Private Pilot Cannot Use Airplane for $0 Dry

[denverpilot]

Dear Chief Council, I am a private pilot. A buddy of mine let me fly his 172, free of charge, for my wife and I to go on vacation. During the trip, I found 37 cents in change in the seat cushion and kept it. Did I improperly accept compensation for this flight?

You joke, but inane questions like that by the thousands would garner a change in procedure faster than heads could spin.

Government is regularly hoisted by its own petard in contract replies to inane specifications by professional petard hoisters who make a living writing such replies while keeping them just civil enough to not put their company at risk of not receiving said contract. From defense contracts to road chip-sealing, we pay for all the time necessary to "negotiate via response".

Unfortunately it only works well in cases where public comment is mandatory. No such mandate on the Chief Counsel opinions, no matter how much they change the majority's perception of the laws as-written.

You can't make a rule book big enough to cover every circumstance, but that won't stop people who are paid on your dime from trying. There's no fiscal disincentive to releasing badly written rules. Some political disincentive, but that just affects the top guy. The writer still has a job after the political firestorm settles.

 

[mcmanigle]

So the other day I was at a friends airstrip and another friend of his flew his plane back from it's annual inspection for him was that a commercial flight?

Yes. Happens all the time, unlikely he'll get caught or anything will come of it, but if he had crashed on the way home, and the owner said in the NTSB interview, "he was flying it back from annual for me" it would have been a problem.

Someone I know may or may not have flown a plane that he had rented on many occasions to an airport to get the radio fixed for the owner and didn't pay for the flight and got a little over 2 hours in the log book was that compensation?

Yes, same as above, assuming they were a private pilot. Again, outrageously unlikely that anything would come of it, but I wouldn't go filing an insurance claim if something happened.

If a parent owns a plane and lets his pilot kid fly it at no charge is there an issue?

No; that's the whole point. The issue would only come up if the pilot kid was acting as PIC for the parents in return for the free time. "Kid, I'm proud that you're a pilot; fly my airplane for free" is fine. "Kid, how convenient it is that you're a pilot. My medical just expired and I'm flying as a sport pilot, but I want to get a nighttime $100 hamburger. Fly me there and you can use the plane for free" is more sketchy. On the other hand, the gov't is pretty unrestrictive about gifts among immediate family members, so there are a lot more loopholes available in that case.

A strict interpretation of what is in that letter would be that an FBO, for whatever reason, that is operating at *any* loss on their aircraft rentals is causing the private pilots to be in violation of the not-for-compensation rule.

Again, only if the private pilot is acting as PIC in a way that directly benefits the FBO. The FBO is free to give away plane time. The pilot is not free to accept free plane time in return for acting as PIC for the FBO (flying to maintenance, etc.)

Think of it this way: if the FBO says "you can fly the plane for free today," you can say "yes." If the FBO says "you can fly the plane for free today as long as you fly it to XYZ or carry XYZ with you," then you have to say "no."

What about aircraft clubs who let members fly planes, for free, to or from maintenance? The pilot is performing a flying service for the club, and being compensated for that.

I was under the impression there were various weird things you could get away with more easily if the pilot actually owned part of the plane (eg in a fractional ownership club), but I haven't read that part of the FARs recently enough to comment.

Dear Chief Council, I am a private pilot. A buddy of mine let me fly his 172, free of charge, for my wife and I to go on vacation. During the trip, I found 37 cents in change in the seat cushion and kept it. Did I improperly accept compensation for this flight?

No. Your buddy didn't benefit in any way from you going on vacation, so it doesn't matter that he let you use the plane for free, or that you took your wife, or that you found 37 cents. If your buddy works with your wife and said "dear god this woman drives me nuts, just fly her out of town for a while. Hell, take my plane and any change you find in it," then it's a problem.

 

[weilke]

This is a classic example of what you'll get if you write an idiotic letter like that to the FAA. You need only ask yourself - under what possible circumstances and on what form would the amount of fuel I put into the tanks of an airplane I borrowed from a friend be reported to the Federal Government?

It is an iterative process, every interpretation will be more restrictive than the previous one until in the end a private ticket is only good to transport the bearer of the certificate, but only between friday 5pm and monday 8am.

You know, if I fly to some weekend destination with my wife, I am incurring her goodwill --> goodwill is compensation --> I can't possibly do this with a private ticket. I am sure, if I just ask the question in a dumb enough way, I will get an answer that precludes me from doing something nice for my wife.

 

[Skylane81E]

Yes and my question and post remains. The letter said

So the way I read this is that if I lend my plane to a friend and I do not charge him anything for the use of that plane, or only charge him for the fuel he used, but not "the full range of costs associated with operation of an airplane"(whatever that may mean or how to determine that) he is "receiving some financial benefit" and may be in violation. And if I am acting as his safety pilot, then they can construe his payment to me as financial compensation and then I am in violation unless we figure it out to the penny and am able to tell what the FAA considers "the full range of costs with operation of an airplane."

I think I am going to go old style military on this one. As long as they don't ask, I won't tell. And if they ask then the old Sgt Schultz answer, "I know nothin"​

Not quite, as they said it depends on the arraignment. A common one that isn't allowed is "I'll let you fly my plane for free, if it has this banner attached"

 

[weilke]

4. The following is not okay: Oscar says to Paul, "Will you fly me to visit my ailing grandmother? I have this plane we can take." Even the hours of the flight to ailing grandmother's house count as compensation. So, in return for a discounted flight hour (compensation), Paul is flying Oscar to his grandmother's (acting as PIC).

Only in the insane backwards world of the FAA would P taking a day off from work to fly O to his grandma count as compensation.

(I encountered a version of this scenario: My sister in law ended up in the hospital unexpectedly while I was out of town. I asked one of my commercial rated partners to fly my wife to visit her two states over. He had to decline because his second class had downgraded to third a month before.)

 

[docmirror]

So the other day I was at a friends airstrip and another friend of his flew his plane back from it's annual inspection for him was that a commercial flight?

Someone I know may or may not have flown a plane that he had rented on many occasions to an airport to get the radio fixed for the owner and didn't pay for the flight and got a little over 2 hours in the log book was that compensation?

If a parent owns a plane and lets his pilot kid fly it at no charge is there an issue?

I think I actually lost several brain cells reading that response from the FAA.

Were any of the planes referenced above on a conveyor belt, running the opposite way from takeoff?

OH NO he di-unt!

 

[denverpilot]

Not quite, as they said it depends on the arraignment. A common one that isn't allowed is "I'll let you fly my plane for free, if it has this banner attached"

How about, "I'll let you have a tax deduction for flying your airplane or even allow you to be reimbursed if you'll take these dog crates or sick people along."

It's totally arbitrary. If the mission is a "feel good" one, sure... waiver granted.

 

[oldShar]

1. The FAA obviously needs to be scrapped. There is no reforming this monster -- just dissolve it, and start over with an agency designed to promote aviation.

Isn't that how we got the FAA? When they scrapped the CAA?

 

[oldShar]

What about aircraft clubs who let members fly planes, for free, to or from maintenance? The pilot is performing a flying service for the club, and being compensated for that.

When I was a student, my Instructor asked that I tail him in the aircraft he was ferrying to the purchaser of said vehicle.
I followed him so that I could bring him back to base following the transfer.

I guess that wasn't ok?
Same diff as the MX flight, except it was nearly 50 years ago

 

[poadeleted21]

There are lots of things to get worked up about WRT the FAA, this letter isn't one.

 

[Silvaire]

...then I am in violation unless we figure it out to the penny and am able to tell what the FAA considers "the full range of costs with operation of an airplane....

Tell who? In what possible context are you going to be reporting any of this information to anyone? Where are you going to find someone who is even remotely interested?

 

[Jaybird180]

Well we haven't seen the actual letter of inquiry that was written to the FAA but I have to wonder what kind of moron boxes himself into a mental corner such that he has to actually write a letter and ask such an inane question? Has he absolutely nothing else to think about or do in his spare time?

Betcha 37 cents worth of gas that he is a PoA'er

 

[douglas393]

Tell who? In what possible context are you going to be reporting any of this information to anyone? Where are you going to find someone who is even remotely interested?

I think you misinterpreted my use of the word tell. It was not meant to report. In the context I used it it was meant to mean trying to figure out what the FAA considers full range of costs...

My personal feeling is the less the FAA knows of me the better, but then again at this point the only person who flies my plane other than me is my mechanic after he works on it.

 

[EdFred]

Betcha 37 cents worth of gas that he is a PoA'er

I got money on it being ajstoner21.

 

[bjohnsonmn]

To quote a friend, but not to endorse or knock the statement:
"If nothing's bent, nothing's wrong"...
Suppose it is similar to the whole, are you speeding if no one else is around?

 

[JeffDG]

I got money on it being ajstoner21.

Did you just "out" someone else? Paging Cameron...

 

[JGoodish]

He further states, you might receive some financial benefit that may fit under the broad interpretation of compensation under 61.113.

Yes, but in context that statement was clearly made as a result of the general nature of the question to which it was responding, not as an indication of a fishing expedition on the part of the FAA.

So basically the letter says nothing but it also says a great deal, being, go fly and if you bend something we will then determine that you are in violation of the FAR's.

It doesn't say that at all. The realty is that that if you bend something, there's always the risk of being found in violation of something. If the FAA wants to find a violation, they'll find one somewhere. This interpretation doesn't change that reality.

I'm no fan of government regulation or power grabs, but in this case I think that you guys are reading things that aren't there, even in between the lines.


JKG

 

[SkyHog]

Actually, I want to send a useless letter for interpretation - can I send an email? I feel like wasting the FAA's time...

 

[LDJones]

Yeah; that's not what the letter says. The letter says that free or below-cost flight time can be considered "compensation," which I think everybody already knew. And a private pilot cannot act as PIC for compensation.

Oscar is an airplane Owner. For the sake of argument, Oscar is not a pilot. (It doesn't actually matter, it just makes some of the scenarios more plausible.) Paul is a Private Pilot.

1. The following is okay: Oscar says to Paul, "I'll let you fly my airplane for free if you mow my lawn." Paul is working (lawn-mowing) for compensation (free flight time), but the work is not acting as PIC. Lawn mowing has nothing to do with being PIC.

2. The following is okay: Oscar says to Paul, "You are my friend, so you can fly my airplane for free." Paul is potentially being "compensated," but he is not doing anything -- far less acting as PIC -- for that compensation.

3. The following is not okay: Oscar says to Paul, "If you fly me to visit my ailing grandmother once in a while, you can fly my plane for free any other time you want to." Paul is acting as PIC on the visit-grandmother trips, and being compensated by Oscar with free flight time. So, he is acting as PIC for compensation.

4. The following is not okay: Oscar says to Paul, "Will you fly me to visit my ailing grandmother? I have this plane we can take." Even the hours of the flight to ailing grandmother's house count as compensation. So, in return for a discounted flight hour (compensation), Paul is flying Oscar to his grandmother's (acting as PIC).

The line between 2 vs 3/4 can get pretty blurry. The easiest way to think of it is to see "getting free/discounted airplane use" as "getting a handful of money". Does the FAA care if somebody gives a private pilot a handful of money? No. Does the FAA care if somebody gives a private pilot a handful of money because the private pilot acted as PIC for them on some occasion? Yes.

And in the shady grey areas ("If we were good friends, you would fly me to visit my grandmother. If we were good friends, I would let you use my plane for free.") are interpreted by real live administrative law judges to try to ponder out by human reasoning whether, by the preponderance of the evidence (ie more likely than not) it's really a tit-for-tat. I think that's the biggest thing people forget about administrative law. In the "grey areas", it comes down to what a (usually) reasonable outside observer would say.

Okay, I can see the interpretation if Paul is a 100 hr. private pilot trying to build time for his commercial and beyond.

But if Paul has been flying for 30 years, has thousands of hours and agrees to do it as a favor to Oscar, it's pretty hard to argue that the "free" flight time has much value to Paul, or can be considered any form of "compensation" for him.

 

[poadeleted20]

So, if you have a plane, and let another pilot fly it and tell them to just "fill it back up when you're done", and that pilot only has a private certificate (or any certificate and a 3rd Class Medical), that pilot is in violation of 61.113(a) according to the FAA.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...2013/stoner - (2013) legal interpretation.pdf

You are reading far more into that interpretation than there is in it. Please don't try to make trouble over something that doesn't exist.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yeah; that's not what the letter says. The letter says that free or below-cost flight time can be considered "compensation," which I think everybody already knew. And a private pilot cannot act as PIC for compensation.

Oscar is an airplane Owner. For the sake of argument, Oscar is not a pilot. (It doesn't actually matter, it just makes some of the scenarios more plausible.) Paul is a Private Pilot.

1. The following is okay: Oscar says to Paul, "I'll let you fly my airplane for free if you mow my lawn." Paul is working (lawn-mowing) for compensation (free flight time), but the work is not acting as PIC. Lawn mowing has nothing to do with being PIC.

2. The following is okay: Oscar says to Paul, "You are my friend, so you can fly my airplane for free." Paul is potentially being "compensated," but he is not doing anything -- far less acting as PIC -- for that compensation.

3. The following is not okay: Oscar says to Paul, "If you fly me to visit my ailing grandmother once in a while, you can fly my plane for free any other time you want to." Paul is acting as PIC on the visit-grandmother trips, and being compensated by Oscar with free flight time. So, he is acting as PIC for compensation.

4. The following is not okay: Oscar says to Paul, "Will you fly me to visit my ailing grandmother? I have this plane we can take." Even the hours of the flight to ailing grandmother's house count as compensation. So, in return for a discounted flight hour (compensation), Paul is flying Oscar to his grandmother's (acting as PIC).

The line between 2 vs 3/4 can get pretty blurry. The easiest way to think of it is to see "getting free/discounted airplane use" as "getting a handful of money". Does the FAA care if somebody gives a private pilot a handful of money? No. Does the FAA care if somebody gives a private pilot a handful of money because the private pilot acted as PIC for them on some occasion? Yes.

And in the shady grey areas ("If we were good friends, you would fly me to visit my grandmother. If we were good friends, I would let you use my plane for free.") are interpreted by real live administrative law judges to try to ponder out by human reasoning whether, by the preponderance of the evidence (ie more likely than not) it's really a tit-for-tat. I think that's the biggest thing people forget about administrative law. In the "grey areas", it comes down to what a (usually) reasonable outside observer would say.

Excellent analysis. "Quid pro quo, Clarissa, quid pro quo." Without both the quid and the quo, there is no violation.

 

[poadeleted20]

Another Scenario:

Oscar tells Paul: Hey, I need my plane flown a bit...I haven't been flying enough lately to keep the plane in use. If you fill it up, fly it as much as you like.

So, no Paul is accepting compensation (indirect flying costs) for doing something for Oscar (putting some hours on the plane), so now he's acting as PIC for compensation.

That may be your interpretation, but you'd have to be wearing the same tinfoil hat as JimNTexas to believe it.

 

[poadeleted20]

What about aircraft clubs who let members fly planes, for free, to or from maintenance? The pilot is performing a flying service for the club, and being compensated for that.

Clear quid pro quo. Ain't legal unless the pilot holds CP or ATP.

 

[mcmanigle]

Okay, I can see the interpretation if Paul is a 100 hr. private pilot trying to build time for his commercial and beyond.

But if Paul has been flying for 30 years, has thousands of hours and agrees to do it as a favor to Oscar, it's pretty hard to argue that the "free" flight time has much value to Paul, or can be considered any form of "compensation" for him.

I think I agree with you, but there are areas that get more grey*:

Frank runs an FBO and flight school. Charlie is one of his CFIs. Tom is a Two-thousand hour private pilot who rents from the FBO and hangs out at the airport on weekends.

One sunny Saturday, Dave shows up for his pre-scheduled Discovery flight. Unfortunately, Charlie just called in sick. Tom is hanging around the airport as usual, and Frank says "Hey, I think this guy wants to get his license with our flight school, and that would make us a fair amount of money. I don't want him to leave here disappointed today. Would you just take him up in one of our planes and show him how fun flying is? I won't charge either of you for the flight, I just don't want to lose a potential future student."

I'm not intensely against this scenario; a private pilot with thousands of hours under their belt should be able to safely show somebody how much fun flying is. (I've certainly done it with far fewer hours.) But it's not hard to make the argument that Dave has the right to expect a commercial-qualified pilot to take him up that day, and that a free hour of flying probably looks like a pretty good deal to Tom (especially if he was going to drill holes in the sky anyway and now doesn't have to pay for it).

(Forgive me if I've missed some relevant bit of 135 or 91 subpart K** that would make this arrangement against regs without the compensation issue.)

* EDIT: by "think I agree with you," I don't mean I agree that it's not compensation by current interpretations. I mean I agree that in my own non-legal moral principle I don't see anything wrong with letting a multi-thousand hour private pilot fly you around in your own plane without charging him/her for it.

** SECOND EDIT: apparently it's part 119 that I should have been worried about, but I think this scenario would still steer clear of any problems other than free-flight-time-as-compensation...

 

[poadeleted20]

I think I agree with you, but there are areas that get more grey:

Frank runs an FBO and flight school. Charlie is one of his CFIs. Tom is a Two-thousand hour private pilot who rents from the FBO and hangs out at the airport on weekends.

One sunny Saturday, Dave shows up for his pre-scheduled Discovery flight. Unfortunately, Charlie just called in sick. Tom is hanging around the airport as usual, and Frank says "Hey, I think this guy wants to get his license with our flight school, and that would make us a fair amount of money. I don't want him to leave here disappointed today. Would you just take him up in one of our planes and show him how fun flying is? I won't charge either of you for the flight, I just don't want to lose a potential future student."

I'm not intensely against this scenario; a private pilot with thousands of hours under their belt should be able to safely show somebody how much fun flying is. (I've certainly done it with far fewer hours.) But it's not hard to make the argument that Dave has the right to expect a commercial-qualified pilot to take him up that day, and that a free hour of flying probably looks like a pretty good deal to Tom (especially if he was going to drill holes in the sky anyway and now doesn't have to pay for it).

(Forgive me if I've missed some relevant bit of 135 or 91 subpart K that would make this arrangement against regs without the compensation issue.)

Another very good analysis. And note also that the pilot involved in the Bobertz interpretation which laid out the full thinking on "flight hours as compensation" had an ATP, not just a PP.

 

[LDJones]

Another very good analysis. And note also that the pilot involved in the Bobertz interpretation which laid out the full thinking on "flight hours as compensation" had an ATP, not just a PP.

In that case, the FAA is much dumber than I ever imagined.

 

[LDJones]

I think I agree with you, but there are areas that get more grey*:

Frank runs an FBO and flight school. Charlie is one of his CFIs. Tom is a Two-thousand hour private pilot who rents from the FBO and hangs out at the airport on weekends.

One sunny Saturday, Dave shows up for his pre-scheduled Discovery flight. Unfortunately, Charlie just called in sick. Tom is hanging around the airport as usual, and Frank says "Hey, I think this guy wants to get his license with our flight school, and that would make us a fair amount of money. I don't want him to leave here disappointed today. Would you just take him up in one of our planes and show him how fun flying is? I won't charge either of you for the flight, I just don't want to lose a potential future student."

I'm not intensely against this scenario; a private pilot with thousands of hours under their belt should be able to safely show somebody how much fun flying is. (I've certainly done it with far fewer hours.) But it's not hard to make the argument that Dave has the right to expect a commercial-qualified pilot to take him up that day, and that a free hour of flying probably looks like a pretty good deal to Tom (especially if he was going to drill holes in the sky anyway and now doesn't have to pay for it).

(Forgive me if I've missed some relevant bit of 135 or 91 subpart K that would make this arrangement against regs without the compensation issue.)

* EDIT: by "think I agree with you," I don't mean I agree that it's not compensation by current interpretations. I mean I agree that in my own non-legal moral principle I don't see anything wrong with letting a multi-thousand hour private pilot fly you around in your own plane without charging him/her for it.

I think that's a way different example....the FBO is a commercial operation and the PP is doing work for that commercial operation, even if it's uncompensated. The FBO is using it as a marketing tool.

 

[JeffDG]

You are reading far more into that interpretation than there is in it. Please don't try to make trouble over something that doesn't exist.

You said that when i first started talking about Mangimele too.

 

[mcmanigle]

I think that's a way different example....the FBO is a commercial operation and the PP is doing work for that commercial operation, even if it's uncompensated. The FBO is using it as a marketing tool.

I agree it's a way different example; I'm just trying to think of how the regulation could be written to differentiate between the two, because "flight time isn't compensation if the pilot has thousands of hours already" apparently wouldn't cut it. And I'm not able to come up with a great way...

 

[JeffDG]

I agree it's a way different example; I'm just trying to think of how the regulation could be written to differentiate between the two, because "flight time isn't compensation if the pilot has thousands of hours already" apparently wouldn't cut it. And I'm not able to come up with a great way...

How about make "compensation" mean something tangible, and exclude "flight time" from the mix altogether.

 

[poadeleted20]

How about make "compensation" mean something tangible, and exclude "flight time" from the mix altogether.

That would conflict with a few centuries of legal precedent, not to mention opening the door to a nearly infinite number of shenanigans to evade the intent of more laws than one can imagine.

 

[RotorAndWing]

More mental masturbation.

 

[mcmanigle]

How about make "compensation" mean something tangible, and exclude "flight time" from the mix altogether.

So to take that to the logical extreme, would this be okay:

An FBO / flight school really wants to get new students. So, in order to charge as little as possible for their discovery flights, they hang onto one of their post-student just-certified private pilots. They let the new PP (who wants nothing more than to fly for free) take up their discovery flight passengers (who are intrigued by a discovery flight that costs $50 rather than $75 and neither know nor care that they're losing out on the 0.5 logged hour that other "discovery flights" give them).

Under a "something tangible" rule, this would be okay. (Leaving aside the problematic legal definition of "tangible property" which sometimes does not include money.) The private pilot is flying a passenger, which s/he is allowed to do, and not getting paid anything tangible, just flight hours. I would find this situation problematic.

The point is, there has to be a good rule to distinguish between silly things like the above, and silly things in the other direction like "my medical just expired so my 5k hour private pilot buddy is flying me in my plane to my AME at his airport in the next state to get renewed and I'm not charging him for the plane." But the question is, what would the rule be?

Unless you do think the 41-hour PP taking discovery flight customers up is okay, in which case all I can say is, "I disagree."

 

[RJM62]

Okay, I can see the interpretation if Paul is a 100 hr. private pilot trying to build time for his commercial and beyond.

But if Paul has been flying for 30 years, has thousands of hours and agrees to do it as a favor to Oscar, it's pretty hard to argue that the "free" flight time has much value to Paul, or can be considered any form of "compensation" for him.

If Paul also visited Oscar's grandmother, then wouldn't Oscar and Paul have a common purpose for the trip, making all well in the world and the universe a safer place for all living things?

-Rich

 

[VA Aviator]

Clear quid pro quo. Ain't legal unless the pilot holds CP or ATP.

What about aircraft clubs who let members fly planes, for free, to or from maintenance? The pilot is performing a flying service for the club, and being compensated for that.

I would think this would be dependent upon the structure of the club. If the member doesn't actually have any ownership in the club, sure. If the club member has ownership, I don't see it this way.

 

[Cmercado]

I cant believe this..... 75 posts of total bureaucratic bull drop... Lets say I take my wife for 100 dollar weekend burger run... I will be getting goodwill (GAAP says is an asset) and probably some action that night!!!! According to the FAA that is an illegal compensation because you are acquiring goodwill and a service that if you are going to pay for it, is going to cost you a lot more than a gas fill on a 172....



The end of general aviation as we know it, is very soon.... Thanks to the FAA

 

[RJM62]

I cant believe this..... 75 posts of total bureaucratic bull drop... Lets say I take my wife for 100 dollar weekend burger run... I will be getting goodwill (GAAP says is an asset) and probably some action that night!!!! According to the FAA that is an illegal compensation because you are acquiring goodwill and a service that if you are going to pay for it, is going to cost you a lot more that a gas fill on a 172....

It depends on whether you're in a community-property state. The existence of a pre-nup also may come into play, as well as whether the ceremony was performed by a clergyman or a judge, whether the officiant had a BAC of more than 0.05% during the ceremony, and whether the witnesses to the ceremony were compensated by staying for the reception and meal.

In very complex cases, the quality and quantity of the food served at the wedding reception can also factor into the decision, along with whether or not there was an open bar.

-Rich

 

[Cmercado]

My previous post may sound ridiculous, but that is the interpretation of the rules that the FAA provides....

 

[Cmercado]

It depends on whether you're in a community-property state. The existence of a pre-nup also may come into play, as well as whether the ceremony was performed by a clergyman or a judge, whether the officiant had a BAC of more than 0.05% during the ceremony, and whether the witnesses to the ceremony were compensated by staying for the reception and meal.

In very complex cases, the quality and quantity of the food served at the wedding reception can also factor into the decision, along with whether or not there was an open bar.

-Rich

 

[Bob Noel]

The FAA has finally risen to the challenge presented by the DHS/TSA... which agency will be more effective at killing small GA?