Restoring the Freedom to Fly for Private Benefit

DrMack

DrMack

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Dec 2, 2011
Messages
552
Location
KRBD
Display Name
Display name:
DrMack
A proposal is presented to Congress to obtain statutory relief from the FAA's bizarre collection of legal opinions that have strangled the general aviation community by prohibiting fair reimbursement of expenses incurred for a flight that is conducted by a private pilot incidentally in connection with a business.

Traction for the proposal is growing rapidly and it is maturing quite nicely in the public dialogue. I am not a registered lobbyist so I have limited my presentation of the proposal to organizations that are (AOPA, NBAA, EAA, GAMA, etc.), public venues like this one, and to my own US House member. So until one of the registered lobbyist organizations decides to walk the bill in the halls on the Hill, the project necessarily remains a grassroots "letter writing" campaign that therefore must rely on you, my fellow private pilots, to personally contact your own representatives to express your support.

In my next post I will lay out the state of the proposal as it is today. So ladies and gentlemen, start your flame throwers ...
 
[FONT=&quot]Restoring the Freedom to Fly for Private Benefit[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Timothy F. McDonough, Ph.D.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]On December 17, 1903 on the windswept Bodie Island peninsula in the North Carolina Outer Banks, powered aviation was born. Over the next one hundred years the world’s most extensive air transportation infrastructure developed in accordance with the will of the people of the United States as expressed through the guidance of the United States Congress. It remains one of the crowning achievements of the most prosperous nation that has ever existed in human history.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]From the earliest days of flight, federal laws have been enacted to ensure the freedom of every citizen to exercise the right to use the airspace of the United States for the pursuit of private benefit. This doctrine is enshrined in the codified federal statutes:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]49 USC § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (as amended) the Federal Aviation Administration was created and given the mandate to promote civil aeronautics and to ensure the safety of air commerce:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]49 USC § 40104 - Promotion of civil aeronautics and safety of air commerce[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) Developing Civil Aeronautics and Safety of Air Commerce.— The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall encourage the development of civil aeronautics and safety of air commerce in and outside the United States.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR) designed to ensure the safety of air commerce have been developed over many decades pursuant to the law that mandates their creation:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]49 USC § 44701 - General requirements[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) Promoting Safety.— The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing—[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](5) regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedure the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Among these regulations are rules that govern the conduct of airmen in both commercial and private aviation operations. There is no statutory language that provides a clear demarcation between commercial and purely private operations and it has been left to the FAA to craft regulations to distinguish between the two and to prescribe privileges and limitations of airmen engaged in these operations. In doing so, a number of proxy characteristics have been defined in the regulations to provide a distinction between commercial and private operations because it is nearly universally agreed that such a distinction is in the public interest.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Among the distinguishing characteristics that are used to test whether an operation is commercial or purely private is the question of “holding out” to the public to provide air transport in a quid pro quo economic transaction in the free market. Other tests are designed to determine if such operations are incidental to a business activity of the airmen or whether it is an aviation related business activity itself. It is clearly in the public interest to ensure that commercial operations are conducted within a strict regulatory framework that is designed to maximize the safety of all involved in them as the public has no other way to acquire the necessary information needed to adequately assess the risk of the operations to their person or property.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Code of Federal Regulations[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Title 14: Aeronautics and Space [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]§ 1.1 General definitions.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Commercial operator means a person who, for compensation or hire, engages in the carriage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or property, other than as an air carrier or foreign air carrier or under the authority of Part 375 of this title. Where it is doubtful that an operation is for “compensation or hire”, the test applied is whether the carriage by air is merely incidental to the person's other business or is, in itself, a major enterprise for profit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Another example of where it is clearly necessary to distinguish between commercial and private operations is in the case of air transport that is a condition of employment (travel on business at the direction of an employer) or when the carriage of persons or property is a condition of doing business.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the current regulations, attempts to develop bright line tests have been devised by first defining commercial operations explicitly and prescribing rules to govern them, and secondly by constructing a perimeter of restrictive regulations around private pilot privileges to prevent excursions of private operations into the realm of commercial activity.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is the perimeter of restrictions on private pilot privileges that the author believes has missed the mark and the result is a Byzantine regulatory regime that unnecessarily infringes upon the citizens’ “public right of transit through the navigable airspace” as guaranteed by public law that is codified in 49 USC 40103 (a)(2). Such regulations are also contrary to the mandate of Congress to the FAA to “encourage the development of civil aeronautics” in accordance with 49 USC § 40104 (a).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the nation that is the birthplace of aviation it is truly an outrage, and clearly not in the public interest, nor certainly not in accordance with the public will as expressed by the intent of Congress in the public laws, to proscribe by regulation the explicit right of citizens to “transit through the navigable airspace” in privately owned conveyance for private benefit. Yet, this is precisely the state that has evolved under the current regulations and the administrative doctrines that have emanated from them in the form of legal opinion from the office of the FAA General Counsel.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The fountainhead of these fetters is the proscription on private pilots enumerated in 14 CFR 61.113(b)(2):[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Code of Federal Regulations[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Title 14: Aeronautics and Space[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]CHAPTER I: FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CONTINUED)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SUBCHAPTER D: AIRMEN[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PART 61: CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Subpart E: Private Pilots[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]61.113 - Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A clue to how logically deficient is this regulation is the fact that it begins in paragraph (a) with an exception to a proscription that is again proscribed in (b)(2). The practical result is that private pilots who wish to use their private property for private benefit in operations that are incidental to their business or employment are denied the right of compensation for such use.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Aside from the logical fallacy of this construction, there is a whole host of situations that can be easily conceived in which this restriction on the liberty of an airman is clearly arbitrary and capricious. A simple example is that a private pilot who uses their own airplane to travel on business cannot be reimbursed for use of their private property in an operation that is incidental to their business or employment if they are accompanied by a member of their own family![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Another absurd and arbitrary aspect of this regulation is that the office of the FAA General Counsel has over the years developed a laundry list of items that constitute “compensation” including the acquisition of “good will” and the mere act of recording pilot in command time in the airman’s log book. Any private pilot who the FAA determines has earned “compensation” while carrying passengers is subject to fines and loss of license. It is a real and tangible example of the enforcement of “thought” crimes.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Imagine if the IRS announced that no reimbursement for the use of a private vehicle would be allowed if the driver carried a passenger or some property on a road trip in which the use of the personally owned vehicle was incidental to the business at hand. And yet we in the general aviation community have accepted this very same absurdity to be imposed on our liberty to use our own private property for private benefit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There are more than 200,000 private pilots in the United States who have no desire whatsoever to operate commercially so why should we arbitrarily deny them the freedom to use their private property for private benefit?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In contrast, imagine a situation where private pilots who own or rent airplanes, would be allowed reimbursement for expenses related to incidental use of their airplanes for private benefit in connection to business, in the same manner as all citizens are allowed reimbursement for the use of their privately owned land vehicles. Employers and small business owners across the nation would immediately and dramatically step up to the use of general aviation for private gain and this vast aviation infrastructure that our forebears have built over a century will finally be given a chance to realize its full economic potential for the benefit of the entire nation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is truly an outrage that the most developed aviation infrastructure in the world, in this, the nation that gave birth to aviation, should be so monumentally squandered on the whim of unelected bureaucrats who have no sense of the history nor vision of the aviation pioneers who sacrificed so much to build it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As the FAA General Counsel has determined that 14 CFR 61.113(b)(2) is compliant with 49 USC 44701 (a)(5) and administrative law courts agree, there is no relief possible through the Notice of Proposed Rule Making process nor through litigation in the courts. Relief therefore must be sought through the legislative process directly.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Safety is the root of the authority granted to the FAA by the FAA Act of 1958 to construct the regulations. In the case of a commercial conveyance the public is entitled to government assurance that any operators of that conveyance are scrutinized to a standard to which the public could not itself verify compliance. Whereas in the case of a private operation, the passengers and owners of property conveyed by a private pilot have the burden, and the means, to acquire whatever information they wish to gather to weigh the risks associated with the operation. The services of a private pilot are not, and would remain under the proposed legislation, inaccessible to the general public that is unknown to the private pilot and who do not share the common purpose of the pilot on the flight.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The proposed legislation (draft bill at the end of this treatise) affirms the need for a clear distinction between commercial and private operations and strives to unambiguously bar private pilots from operating commercially while simultaneously providing protection of private property rights that have been unnecessarily trampled by a bureaucracy that seems incapable of rule making that accomplishes both goals.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The proposed draft bill has five provisions in section two that incorporate all the elements of the firewall doctrines that the FAA has constructed between private and commercial operations.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]By restricting the compensation to reimbursement of expenses, paragraph (a) ensures that the flight is not the business, i.e., that it is not conducted by the private pilot for profit as an aviation business.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sub-paragraph (1) codifies the incidental doctrine that is well established in case law and there is no controversy surrounding its application:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sub-paragraph (2) codifies in statute the common purpose doctrine that the FAA has developed on its own to plug the gap between the definition of operations that are quid pro quo transactions and flights in which the private pilot shares a bona fide common interest in the mission:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (2) The private pilot shares a common purpose with passengers or property carried on the aircraft; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sub-paragraph (3) ensures that the private pilot is not compelled to operate the flight as a condition of their employment or some other business compulsion. This is in stark contrast to a pilot employed in a commercial operation. It ultimately grants the private pilot the discretion to choose the mode of transportation, thus reinforcing the incidental doctrine.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (3) The possession and exercise of the privileges of a private pilot license is not a condition of that business or employment for the private pilot; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sub-paragraph (4) extends the same doctrine as (3) to the passengers and property carried by a private pilot:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (4) Consent to be carried by an aircraft operated by a private pilot is not a condition of that business or employment for the passengers or owners of property.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]These five provisions incorporate all the doctrinal elements that are to be found in the regulations, legal opinions of the FAA General Counsel, and administrative law court decisions, that separate commercial operations from private, without all of the mental gymnastics and logical fallacies that have befuddled the entire community as a result of the poorly crafted regulations currently on the books.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It would represent a win for both the commercial and private aviation communities and by extension to the economy at large. The commercial operators would be unambiguously protected from intrusion from private pilot operations and the private pilots would have their rights restored to receive just compensation for expenses related to the incidental use of their private property for private benefit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is therefore proposed to Congress to enact the following bill to amend the FAA Act of 1958 to restore the right of all citizens to transit through the navigable airspace of the United States without unnecessary, arbitrary and capricious denial of private property rights. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]113TH CONGRESS[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]1ST SESSION H. R. XXX[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]To amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to restore the right of private pilots to use private property for private benefit, and for other purposes.[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]JANUARY xx, 2013[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Mr. XXX introduces the following bill;
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A BILL[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]To amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to restore the right of private pilots to use private property for private benefit, and for other purposes.[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This Act may be cited as the ‘Freedom to Fly for Private Benefit Act of 2013’. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SEC. 2. Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment and be reimbursed for expenses directly related to the operation of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees if:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (2) The private pilot shares a common purpose with passengers or property carried on the aircraft; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (3) The possession and exercise of the privileges of a private pilot license is not a condition of that business or employment for the private pilot; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (4) Consent to be carried by an aircraft operated by a private pilot is not a condition of that business or employment for the passengers or owners of property.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SEC. 3. OTHER DEFINITIONS.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For purposes of this Act—[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) the term 'aircraft' has the meaning given such term in section 101(5) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1301(5));[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF ACT.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (a) EFFECTIVE DATE- This Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Thanks for trying. Sad that none of the alphabet organizations is assisting (yet).

Don't get me started on "registered lobbyist". Have to register with government to speak to the government...
 
Tim,

Is this something of your creation?
 
Is there a cliff notes version that we can include in letters to our elected officials that explains the changes? Actually a couple of letter templates (one to elected official, one to lobbiest group) might get more people to send something.

Sent from my T7575 using Board Express
 
Sounds like you're trying to overturn the Mangiamele interpretation by legislative means. Good luck. I would first try to do so by a Part 11 petition for rulemaking, which I suspect has a lot more chance of moving forward. In any event, AOPA is still working on getting Mangiamele retracted by the Chief Counsel, which I think has the best chance of all of succeeding.
 
Ron Levy said:
Sounds like you're trying to overturn the Mangiamele interpretation by legislative means. Good luck. I would first try to do so by a Part 11 petition for rulemaking, which I suspect has a lot more chance of moving forward. In any event, AOPA is still working on getting Mangiamele retracted by the Chief Counsel, which I think has the best chance of all of succeeding.
Click to expand...

It was Mangiamele that burned me up enough to launch the effort but at it's core is the desire to permanently expunge the thinking behind 61.113(b)(2) by statute because even if we did manage to change the rule through NPRM there would always be a possibility that the FAA bureaucrats could resurrect the notion. Lamb and Habercorn are just as egregious and it became clear to me that jousting with Diana Moon Glampers in the rulemaking arena would never assure us of a permanent solution. So it was with great reluctance and trepidation that I committed to pursuing statutory relief from this Byzantine quagmire. I know that by doing so we entering a situation where we are surrounded by savages, short on food, amo and tea from the get go. But I figured that if the idea has any shred of merit it should find its own legs and we may as well commit to achieving not just a tactical victory but a strategic one as well.
 
Reklats said:
Is there a cliff notes version that we can include in letters to our elected officials that explains the changes? Actually a couple of letter templates (one to elected official, one to lobbiest group) might get more people to send something.

Sent from my T7575 using Board Express
Click to expand...

Working on them and will present them for consideration by the community shortly.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Tim,

Is this something of your creation?
Click to expand...

Yes, but as it evolves it hopefully will outgrow any contribution that I make at its launch and will be adopted by the general aviation community as its own.
 
I will make my representatives aware of these. I agree that the best long term solution is an actual law vs. the whim of the FAA.
 
Does anyone have a citation to the statute or regulation that requires lobbyists to register? I'm curious about who is and is not covered by it.
 
I applaud your efforts Doc.
 
DrMack said:
It was Mangiamele that burned me up enough to launch the effort but at it's core is the desire to permanently expunge the thinking behind 61.113(b)(2) by statute because even if we did manage to change the rule through NPRM there would always be a possibility that the FAA bureaucrats could resurrect the notion. Lamb and Habercorn are just as egregious and it became clear to me that jousting with Diana Moon Glampers in the rulemaking arena would never assure us of a permanent solution. So it was with great reluctance and trepidation that I committed to pursuing statutory relief from this Byzantine quagmire. I know that by doing so we entering a situation where we are surrounded by savages, short on food, amo and tea from the get go. But I figured that if the idea has any shred of merit it should find its own legs and we may as well commit to achieving not just a tactical victory but a strategic one as well.
Click to expand...
The problem is not 61.113(b)(2), which was designed to prevent companies from using PP's to fly paying passengers, and which as plainly read does not outlaw the activity described in Mangiamele, but the arbitrary and capricious interpretation of 61.113, which effectively rewrote the regulation to make the requirements "ands" rather than "ors." Further, the PBOR should make it easier to get a Federal court to throw that interpretation out on its ear, and I suspect that the effort to do that through the judiciary will be faster and cheaper than trying to do it through the legislative branch.
 
Ron Levy said:
The problem is not 61.113(b)(2), which was designed to prevent companies from using PP's to fly paying passengers, and which as plainly read does not outlaw the activity described in Mangiamele, but the arbitrary and capricious interpretation of 61.113, which effectively rewrote the regulation to make the requirements "ands" rather than "ors." Further, the PBOR should make it easier to get a Federal court to throw that interpretation out on its ear, and I suspect that the effort to do that through the judiciary will be faster and cheaper than trying to do it through the legislative branch.
Click to expand...
Even if we managed to win in court (any volunteers to be the test case? anyone...?), 61.113(c) remains the FAA's trump card. The proposed bill would allow a 3rd party to provide the reimbursement, not just the passengers out of their own pockets, and not just pro rata shares.

Oh, and lest we forget, the FAA has repeatedly taken the position that building up flight time is considered compensatory in nature when the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft and would, therefore, be deemed a form of "compensation" to the private pilot under §61.113, a position that has been cast in concrete by NTSB opinions.

The goal is to achieve the same freedom to recover costs (not provide an opportunity to make a profit) incurred for the use of private property for private benefit in the manner as it is allowed under the law to do the same for any other privately owned conveyance.
 
Last edited:
DrMack said:
Even if we managed to win in court (any volunteers to be the test case? anyone...?), 61.113(c) remains the FAA's trump card. The proposed bill would allow a 3rd party to provide the reimbursement, not just the passengers out of their own pockets, and not just pro rata shares.

The goal is to achieve the same freedom to recover costs (not provide an opportunity to make a profit) incurred for the use of private property for private benefit in the manner as it is allowed under the law to do the same for any other privately owned conveyance.
Click to expand...
We had all that before Mangiamele. Lose Mangiamele, and we're back where we were before. But if you think it's worth the effort, and that there's a chance of succeding, and it will cost less than the two alternatives I presented, good luck. And to have any chance of success, I think your first task should be to engage Senator Inhofe. He wields a lot of power, and it's also unlikely to succeed without his support.
 
Last edited:
Watch out for the simplest solution: removal of 61.113. Nice and simple. No compensation, no sharing, no incidentals, no multiple opinions on the subject.

Good luck. Given the removal some years ago of the FAA's dual mandate to promote aviation, leaving only the safety mandate, and the recent Congressional efforts to tighten commercial requirements in the aftermath of the Colgen crash, I'm guessing this will be a significant uphill battle.
 
Update:

We may be getting close to having a sponsor in the US House for the bill. Talks with legislative coordinators are ongoing. Our goal is to have a bill introduced in the first session of the 113th congress which convenes in January.

Meanwhile, aviation attorneys are weighing in and there is consensus so far that the idea has significant merit.

Until the alphabet organizations like AOPA, GAMA, NBAA, etc. begin to officially weigh in, the campaign must necessarily remain a grassroots letter writing initiative. So if you would like to at least see a public dialogue play out in the US House of Representatives, please write to your member of Congress and express your support for the bill. As soon as we have a sponsor, we'll let you know and then you can point your representative to the sponsor's office and hopefully soon we'll have a bill number.
 
After receiving excellent (and welcome brutally honest) feedback from the PoA community on these forums and in private, and in consultation with aviation attorneys et al, the following is the latest revision of the draft bill:

[FONT=&quot]113TH CONGRESS[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]1ST SESSION H. R. XXX[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]To amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to restore the right of private pilots to use private property for private benefit, and for other purposes.[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]JANUARY xx, 2013[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Mr. XXX introduces the following bill; [/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]A BILL[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]To amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to restore the right of private pilots to use private property for private benefit, and for other purposes.[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This Act may be cited as the ‘Freedom to Fly for Private Benefit Act of 2013’. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SEC. 2. Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment and be reimbursed for expenses directly related to the operation of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees if:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (2) The private pilot shares a common purpose with any passengers or property carried on the aircraft; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (3) The possession and exercise of the privileges of a private pilot license is not a condition of business or employment for the private pilot; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (4) Consent of passengers or owners of property to be carried by an aircraft operated by a private pilot is not a condition of business or employment for the passengers or owners of property.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SEC. 3. OTHER DEFINITIONS.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For purposes of this Act—[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) the term 'aircraft' has the meaning given such term in section 101(5) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1301(5));[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF ACT.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (a) EFFECTIVE DATE- This Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.[/FONT]
 
DrMack said:
Until the alphabet organizations like AOPA, GAMA, NBAA, etc. begin to officially weigh in, the campaign must necessarily remain a grassroots letter writing initiative. So if you would like to at least see a public dialogue play out in the US House of Representatives, please write to your member of Congress and express your support for the bill. As soon as we have a sponsor, we'll let you know and then you can point your representative to the sponsor's office and hopefully soon we'll have a bill number.
Click to expand...

Why would you expect NBAA to get involved in this? This seems to effect basically those people flying a single engine or maybe multi engine piston airplane. NBAA has very little interested in those areas, as there is little money there. I think AOPA and EAA are the organizations you need to try to get onboard. I wish you luck with what you are trying to do, but I don't support it.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Why would you expect NBAA to get involved in this? This seems to effect basically those people flying a single engine or maybe multi engine piston airplane. NBAA has very little interested in those areas, as there is little money there. I think AOPA and EAA are the organizations you need to try to get onboard. I wish you luck with what you are trying to do, but I don't support it.
Click to expand...
All of the alphabet soup organization are in the conversation. Some have expressed a positive interest but most are in a wait and see mode. They are all registered lobbyists so it is no surprise that they are waiting for the 113th to convene before expressing any opinion. None have expressed opposition though.

All are affected because if GA traffic is stimulated by only a few percentage points then all GA related business feels the effect. More GA flying means more demand for airport services, maintenance, flight instruction, manufacturing, parts, etc. It also means more tax revenues for airport and NAS infrastructure. The bottom line is that anything we can do to stimulate GA benefits everybody who uses the NAS, even the airlines. It also means that non-aviation businesses that can make the CBA balance tip in favor of GA use in connection with their business, will enjoy more efficiency and will pass the benefit to the macroeconomy.

For the economists here, you will recognize the argument as one that earned Robert Mundell the Nobel Prize for economics in 1999. And yes, I am an old personal and professional friend of Art Laffer. There is a lot more horsepower behind the idea than I have been letting on in this forum. But that is irrelevant if indeed the idea itself has enough merit to compel its consideration in the national legislature.

I think I have calculated correctly in thinking that a launch on the PoA forum would be a good way to know if it may possess that merit. I look forward to hearing more ideas on why it should fail or succeed. Both sides of the conversation are equally essential to making the right public choice in the matter.
 
No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. – Mark Twain (1866)
 
The Alliance for Aviation Across America has been actively promoting general aviation since 2007. Their website (http://www.aviationacrossamerica.com) contains a nifty feature for displaying the economic impact of aviation in your state and local community. The one slice that is most helpful for a grassroots letter campaign such as the Restoring the Freedom to Fly initiative is the ability to drill down to the impact on your congressional district. So when you write to your member of Congress expressing support of the campaign, include a snapshot of the economic impact on your congressional district to help get their attention. There is a good explanation of the method for calculating the impact on the site as well. Every state goes through the exercise and the method is well tested. You will probably be astounded at the magnitude of the contribution to the local economy that aviation makes. So even a very small stimulus to GA has a very large impact. That is why I believe this campaign has significant merit.
 
Last edited:
I know this has probably been beat to death, but can the other passengers be reimbursed for their pro-rata share even if the pilot can't?

John
 
What expenses would they have if they didn't pay somebody for the trip?

jsstevens said:
I know this has probably been beat to death, but can the other passengers be reimbursed for their pro-rata share even if the pilot can't?

John
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
What expenses would they have if they didn't pay somebody for the trip?
Click to expand...

They are allowed to pay their pro-rata share. That's what they'd be reimbursed for.

John
 
Am I missing something? If they can't pay the pilot, who would they reimburse and for what?

jsstevens said:
They are allowed to pay their pro-rata share. That's what they'd be reimbursed for.

John
Click to expand...
 
jsstevens said:
I know this has probably been beat to death, but can the other passengers be reimbursed for their pro-rata share even if the pilot can't?
Click to expand...
If you're referring to the Mangiamele letter, yes, they can. The pilot on such a flight incidental to employment can accept pro rata shares from each passenger. What those passengers do after that isn't the FAA's concern, so those passengers can claim reimbursement from their employer without the FAA's knowledge or consent. The only thing the pilot cannot do in that case is collect reimbursement from his/her employer for his/her own share of the direct cost of the flight. So, under Mangiamele, the more passengers the pilot has, the less the pilot is out of pocket for his/her share of the flight, which seems to me to encourage carrying as many passengers as possible on such flights -- which I don't think was the FAA's intent in this matter. Chalk it up to the unintended consequences of some FAA attorney twisting the wording of 61.113 all out of shape.
 
Last edited:
Wayne,

If four of us were flying to a meeting and I was pilot, each of the others can pay me 25% of the cost. I have to pay my 25% share. Correct?

Now assume that our employer will reimburse each of the other three for their 25% share that they pay me. That covers 75% of the flight, but I still have to pay my 25% share. I can't be reimbursed, but they can.

Clearer?
John
 
Yep, thanks.

jsstevens said:
Wayne,

If four of us were flying to a meeting and I was pilot, each of the others can pay me 25% of the cost. I have to pay my 25% share. Correct?

Now assume that our employer will reimburse each of the other three for their 25% share that they pay me. That covers 75% of the flight, but I still have to pay my 25% share. I can't be reimbursed, but they can.

Clearer?
John
Click to expand...
 
jsstevens said:
Wayne,

If four of us were flying to a meeting and I was pilot, each of the others can pay me 25% of the cost. I have to pay my 25% share. Correct?

Now assume that our employer will reimburse each of the other three for their 25% share that they pay me. That covers 75% of the flight, but I still have to pay my 25% share. I can't be reimbursed, but they can.

Clearer?
John
Click to expand...
What if the four are partners in a business? Even better, what if it is a family-owned business and all four are members of the same family?

I love these what-if scenarios because they illustrate how absurd the current regulation and its interpretation by the GC has become. It's time to reboot and the only way that is going to happen now is at the source: legislation.
 
I remember taking my mom up flying the day I got my private pilot license when I was in H school ..she paid for the flight rental since it was also my birthday...
better call the FSDO on myself...
 
taters said:
I remember taking my mom up flying the day I got my private pilot license when I was in H school ..she paid for the flight rental since it was also my birthday...
better call the FSDO on myself...
Click to expand...
Just another what-if hypothetical scenario of course, unless your pro-rata share was in the form of some chore around her house like mowing the lawn or picking up your room.:wink2:
 
We're gaining traction. We are in discussions with one House member and two Senators. The folks at AOPA Regulatory Affairs like the idea. Our hope is to have the bills introduced in the 1st session of the 115th Congress which convenes in January 2015.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Why would you expect NBAA to get involved in this? This seems to effect basically those people flying a single engine or maybe multi engine piston airplane. NBAA has very little interested in those areas, as there is little money there. I think AOPA and EAA are the organizations you need to try to get onboard. I wish you luck with what you are trying to do, but I don't support it.
Click to expand...

NBAA has ZERO% interest in this, I guarantee. They exist not for private pilots but for commercial business flight departments. They already expect a commercial certificate as the price of admission.
 
The issue is that the FAA in Mangiamele put a couple of parenthetical words in the interpretation that are completely unsupported by the law. They equated the words "for hire" with "being reimbursed." "For hire" in transportation law (and even in the FAA regulations) means arranged for by some party other than operator. It would appear the literal legal interpretation (and intent) of the regulation is to keep you from flying on a business trip while taking PAYING passengers or cargo, not carrying stuff or people necessary for the business trip.

By literally spelling out REIMBURSEMENT in the proposed law permits that.


Of course the FAA has a absolutely abhorrent record of actually implementing things as stated by enacted federal law. There are half a dozen things that have been tacked on to legislation over the years (privacy act, the SFRA, etc...) that the FAA essentially thumbs its bureaucratic nose at.

As C'Ron aludes, law or not, it's going to likely take a federal court case to push this.
 
wabower said:
Am I missing something? If they can't pay the pilot, who would they reimburse and for what?
Click to expand...

The rule is simple. The PIC may only share the expenses of the flight that include rental fees, fuel, ramp fees on a pro rata basis with passengers. That means, if there is one other person on the flight, its 50/50. If four, its 25% each.

No money or barter or other compensation for flying the plane is allowed.
 
You know what I like about this bill...it comes out and changes the rule directly. It's not the typical "The Administrator shall initiate rulemaking to..."

Instead it just declares a right, and as a consequence makes the regulations to the contrary null and void.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top