah, a sad first lesson).

My instructor logged that time and signed it. Will let you know if at the time of the checkride the DPE says something about it.

I think Ron has a point, the regulation does kind of read like that, but I don't think anyone would even stop to think about it unless it was fishy, as in, half of your 500 hours are those .2 taxis.
It's just there's no motivation to abuse this, why would anyone accumulate hours on the ground?
Click to expand...
 
noobJohn said:
Interesting. I rented a 172, taxiied to the hold short line and engine failed the mag check (1 mag was completely inop). I taxied back, tied down the plane and called the owner. I was happy not to be an owner when I told him the plane was broken. :D It didn't occur to me to log or pay for the taxi time. So I reckon I'm 100% legal.
Click to expand...

Well, it was my first lesson, I didn't even know how to fill up the columns, my CFI logged it, so I guess I'm 100% legal as well :D
 
EdFred said:
Captain,

Because Ron said so. That's the only explanation he ever needs, and the only explanation the rest of us are deserving of. When you provide an example that goes against him and catch him painted into a corner he takes his ball and goes home. I've watched it for 10 years. Even when shown to be obviously wrong, he will either disappear from the board for a few months, or say something along the lines of 'I may have been mistaken' still never admitting to being incorrect. Or the best is, "I had a letter but it was sent to me at my last job, and I don't have access to that anymore."

So, don't expect him to back up his opinion when it comes to hypothetical situations.
Click to expand...

MikeELP said:
:yeahthat:


Mike
Click to expand...

Nail. Hit squarely on the head!
 
Johann said:
I think Ron has a point, the regulation does kind of read like that, but I don't think anyone would even stop to think about it unless it was fishy, as in, half of your 500 hours are those .2 taxis.
It's just there's no motivation to abuse this, why would anyone accumulate hours on the ground?
Click to expand...

A guy on a student visa did this until he fell asleep and got caught. He was sent home. No idea if the FAA stripped him of his certs. He was comm rated IIRC.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's not what 14 CFR 1.1 says.
No landing, no flight time.
Click to expand...
The reg doesn't say that is the only way flight time stops. Not is there any implication that a landing is required for flight time start. What if the airplane is totaled in a survivable crash?
 
Lindberg said:
The reg doesn't say that is the only way flight time stops. Not is there any implication that a landing is required for flight time start. What if the airplane is totaled in a survivable crash?
Click to expand...

Or if someone has to punch out.
 
Let's face it, the regs have holes; designed that way. Written in the most permissive way with the assumption that only people with good moral character would be aviators.

When I worked as a contractor at Army HQ, I was forewarned that people would try to beat the system with the letter of the law by ignoring (not knowing) intent. I had to know both but only use the letter to support my position. I was very successful at that job but not happy. Some people were, frankly, pigheaded to get their way.
 
I personally don't worry much regulations unless it's a safety thing anymore. (appropriate altitudes/cloud clearances) I have no plans to go fly for pay, so if I end up with a ding here, or a ding there, oh well. I'm not doing anything to attract attention, I just look at em like traffic tickets. Oh no, I can't fly for 60 days! I don't think I've flown in the last 60 days as it is, so why is a 60 ding going to affect me?
 
So let me get this straight. If I don't log flight time accrued as compensation, I don't need a CPL. :idea: Would this also apply if I got paid in cash and just didn't spend it?
 
Witmo said:
So let me get this straight. If I don't log flight time accrued as compensation, I don't need a CPL. :idea: Would this also apply if I got paid in cash and just didn't spend it?
Click to expand...

Or donate it to charity and not write it off? :)
 
Witmo said:
So let me get this straight. If I don't log flight time accrued as compensation, I don't need a CPL. :idea: Would this also apply if I got paid in cash and just didn't spend it?
Click to expand...

What if someone mailed you a check against your wishes and you didn't cash it?
 
Jaybird180 said:
A guy on a student visa did this until he fell asleep and got caught. He was sent home. No idea if the FAA stripped him of his certs. He was comm rated IIRC.
Click to expand...

He was taxing out and not flying just to burn time on the Hobbs?

Why wouldn't someone rather fly? He's paying for it, why wouldn't he take off and go? Whatever, practically he was found out and ejected. Legally, FAR 1.1 wise...he didn't taxi out 'for the purpose of flight' so it's not log'able in my world either.
 
Captain said:
Why wouldn't someone rather fly? He's paying for it, why wouldn't he take off and go?
Click to expand...

I can't figure that out either. If he doesn't like flying, why the heck is he taking lessons?
 
Captain said:
He was taxing out and not flying just to burn time on the Hobbs?

Why wouldn't someone rather fly? He's paying for it, why wouldn't he take off and go? Whatever, practically he was found out and ejected. Legally, FAR 1.1 wise...he didn't taxi out 'for the purpose of flight' so it's not log'able in my world either.
Click to expand...

As I recall, he flew to another airport and then sat on the ground running Hobbs.
No idea why he didn't fly, bored I guess.
 
dtuuri said:
Foreigner w/gummint paying, if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's a possibility, but it still seems nuts that he would want to waste his time like that.
 
Johann said:
My money is on Pete. It has all the traits of Pete, and not many of 93K. Not that I have anything against any of them.
Click to expand...

I'd say he's got the traits of 93K/ChitDisturber down pretty well, but I could certainly be wrong. The question is whether he'll come back with a new alias, keep posting until he gets banned again, or go away.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since there was no flight, there was no loggable time, and the FAA doesn't care at all whether you were charged or not. Mechanics without pilot certificates get paid to taxi planes around all the time -- legally.
Click to expand...

sure there was. the airplane moved for the purpose of flight. nowhere does the definition of flight time include leaving the ground.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
 
TMetzinger said:
...the airplane moved for the purpose of flight. nowhere does the definition of flight time include leaving the ground.
Click to expand...

Some things should just be common sense, not that the Chief Counsel has any at all. One could say, "The airplane moved for the purpose of repositioning to the takeoff end of the runway, not for the purpose of flight." But, would that ever upset the apple cart!

dtuuri
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top