Ride Share Boards

[poadeleted20]

So you believe we are compliant if we advertise to the public as long as the pilot has a preplanned flight with a preplanned from/to and date along with the correct pro rata share of qualifying expenses?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "advertise to the public." If you mean posting on a ride share board, yes, I believe that. If you mean taking out an ad in the newspaper, that's another story. Facebook? Seems like Ms. Sanchez waffled on that one in the Haberkorn letter, so who knows?

Of course, I'm not an attorney, I don't work for the FAA, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I've seen no reason to believe other than what I said. As for me personally, I'm not going out and offering rides to people I don't know, and that's for a lot of reasons having nothing to do with the FAA's regulations.

 

[flyingron]

They knew I was teaching at the U and made an assumption. They never dropped the title from their database when I left.

When I was working for the University I got a lot of "Dear Dr. Natalie" letters from the NSF. PhD's get ****ed off more when you omit the Dr. Those of us without advanced degrees just are a little amused.

 

[Palmpilot]

...the common purpose clause...

I thought common purpose was a doctrine, not a clause.

 

[Tom-D]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Tom, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Nice spurs, both of the incidents were in aircraft I owned, FSDO wanted to know who paid the bill.

both investigations lead no where.

 

[DrMack]

In Haberkorn the FAA states, "holding out can be accomplished by any 'means which communicates to the public that a transportation service is indiscriminately available' to the members of that segment of the public it is designed to attract." Apparently the case law on "holding out" in transportation began with a C.A.B. enforcement proceeding in 1950 and has since become another one of those Gordian Knot doctrines that is now so convoluted that it means whatever the FAA wants it to mean at any time, just like "compensation".

Regulations do not grant any rights that we as citizens did not already possess. They can only restrict our freedom. When the regulations become as voluminous as the FARs it is inevitable that they would contain circular logic and thus we end up with regulations like 61.113 that begins with a prohibition, enumerates some exceptions, and then within the exception clauses reinstate the original prohibition. When the law becomes circular it can mean whatever the enforcing authority wants it to mean. That is what is meant by "arbitrary".

 

[Fearless Tower]

The way I read it, you're fine if you're also in the band.

But you get bonus points for the photo of a complete drum kit, plus guitar and amp, stuffed into a light single.

Need more cowbell!