private pilots can be paid for flying as PIC?

RotorAndWing said:
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
Click to expand...
You're the one digging a hole, since you are clearly unfamiliar with how the FAASTeam operates and how things get onto SPANS.
 
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...
I'm not sure why that matters as far as the likelihood of an airman getting violated over this. What do you think about what the NTSB said in Administrator v. Gartner?

[W]e recognized an obligation on the part of the FAA, especially important given its law enforcement role, not to mislead -- either by acts of omission or commission -- those subject to its authority. We did so simply as a matter of fairness. We did not intend, and do not, in the FAA’s words, “hobble” its methods of communicating with airmen regarding safety concerns. The record established that FAA employees were familiar with the high seas operations of the Brothers to the Rescue organization, indeed had met with members of the group and had discussed rescue and assistance operations. Despite knowing how those operations were conducted, e.g., that they included flights below 500 feet, FAA employees failed to advise respondent and others, at a meeting called by the FAA with the group to discuss its operations, that such flights violated Chapter 4.5(b). It is nothing more than the most basic fairness to require as much; otherwise, one could liken the FAA’s action to entrapment of a sort. Indeed, a discussion of the dangers of an operation, without reference to its unlawfulness, would suggest to the reasonable person that the action was not unlawful. What we are imposing here is not a duty to warn but a duty to deal fairly and thoroughly when providing information that can be misinterpreted.
​
 
Ron Levy said:
14 CFR 61.113 might be violated
Click to expand...

But how? CFR 61.113 only limits what a PIC can do for compensation or hire. How could that have any bearing on the paid test subject if someone else is PIC for the flight?

EDIT: I guess I can partially answer my own question. If the PIC is just a private pilot, the PIC can be said to be illegally compensated via free flight time (and perhaps is illegally flying for the other pilot's stipend-compensation). But if the PIC is a CFI or commercial pilot, I don't see a problem.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
You're the one digging a hole, since you are clearly unfamiliar with how the FAASTeam operates and how things get onto SPANS.
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with the FAASTeam and understand who they work for (you don't with your comments).

Actually I find it rather unbecoming a FAASTeam volunteer such as yourself disparaging a FAASTeam Program Manager online by trying to claim he's unqualified to perform his job or conduct a program. :frown2:
 
timwinters said:
Sounds like free airplane plus $10 per hour. Pretty sweet deal. Maybe I'll erase about 1500 hours from my logbook and apply! ;)
Click to expand...


I was thinking the same thing... Notice no medical rqmt too! Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
They rounded up everyone and they are now in prison. Apparently it was an FAA Sting operation.
 
Ron Levy said:
These flights are not "incidental" to the pilot's business or employment -- the pilots are being paid to fly the plane. "Incidental" to business/employment means you are flying only for the purpose of getting you somewhere to do your job, e.g., a salesman flying to another location to give a sales pitch. That's not what's going on here.
Click to expand...

Granted - the situation is past, but I think the question is unanswered and that pursuing it has instructive value.

Ron, I'm curious - are you an aviation attorney or just some guy on the internet?

Oxford dictionary defines incidental as "accompanying but not a major part of", Webster's uses a similar defition "happening as a minor part or result of something else". Unless you know of some additional ruling from the Chief Counsel, I know of no other definition that the FAA uses for incidental.

Yes, the FAA gets to decide after the fact that you didn't meet the FAA definition. But if you carry that logic far enough then you have to recognize that you incur goodwill when you carry a passenger. You're being compensated and therefore the carrying of passengers is prohibited. Clearly ludicrious...but not out of the realm of possibility for the FAA to decide.

The example you used of getting to/from a job site is clearly incidental. Your logic in deciding whether or not it was incidental was to note that this example was not the same as the travel example and then to decide that this was not incidental because it did not match the example. There is a flaw in that thought process because there are many more incidental acts than traveling to/from a job site.

In this scenario, the pilot's purpose is to evaluate a piece of equipment. Is that a major or minor part of flying an airplane? In the end, I ask the questions: Can you pilot the aircraft without doing this? Can you do this without piloting the aircraft? The answers are both yes, so it's neither a major part of piloting nor is piloting required. That seems to suggest that it's minor and therefore incidental to me.

I'm sure you have a different opinion, but can you you support it clearly?
 
bflynn said:
...Ron, I'm curious - are you an aviation attorney or just some guy on the internet?...
Click to expand...

He has said in the past that he is not an attorney.
 
I vote that I get paid every time I fly my airplane. That seems right to me. Some mystery person that is really rich puts money in my account. Like maybe $100 seems fair to me. Like a sugar mommy or sugar daddy. Someone like that.

Would that be against the rules?
 
Last edited:
coloradobluesky said:
I vote that I get paid every time I fly my airplane. That seems right to me. Some mystery person that is really rich puts money in my account. Like maybe $100 seems fair to me. Like a sugar mommy or sugar daddy. Someone like that.

Would that be against the rules?
Click to expand...

You would get paid for "other services". And your mommy/ daddy would have to accept that your prop can swing in either direction.:lol:
 
Private pilots can be paid to tow gliders...
 
ChrisK said:
Sure. I did. I interviewed one of the instructors, followed his comments back to the FAA sponsoring PEGASUS program, and read about the program (which incidentally had a booth at Oshkosh this year).

http://aviation.osu.edu/research/programs/angle-of-attack/

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=13968

This isn't a program run by the university. It is run by the FAA using the University as a partner / vehicle to conduct research via this so-called PEGASUS initiative.
Click to expand...

So the whole thing was under the direct control of the FAA, makes it simple.
 
Witmo said:
I disagree. Even if alone, a private pilot cannot accept compensation for being PIC. ,,,"nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft." With a CFI aboard and acting as the PIC, a private pilot could log PIC time when he was sole manipulator of the controls and be paid for it because he's not acting as PIC. Money and/or free flight time, it's compensation. With anyone else besides a CFI along, it's carrying a passenger and compensation is prohibited.
Click to expand...


You can still be "paid" if it is incidental to your work...here it looks like they are getting paid for 5hrs of research study, 3 of them happen to be in an airplane...don't see the problem
 
Last edited:
mrkbbd said:
You can still be "paid" if it is incidental to your work...here it looks like they are getting paid for 5hrs of research study, 3 of them happen to be in an airplane...don't see the problem
Click to expand...

Since the whole thing was under the direct supervision of 'the Administrator' it is all moot. Everything has alternate compliance methods 'at the discretion of the administrator'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top