private pilots can be paid for flying as PIC?

Clip4 said:
What extreme cautionary measures would you employ?
Click to expand...
I'd ask the Columbus FSDO before doing it. On the issue of flying and compensation, the old saw about "it is better to ask forgiveness than permission" just doesn't apply with the FAA. Maybe the organizers have cleared it, maybe they didn't think about it, but I would not want to become the test case in front of the Great Lakes Regional Counsel. Keep in mind that unlike a lot of those "expense sharing" questions involving friends and family, this one is going to leave a paper trail.
 
Last edited:
...and if this runs afoul, what is the worst that can reasonably happen?
 
Ron Levy said:
You could try that argument if you like, but I'd get the FAA's answer before doing it.
Click to expand...
Would you agree that if a CFI accompanies the subject pilot and acts as PIC the "compensation" is not an issue for the FAA?

I think it's highly unlikely that this program entails turning unknown low time pilots loose in school aircraft. Even without the liability and insurance concerns I would expect that an instructor/observer would be needed to gather any useful data.
 
Jaybird180 said:
...and if this runs afoul, what is the worst that can reasonably happen?
Click to expand...
The worst possible? I'm guessing 30-60 day suspension, but I haven't checked the book on that, and it would probably depend on a lot of aggravating circumstances and/or history with the FSDO.
 
gismo said:
Would you agree that if a CFI accompanies the subject pilot and acts as PIC the "compensation" is not an issue for the FAA?
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn't.
I think it's highly unlikely that this program entails turning unknown low time pilots loose in school aircraft. Even without the liability and insurance concerns I would expect that an instructor/observer would be needed to gather any useful data.
Click to expand...
Perhaps so, but when you talk about Private Pilots and money for flying, the FAA gets real prickly real fast. I wouldn't touch this one with a ten-foot pole (or even a 20-foot Hungarian) without something saying the FAA said it was OK.
 
Ron Levy said:
The worst possible? I'm guessing 30-60 day suspension, but I haven't checked the book on that, and it would probably depend on a lot of aggravating circumstances and/or history with the FSDO.
Click to expand...
Do you seriously think that the FAA is inviting private pilots to participate in this study and then is going to bust them? :rolleyes: I think the odds of that happening are approximately zero.
 
Lindberg said:
Do you seriously think that the FAA is inviting private pilots to participate in this study and then is going to bust them? :rolleyes: I think the odds of that happening are approximately zero.
Click to expand...

This...
 
RotorAndWing said:
Before listening to the PoA self proclaimed FAA "expert", all one would have to do is contact MARK DENNIS HARDEN (614) 255-3120 ext. 3014 mark.harden@faa.gov
as noted here.
Click to expand...

It does take a special kind of paranoid to consider this as an entrapment sting operation conducted by the FAA. If that flyer is legit and the administration had an issue with this, I'd think they'd be far more PO'd at Mr Harden than participating pilots.

And darn I'm over 200 hours total time. I'd totally consider this just for fun.
 
And, since you're based at Medina Chris, having an AoA indicator would come in quite handy...for measuring runway slope if nothing else!

:goofy:
 
timwinters said:
And, since you're based at Medina Chris, having an AoA indicator would come in quite handy...for measuring runway slope if nothing else!

:goofy:
Click to expand...

Hey depending on what runway we're landing on that cub really slows down uphill!

Frankly I didn't notice the slope until you brought it up because it is less dramatic than the one at Skypark where I trained. You can't even see down the runway for the hill in the way. :)
 
My home base (H88) is that way. The runway is fairly flat but there is a definite ridge in the middle. You can only see half way down the runway and definitely can't see the opposite end. That can be somewhat unnerving on a busy day with relatively calm winds. Of course that airport only gets busy about once every fifty years or so.

They got a state grant and plan to fix it in the near future...maybe this summer yet. The parallel taxiway will be repaved and widened first, and then it will be used as the runway while the runway is torn up and redone.

A few million wasted in my opinion.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'd ask the Columbus FSDO before doing it. On the issue of flying and compensation, the old saw about "it is better to ask forgiveness than permission" just doesn't apply with the FAA. Maybe the organizers have cleared it, maybe they didn't think about it, but I would not want to become the test case in front of the Great Lakes Regional Counsel. Keep in mind that unlike a lot of those "expense sharing" questions involving friends and family, this one is going to leave a paper trail.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because State Universities just throw together research projects involving human subjects without anyone reviewing them whatsoever.
 
Lindberg said:
Do you seriously think that the FAA is inviting private pilots to participate in this study and then is going to bust them? :rolleyes: I think the odds of that happening are approximately zero.
Click to expand...
I don't think the people in the FAA concerned with enforcement of 14 CFR 61.113 are aware of this plan.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Before listening to the PoA self proclaimed FAA "expert", all one would have to do is contact MARK DENNIS HARDEN (614) 255-3120 ext. 3014 mark.harden@faa.gov
as noted here.
Click to expand...
Pretty much what I suggested, too. If someone makes that call, I'd love to hear what Mr. Harden says. I'd be especially interested if he, an Airworthiness Inspector, has consulted with an Operations Inspector on this issue, since 14 CFR 61.113 is not an Airworthiness matter.
 
Last edited:
JeffDG said:
Yeah, because State Universities just throw together research projects involving human subjects without anyone reviewing them whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I doubt the FAA Counsel is on the human subject study review committee at OSU, but I could be wrong.
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't think the people in the FAA concerned with enforcement of 14 CFR 61.113 are aware of this plan.
Click to expand...

Do you have any actual information indicating that to be the case?

Do you have any clue the number of layers of lawyers that are necessary to initiate a University study involving the use of human test subjects?

Hell, to do a survey/questionnaire for a psychology class you have to have it approved by multiple ethics boards.
 
Ron Levy said:
I doubt the FAA Counsel is on the human subject study review committee at OSU, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but none of them would have even considered checking with the FAA...right? That's your presumption.

Do you presume everyone is a complete moron, or just OSU?
 
JeffDG said:
Yeah, but none of them would have even considered checking with the FAA...right? That's your presumption.

Do you presume everyone is a complete moron, or just OSU?
Click to expand...

Am I missing something, there is an FAA contact person listed right on the OSU information posted.

Is anyone suggesting that the FAA approved it, has a contact working the program, BUT another FAA group plans to bust the participants?????

Sounds like an aviation lawyers dream case.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Am I missing something, there is an FAA contact person listed right on the OSU information posted.

Is anyone suggesting that the FAA approved it, has a contact working the program, BUT another FAA group plans to bust the participants?????

Sounds like an aviation lawyers dream case.
Click to expand...
No. I think folks just want to argue about it and no one has actually called the POC.

It's more fun that way!
 
JeffDG said:
Do you have any actual information indicating that to be the case?
Click to expand...
I do now -- the FAA person involved is an Airworthiness, not Operations, Inspector. This issue is not part of his job.
Do you have any clue the number of layers of lawyers that are necessary to initiate a University study involving the use of human test subjects?
Click to expand...
Yes -- I got the briefing annually for five years when I was at the University. And none of them at the U had a clue about FAA regulations.
 
JeffDG said:
Yeah, but none of them would have even considered checking with the FAA...right? That's your presumption.
Click to expand...
It is, based on my experience as director of a university aviation program.

Do you presume everyone is a complete moron, or just OSU?
Click to expand...
Do you really want a Michigan alumnus to answer that question? :D
 
Lindberg said:
Do you seriously think that the FAA is inviting private pilots to participate in this study and then is going to bust them? :rolleyes: I think the odds of that happening are approximately zero.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
I don't think the people in the FAA concerned with enforcement of 14 CFR 61.113 are aware of this plan.
Click to expand...
The FAA approved this program, is sponsoring it, and is promoting it to pilots. The identity of the individual(s) at the FAA who've signed off is really immaterial to my question. So, do you seriously think that the FAA is inviting private pilots to participate in this study and then is going to bust them?

That would be like your local police department running ads on TV and its website stating that people should drive 5 mph over the speed limit because it is actually safer, and then ticketing people who follow the advice because the ads weren't approved by the correct deputy chief.
 
Ron Levy said:
Pretty much what I suggested, too. If someone makes that call, I'd love to hear what Mr. Harden says. I'd be especially interested if he, an Airworthiness Inspector, has consulted with an Operations Inspector on this issue, since 14 CFR 61.113 is not an Airworthiness matter.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes2:

So you are incapable of picking up a phone and calling him?
 
Last edited:
Ron, forgive me if I've missed it, but as far as I can see you haven't answered the question as to what regulation you think would be violated if a pilot other than the paid test subject is the PIC for the flight.
 
I met an FAA employee and he went on to say how he used to hand prop his J3 by himself all the time. Met another FAA employee who told me hand propping an airplane by yourself was a violation. So it wouldn't be unusual for one FAA guy to think the program was OK, and another FAA guy think it wasn't. It usually all gets straightened out in the end (but not always) and in the meantime it's a game of "he said, she said".

Be interesting to see how this one plays out. It may be that the FAA looked at it and thought, "well, since he's with an instructor, it'll be ok". OTOH, maybe they do have a waiver.
 
coloradobluesky said:
I met an FAA employee and he went on to say how he used to hand prop his J3 by himself all the time. Met another FAA employee who told me hand propping an airplane by yourself was a violation. So it wouldn't be unusual for one FAA guy to think the program was OK, and another FAA guy think it wasn't. It usually all gets straightened out in the end (but not always) and in the meantime it's a game of "he said, she said".

Be interesting to see how this one plays out. It may be that the FAA looked at it and thought, "well, since he's with an instructor, it'll be ok". OTOH, maybe they do have a waiver.
Click to expand...

One thing that is nearly absolute about FAA inspectors (and perhaps all FAA employees) is that they tend to have a strong belief that whatever their opinion is on an aviation matter it is is gospel, even when two of them have serious differences of opinion.
 
gismo said:
One thing that is nearly absolute about FAA inspectors (and perhaps all FAA employees) is that they tend to have a strong belief that whatever their opinion is on an aviation matter it is is gospel, even when two of them have serious differences of opinion.
Click to expand...


So when you say "absolute", you are claiming to have witnessed this with all Inspectors? Is "nearly absolute" 90%? 80%? :dunno:
 
acrophile said:
Ron, forgive me if I've missed it, but as far as I can see you haven't answered the question as to what regulation you think would be violated if a pilot other than the paid test subject is the PIC for the flight.
Click to expand...
14 CFR 61.113 might be violated, not "would". But I'd want someone with the right FAA credentials to tell me s/he looked at it and it's OK before I took the money -- and an Airworthiness Inspector doesn't have the right credentials.
 
Ron Levy said:
14 CFR 61.113 might be violated, not "would". But I'd want someone with the right FAA credentials to tell me s/he looked at it and it's OK before I took the money -- and an Airworthiness Inspector doesn't have the right credentials.
Click to expand...

BS.gif


Sorry Ron, now you are clearly talking out of your a$$. Please go google FAA guidance and show us, in writing, where an AW ASI "doesn't have the credentials" in a situation like this. :rolleyes2:

The FAA is not structured like the Air Force as you so strongly believe.

You could very easily call this Inspector (his name, phone number and email are all posted) and get his information on this, however you won't because you don't want to be dis-proven since you've already declared this is against the rules the way you see it.
 
RotorAndWing said:
BS.gif


Sorry Ron, now you are clearly talking out of your a$$. Please go google FAA guidance and show us, in writing, where an AW ASI "doesn't have the credentials" in a situation like this. :rolleyes2:

The FAA is not structured like the Air Force as you so strongly believe.

You could very easily call this Inspector (his name, phone number and email are all posted) and get his information on this, however you won't because you don't want to be dis-proven since you've already declared this is against the rules the way you see it.
Click to expand...
I don't go to Airworthiness Inspectors for pilot certification rules any more than I go to Operations Inspectors for aircraft certification rules. Further, if I ask one of the Airworthiness folks at my FSDO an ops question, the first thing they'll say is "I'll have to get you to an Ops Inspector for that" (and vice versa). As I said originally, I doubt that the Airworthiness Inspector involved even considered this issue.

And I did query the Columbus FSDO as soon as I saw this thread -- waiting for a response.
 
Ron Levy said:
...And I did query the Columbus FSDO as soon as I saw this thread -- waiting for a response.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see if someone at the Columbus FSDO will be willing to say that someone at FAA Headquarters is inviting people to violate regulations!
 
Palmpilot said:
It will be interesting to see if someone at the Columbus FSDO will be willing to say that someone at FAA Headquarters is inviting people to violate regulations!
Click to expand...
The POC on this event is an Airworthiness Inspector in the Columbus FSDO. HQ FAA does not review SPANS requests.
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't go to Airworthiness Inspectors for pilot certification rules any more than I go to Operations Inspectors for aircraft certification rules. Further, if I ask one of the Airworthiness folks at my FSDO an ops question, the first thing they'll say is "I'll have to get you to an Ops Inspector for that" (and vice versa). As I said originally, I doubt that the Airworthiness Inspector involved even considered this issue.
Click to expand...

You wrote:
14 CFR 61.113 might be violated, not "would". But I'd want someone with the right FAA credentials to tell me s/he looked at it and it's OK before I took the money -- and an Airworthiness Inspector doesn't have the right credentials.
Click to expand...
Again, please show us these "credentials" you claim the Inspector doesn't have, and use FAA guidance to prove your point.

Ron Levy said:
And I did query the Columbus FSDO as soon as I saw this thread -- waiting for a response.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with contacting Mr. Harden directly? He listed his name, phone number and email address.
 
Rick Rademacher said:
I received this today in my email ->http://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/event...aspx?eid=56804

**The Ohio State University, Angle of Attack (AOA), Research Study / see contact info below .Topic: Volunteer pilots needed to study the benefits of Angle of Attack Displays. Compensation for time. .Date and Time: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 , starting at 8:00 am EST Download Calendar File .Speaker(s): Mr. Marshall Pomeroy (event coordinator) .Brief Description: Who Can Participate:

1. Volunteer pilots with a private pilot certificate having between 50 - 200 hours of total flt time.

2. Time commitment is 3-6 hours. Flight time will average 2-3.5 hours. Compenasation will be based on $10/flight hour. Flight time can be logged at PIC.

3. Flights will be conducted in university aircraft. Flights will begin and end at KOSU**

So, the FAA says it is OK for a private pilot to be paid compensation of $10 per flight hour of logged PIC time and FREE flight time to participate in this study. Are they breaking their own rules? While the study might be important, the FAA should be consistent in what they say we can or can’t do. Does anyone else see the possible conflict with FAA regulations or is this SOP?
Click to expand...

After all this discussion of the legality, what do you think about the possibility of flight safety being improved by the proposed study? Do you approve of the IDEA of that sort of a practical study?

I think it is great to get some idea of the benefits of AoA displays.
 
Ron Levy said:
The POC on this event is an Airworthiness Inspector in the Columbus FSDO. HQ FAA does not review SPANS requests.
Click to expand...

So now you are going to claim that a FAASTeam Manager has gone rogue and that the FAASTeam Director in HQ doesn't know what his staff is doing???

Mark Dennis Harden
FAASTeam Program Manager
Location Columbus, OH 43219
mark.harden@faa.gov
[Work] (614) 255-3014


Keep digging Ron, keep digging.....

images_zpsd6c5088b.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top