Legal as long as he doesn't log the flight time. It has been cited that that logged time is compensation.
It's not legal unless the pilot involved pays the operating expenses of the flight, defined in 61.113 as "fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees". 61.113(a) is being violated because "no person who holds a private pilot certificate may ... for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft," and in this case, the PP is providing pilot services in exchange for loggable flight time. The fact that the flight is loggable is enough to nail you. See the Bobertz memo, page 3, first paragraph -- the fact that one chooses not to log the flight isn't sufficient to keep you out of trouble.Legal as long as he doesn't log the flight time. It has been cited that that logged time is compensation.
Only if that monthly fee includes some minimum number of flight hours (which some clubs do), and the hours flown are deducted from that total. Otherwise, that doesn't cover the full operating cost of the flight, and that's the FAA standard.
No, it isn't. You're confusing the legality of a parent giving free flying time to a child without condition with the legality of exacting a quid pro quo from a pilot in exchange for free flying. What I think you're assuming is that nobody will ever complain to the FAA about the parent-child situation, and I think you're right, but that doesn't change the legality of what is happening, only whether or not the FAA actually gets involved.
As I said, people will come up with all sorts of arguments to suggest it's legal.
Because if they don't make it a very starkly clear strict rule, Private Pilts will be using arguments like Ed's to try to get away with providing air transportation and/or pilot services for compensation/hire, and by Congressional decree, the FAA is bound to establish higher standards for operations where people are paying (either in cash or otherwise) for air transportation or pilot services.
"'Seems', madam? I know not 'seems'".
Please show me where in the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 it says the FAA "has to keep itself relevant".
No, it is not, because the owner of the plane is not in the plane. Common purpose requires that all parties be in the plane and have reason to be going to the same destination at the same time. There is no "common purpose" exception in the regulations for carriage of cargo or moving airplanes -- that paragraph of 61.113 is specific to sharing of expenses with passengers.
No, they're not. And this is another example of the sort of argument that drives the FAA to make and interpret this rule in the strictest possible manner -- which they've said they do in writing on several occasions.
No. The FAA will see through this in a heartbeat, since the discounted rate is contingent on the provision of the pilot service.
Legal nonsense. The fact that an offense is never discovered by the authorities does not provide grounds for overturning an enforcement action against someone else for doing the same thing. Doubt me? Just tell the judge that you want your speeding ticket dismissed because another car passed you going even faster 10 miles before you reached the speed trap.
Why do continue to cite cases that don't support your stance?
More mental masturbation.
While I worked as an Inspector never once did I see or hear "there's a kid down at the flight school that flew an airplane for them over to the avionics shop. We better get an Inspector on this right away!"
If I had gone to my FLM with something like this the response would have been "you obviously don't have enough to do in your work program do you?"
Must be something in the water....this thread pairs nicely with all the other "is xxxxx dangerous" threads.More mental masturbation.
It isn't the original question....it is (as R&W) pointed out the mental masturbation that produces two pages of replies in two hours.
