I'm not saying it -- the Chief Counsel said it when he signed the letter saying, "for the application of 61.57," not "for the application of 61.57(b)."
That's between you and the insurance company and the wording in the insurance policy.
That may be where the concern stems from, though the FAA was definitely the rationale used for saying it's not allowed.
Neither am I, but the FAA Chief Counsel is, and has said so in writing in a manner providing force of law. For the "why" part of this, you'd have to address your question to:
BS. My Father-In-Law came along, my wife came along. Now if they were paying for passage somewhere that would be another issue. Ron's already given the counsel opinions.The non-student doesn't have a logbook, has no intention of getting one (yet) and couldn't show any educational purpose for being in the plane.
I have to say that I'm not aware of any restrictions like this from the FAA or other regulatory agencies, but a friend told me that the FAA doesn't allow it. I haven't had a chance to ask for references for the statement yet.
Y'see, now that's the kind of thing the FAA starts questioning if they hear about it -- especially if the aircraft operator doesn't have authorization for sightseeing flights. Since catmandu is a real pilot (we assume), maybe it works, but then again, maybe it doesn't.
Well, let's assume his tag line is accurate: "Comm ASEL AMEL IA". Let's further assume that this is a checkout in a new plane. How is this different from Jill taking Jack with for dinner as she and her instructor do a dual XCountry? Because there are sightseeing flights offered in the area?:huh: Maybe this is more of a gray area than I'd though.
Assuming facts not in evidence, plus no evidence that he's actually being trained and the operator isn't just dodging the 91.147 rules. I suspect that if the FAA sees a pattern of this happening, they'll be looking into that operator's operation.
Because, as stated in the post, this was admittedly a dodge to avoid calling it a sightseeing flight in an area where such flights are subject to considerable extra regulation. Jill's situation clearly is not.
Well, since it's my scenario, I can assume whatever facts I please!
I would too. I've done this and the purpose of the flight was ALWAYS familiarization/checkout on a new aircraft and in a new operating area. The fact that there may have been sights to see was neat for the passengers, but not for me - I was busy learning. Since I paid the bill, the purpose was clearly for my training benefit.Well, since it's my scenario, I can assume whatever facts I please!
Now, moving away from my scenarios, I know that if I'm on vacation somewhere, I'll try to get training with a local CFI and would like to have my spouse with me in the plane. It truly has multiple purposes. I always want additional training. I like having a pilot familiar with the local reporting points and area. And I like doing some sightseeing. Personally, I think that's clearly a training flight and not an attempt to skirt the part 135 of flightseeing rules. I think that it passes the duck test.
Not when it gets in front of an Administrative Law Judge, it isn't. Things are the way they are, not the way we think they should be.
I agree. That's not the same as trying to dodge the Part 136 National Parks Air Tour Management rules or the like.
In that case, letting you fly the plane through the tour area might well have been a violation of Part 136. Can't say for sure without seeing the LoA and knowing exactly where you went.
Yes.
If the normal air tour falls under Part 135, or the operator's Part 136 or 91.147 LoA prohibits passengers manipulating the controls, this could be seen as a dodge around those rules, especially if the operator doesn't normally rent out the 207 or give training in it. But that's the operator's problem, not the unauthorized pilot's.
That could certainly make the quacking louder.
).
If you don't have at least a little concern about busting a reg, then you'll be like the millions of drivers on the road flinging about with wild abandon, speeding, running red lights, and the occasional "Any traffic in the pattern..".I look at it as "mental masturbation" (thumbs up to Sammy Hagar
Some people are consumed with the "boogy man" and love telling stories around the campfire. Same thing when talking about the Feds. Some will have you believe this evil creature has nothing better to do than run around the airport apron with a copy of the CFR's in one hand and his badge in the other just looking for someone to "bust".
I look at it as "mental masturbation" (thumbs up to Sammy Hagar
Some people are consumed with the "boogy man" and love telling stories around the campfire. Same thing when talking about the Feds. Some will have you believe this evil creature has nothing better to do than run around the airport apron with a copy of the CFR's in one hand and his badge in the other just looking for someone to "bust".
Actually, there is something you can do -- contact the Manager of this rogue inspector's FSDO. If that doesn't stop it, a call to the Regional Counsel will.
We had passengers on my instructional flights for various reasons. It gets you used to additional distractions. My instructor was really good at having conversations and not shutting up when I needed him to. Excellent training on where the pilot isolate button is and how to use it. He'd just smile when I did that.
