Volunteer Private Pilot

[Palmpilot]

Goodwill

If you look at the cases where goodwill was determined to be compensation, it was where it was enhancing a business relationship and the possibility of future employment. That's not what's normally at work when a parent pays for an offspring's participation in an activity. If you know of any cases where goodwill that was not business or employment related was found to be an issue by the FAA or NTSB, feel free to cite them.

Furthermore, in the NTSB cases involving goodwill, the goodwill was judged to be the compensation received by the pilot. If parents are using money to buy the goodwill of their offspring, that might be indicative of a problem, but it would not be an aviation problem unless the parents were receiving air transportation for their money, and in the absence of that it would be of no interest to the FAA.

- or after the private - personal air chauffeur.

You didn't specify that in the original scenario - you're moving the goal posts. For all we know, the parents might have no interest in riding in small planes.

As for the NEW scenario of parents wanting future transportation from their son or daughter, how the FAA or NTSB would decide that is pure speculation unless or until there is a case decision to point to.

Also the parents don't have to receive anything in return, as that isn't part of the reg.

It's inherent in the meaning of the word "compensation," and is what distinguishes compensation from gifts.

 

[Palmpilot]

Except when the FAA decided to redefine compensation through more than one Chief Counsel opinion. And since this is in the context of an FAA regulation....

As soon as you see an FAA interpretation or an NTSB case that defines parents paying for an offspring's flying as compensation, be sure to let us know. Until then, it's just fantasy.

 

[EdFred]

When the FAA defined expense reimbursement as compensation and being for hire, all the normal definitions of it got thrown out the window. You infer what you want, and I'll infer what I want from their inane rulings.

 

[Ghery]

Is that true? Was the pilot in that crash not a commercial pilot? He was flying a charter flight to take them to the next stop on the tour and flown a fair amount for the operator previously.

My understanding was that he was a private pilot and did not hold a commercial ticket.

A ramp check for Part 91 and 135 are different and you can plan on questions to determine what part you are operating under.

No surprise there. I only hold a PP cert and am totally ignorant of the requirements in the 135 world. Also, knock on wood, in 19 years of flying I have never been ramp checked. My paperwork is always in order, but I'd be perfectly happy to have that streak continue.

 

[Palmpilot]

When the FAA defined expense reimbursement as compensation and being for hire, all the normal definitions of it got thrown out the window. You infer what you want, and I'll infer what I want from their inane rulings.

Of course it's your right to infer whatever you want, but if you want to convince anyone, it helps to have a ruling to point to that actually supports your inference.

 

[Clip4]

When the FAA defined expense reimbursement as compensation and being for hire, all the normal definitions of it got thrown out the window. You infer what you want, and I'll infer what I want from their inane rulings.

The FAA could make it really easy and just write a rule prohibiting a private pilot receiving anything of value for operating an aircraft - including cost sharing - no exceptions.

 

[iamtheari]

My understanding was that he was a private pilot and did not hold a commercial ticket.

According to what I've been able to find online, the consensus is that Roger Peterson held a commercial pilot certificate (at least one source claims he had ratings for single and multi engine airplanes), but no instrument rating. Here is an article about the pilot and plane: http://photorecon.net/roger-petersons-last-flight/

The article says he had 711 hours, 128 of them in Bonanzas. He failed the instrument rating check ride twice. The DG was caged at the crash scene. The plane had different type of attitude gyro than Peterson trained with. For more details on that, AOPA quotes the CAB report in this article: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...lot-landmark-accidents-the-day-the-music-died

Does anyone here know if the "Day the Music Died" crash was a specific final straw that resulted in the commercial privileges related to carrying passengers being limited to daytime, local flights unless you have an instrument rating? I know that this crash directly led to changes in how names of crash victims are released to the media (before: right away; after Maria Elena Holly learned from the news that her husband was dead and had a miscarriage: they don't release names to the media until the family has been personally notified). It wouldn't surprise me if it also directly led to changes in pilot privileges.

Or we could make it easy on ourselves by not trying to find loopholes to make money with a PPL.

The rules aren't there for Jim and Joe going to get a burger.

They're for Joe paying Jim to fly him somewhere that Jim had no plan on going to, all so Jim could make a profit.

Look at the intent. If you have to find a loophole to do what you want to do, then it's a probably a violation of something.

The rules aren't needlessly complex just to keep government workers busy... They exist and are created as a result of people needing to be told what they can't do, because human beings are clever and invariably a few will ruin it for the rest of us.

This. I don't know what the OP meant by "your gas is paid for by donations to the fuel dealer." It sounds to me like this means that the passenger paid for gas and pretended it was a donation. (Little-known fact: If the money 'pays for' something, then it is not a donation.) It also sounds like this is just another part of the ongoing hunt for loopholes in the basic rule: A private pilot may not be compensated to carry passengers. All of the other rules, counsel opinions, etc. on the topic are the result of decades of people trying to find loopholes in that basic rule. If you do manage to find a loophole so you can fly for free or make money flying on a private pilot certificate, the outcome will just be one more rule that the rest of us have to learn and follow.

Here's another thought. It would probably be 100% legal to fly your friend where he wants to go and let him pay for gas, even without you paying your proportionate share or having a common purpose, if it were possible to define "friend" without people constantly exploiting loopholes in it. The FAA doesn't really want to stop you from being the cool friend with an airplane or from letting your friends fill up the tank after you take them to their cousin's wedding or whatever. But somewhere along the way, the baby and bathwater got too hard to separate thanks to pilots thinking they were being clever with loopholes. If you think the current rules are absurd, just keep working loopholes until the FAA simplifies them and takes away the privilege of a private pilot having passengers at all.

 

[idahoflier]

Just get your commercial ticket so we can move this thread onto what aircraft you're going to use for your flight, part 91 vs part 135 and whether or not you're insured... ;-)

 

[Clip4]

Or we could make it easy on ourselves by not trying to find loopholes to make money with a PPL.

The rules aren't there for Jim and Joe going to get a burger.

They're for Joe paying Jim to fly him somewhere that Jim had no plan on going to, all so Jim could make a profit.

Look at the intent. If you have to find a loophole to do what you want to do, then it's a probably a violation of something.

The rules aren't needlessly complex just to keep government workers busy... They exist and are created as a result of people needing to be told what they can't do, because human beings are clever and invariably a few will ruin it for the rest of us.

I agree.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

If you think the current rules are absurd, just keep working loopholes until the FAA simplifies them and takes away the privilege of a private pilot having passengers at all.

We could also try simply eliminating rule and regulatory systems which have no demonstrated positive effect on flight safety. That would be a huge simplification.

Is there any evidence that the current no compensation rule improves flight safety ? I’ve asked before and have not heard of any.

People will always look for the edges of laws and rules, that is the nature of such systems. If you think about it, there are in most cases strong economic reasons people will be incentivized to find out where the lines actually are.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The FAA could make it really easy and just write a rule prohibiting a private pilot receiving anything of value for operating an aircraft - including cost sharing - no exceptions.

Well but even that wouldn’t simplify it that much. Then the questions would devolve to, as has been posted above, does the GF having sex with you after a flight count as something of value? Does the friend you make buying you dinner count as something of value? The list goes on and on.

No regulatory system can ever accurately anticipate all possible cases in the real world. The more rules there are, the more weird edge cases there will be.

 

[RyanB]

The rules aren't needlessly complex just to keep government workers busy... They exist and are created as a result of people needing to be told what they can't do, because human beings are clever and invariably a few will ruin it for the rest of us.

That’s debatable.

Then again, who’s trying to find loopholes so they can make money? In my situation, it was simply a question of whether or not one can perform the flight within the regulations. Not trying to make any money off the deal.

I still disagree with the FAA’s ruling that ‘flight time is considered compensation’. That’s totally asinine. Sorry.

 

[RyanB]

Little-known fact: If the money 'pays for' something, then it is not a donation.)

How do you figure?

If I make a donation to a charity, what do you think that money does? It goes to help ‘pay for something’. The employees, the light bill etc., but it’s still recognized as a donation, even by Uncle Sam.

 

[Clip4]

Well but even that wouldn’t simplify it that much. Then the questions would devolve to, as has been posted above, does the GF having sex with you after a flight count as something of value? Does the friend you make buying you dinner count as something of value? The list goes on and on.

No regulatory system can ever accurately anticipate all possible cases in the real world. The more rules there are, the more weird edge cases there will be.

Sex and dinner are part of anything.

 

[RyanB]

Remind me not to meet up with you at a fly-in.

No worries, we’ll keep the hot girls all to ourselves.

 

[iamtheari]

How do you figure?

If I make a donation to a charity, what do you think that money does? It goes to help ‘pay for something’. The employees, the light bill etc., but it’s still recognized as a donation, even by Uncle Sam.

My wording was indeed a tiny bit ambiguous, but I think the context makes my meaning clear. If you give someone money and you get something of value in return, you did not donate the money, you paid for the thing you got. When you donate money to a charity, the charity uses the donated money to pay for things that it gets in return. Those payments are not donations, although they were funded by your donation for which you did not receive something of value in return.

Can you please clarify what you meant in your OP, in which you wrote that "your gas is paid for by donations to the fuel dealer"? Who is donating what to whom, and by what process does that donation turn into you getting fuel for your plane?

 

[iamtheari]

We could also try simply eliminating rule and regulatory systems which have no demonstrated positive effect on flight safety. That would be a huge simplification.

Is there any evidence that the current no compensation rule improves flight safety ? I’ve asked before and have not heard of any.

People will always look for the edges of laws and rules, that is the nature of such systems. If you think about it, there are in most cases strong economic reasons people will be incentivized to find out where the lines actually are.

There is abundant evidence that private pilots flying light GA planes pose a greater risk to their passengers than do part 121 operators. The problem is not "I fly, you buy" between friends. The problem is drawing the line between that and carrying paying passengers on the open market, the latter of which is not going to be entirely deregulated to the point where the market alone will decide which risks the passengers are willing to take to save a buck. The FAA's solution, cobbled together through decades of people exploiting loopholes to try to make money flying passengers outside of parts 121 and 135, is simply to move the line to a place that's easier to draw.

What is your proposal to draw the line in the place where it belongs, without loopholes?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

There is abundant evidence that private pilots flying light GA planes pose a greater risk to their passengers than do part 121 operators.

Agreed that Part 121 is a lot safer overall per mile of flight than GA flying. But that doesn't prove that the FAA regulations, and in particular, the no compensation for private pilots rule, is the cause of that. I am not aware of any evidence that would even strongly suggest that rule improves flight safety.

As I noted in my post above, regulations often have the intended and unintended effects. The latter can often undo the intended improvements. In this case, I would suggest simply eliminating the rule and carefully measuring the accident rates in both flying and other forms of transportation. Perhaps also have an education campaign to educate passengers how to distinguish safe from unsafe operators.

My suspicion is that the number of cases of people who will try and and essentially set up a for profit airline using private pilots flying airplanes will be quite small and that the number of people willing to fly on shady unsafe operations will be also quite small. Thus the number of accidents and problems caused by such people will be limited (though I imagine there would be some).

To offset that small increase in risk, potentially more people will be flying, rather than driving, and more GA airplanes will be sold or better maintained. Thus the overall safety of the traveling public might be improved. Or at least not significantly harmed.

In the meantime, the number of rules that people have to navigate is reduced, the number of edge cases is reduced, and people are a least a little marginally freer from coercion by the government.

This is speculative because the effect of regulation in the real world is often difficult to predict. Unfortunately, we have regulation by knee jerk reaction and intuition, rather than really looking at data. My general thought is, without good evidence of a positive effect, don't force people to do things they don't want to do.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Let's also consider for the moment, how market mechanisms might work to limit the number of people trying to unsafely fly people for hire when they are private pilots.

Firstly, if you own a reasonable and expensive aircraft which can provide decent service which people might want to purchase a fair amount of the time, do you want to be flying it around uninsured? I very much doubt that insurance companies, who known the odds rather well, are going to want to be insuring an unsafe private pilot sort of operation.

So then, are most passengers going to want to pay to fly around in small uninsured planes? Many people don't even want to fly in them in the first place, get airsick, etc. If one added a bit of education for the public, I suspect the vast majority of potential customers could easily become savvy enough to ask the operator if the plane was insured, check that, and even inquire whether the operator had the additional training required to be a commercial pilot.

Given those two factors, how many people are actually going to be trying to unsafely fly around other people for hire in planes they can afford to risk the equity on? Probably so few that the regulation regarding no compensation for private pilots isn't worth the costs of having and enforcing.

 

[iamtheari]

Agreed that Part 121 is a lot safer overall per mile of flight than GA flying. But that doesn't prove that the FAA regulations, and in particular, the no compensation for private pilots rule, is the cause of that. I am not aware of any evidence that would even strongly suggest that rule improves flight safety.

I think that the regulations of part 121 are indeed the reason those operations are safer than part 91. But that wasn't my point. It doesn't have to be true that part 121 commercial air travel is safer because of the regulations. The fact is that part 121 commercial air travel is orders of magnitude safer than part 91 general aviation, and because of that fact it is politically impossible to enact a regulatory scheme that remands the issue back to the marketplace to find out how many people are willing to fly on totally unregulated airlines.

So, unless you know a way to make part 91 as safe as part 121, it is unrealistic to expect the regulations to be relaxed to the point where I can run an ad on Facebook "private flight with a private pilot, $200 round-trip anywhere in the state" and get away with it. To be worth discussing, any alternative to what we have now must have at least some realistic hope of being embraced by the populace to a sufficient degree that it could become law.

Your theory also seems to be based on overly optimistic assumptions about human behavior and a somewhat myopic view of history. The regulations were not written in their present form on December 16, 1903, out of an unfounded fear that the Wright Brothers would charge each other for rides across the beach on the 17th. They were written over the course of a century based on things that actually happened. At times, those things happened because humans as a species are capable of short-term greed. Any regulatory scheme that disregards history and human nature, even if it could be enacted as law, will not survive first contact with the enemy.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I think that the regulations of part 121 are indeed the reason those operations are safer than part 91. But that wasn't my point.

But does the no compensation for private pilots regulation contribute to greater flight safety? That is the question I had asked. And I think the main point pertaining to this thread, which was about private pilots flying people somewhere and receiving benefits from doing so. Whether other part 121 regulations improve flight safety does not directly address that. Is the contention here that the no compensation rule for private pilots improves the safety of flight? If so, what's the evidence that is true?

If there is strong evidence that this rule improves flight safety and the safety of those on the ground, then I could see a possible utilitarian argument for it.

The fact is that part 121 commercial air travel is orders of magnitude safer than part 91 general aviation, and because of that fact it is politically impossible to enact a regulatory scheme that remands the issue back to the marketplace to find out how many people are willing to fly on totally unregulated airlines.

I do tend to think more about what is right than about practical politics. I tend to think that eventually what is right will win out. And I strongly believe that as individuals we should only support and advocate for what is right.

To be worth discussing, any alternative to what we have now must have at least some realistic hope of being embraced by the populace to a sufficient degree that it could become law.

As above, I tend to think it is actually more important to think about and discuss what is right, but I agree that practical political considerations are a valid approach to achieving what is right. Working in that manner is a good approach, just not one I spend a lot of time on.

Another idea might be to revise regulations to adhere to the 'being in business' standard which has a long history of litigation and decisions. That will raise in importance the question of whether a pilot is "holding themselves out" which is already part of the regulatory equation, but would allow someone to be partly paid by a friend, for example. Thus a bit more freedom. And again, one could try and actually figure out the increased risk, if any, of using that less restrictive scheme.

Honestly I don't know that the populace as a whole will ever have much interest in the details of what happens with private pilot licensing. I imagine the big political players who lobby to have things done by the FAA are the commercial airlines, who have a lot at stake.

Your theory also seems to be based on overly optimistic assumptions about human behavior and a somewhat myopic view of history.

I'm afraid that is introducing the personal characteristics of the speaker and is thus an ad hominem attack (though I don't think intended particularly meanly). Not only is that a logical fallacy, but it is in public fora, rude.

 

[iamtheari]

I'm afraid that is introducing the personal characteristics of the speaker and is thus an ad hominem attack (though I don't think intended particularly meanly). Not only is that a logical fallacy, but it is in public fora, rude.

I didn't intend any ad hominem argument (or attack). I don't know anything about you from which I could make an ad hominem argument even if I wanted to. My critique was that the theory itself appears to be logically dependent upon the shaky foundations mentioned above. (One of my points is admittedly ad homines--that is, your theory is wrong because everyone else is a bad person. Please don't take that as an insult. To quote Men in Black, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.")

But does the no compensation for private pilots regulation contribute to greater flight safety? That is the question I had asked. And I think the main point pertaining to this thread, which was about private pilots flying people somewhere and receiving benefits from doing so. Whether other part 121 regulations improve flight safety does not directly address that. Is the contention here that the no compensation rule for private pilots improves the safety of flight? If so, what's the evidence that is true?

That's not my contention. In the most succinct terms possible, my contention is that the line must be drawn somewhere and it is impractical to draw a clear line where we want it to be.

I would separately argue that the no-compensation rule does contribute to greater flight safety because it prohibits us from taking paying passengers on our statistically very dangerous airplanes. However, in doing so the FAA has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. I think you and I both, along with probably everyone else who posts here, want to be regulated with a scalpel rather than a hatchet on this point. So the reason I'm taking so much time posting on this topic when I normally don't post anything but maintenance questions and sarcastic puns is because I recognize that there are limits on what could ever actually happen and wish that something better can be found within those limits, so we can maybe, just maybe, get our baby back without reintroducing the politically toxic bathwater of hurting the astonishingly good safety record of commercial air travel.

I think most of us agree that it should be legal for me to fly my dad to visit my sister and let my dad pay the costs of the trip or to fly a friend to a big city for a concert or a baseball game and let him pay for the gas while I cover the rest of the airplane costs. As I mentioned above when I first waded into this thread, I also think that those things actually would be legal if not for the loophole-seeking behavior of our fellow man.

I see this as purely an exercise in line-drawing. The reality is that there is going to be a line drawn by regulations and the commercial carriage of passengers is going to stay on the far side of the line. The question is whether the line can be drawn in such a way that the things we think should be legal are, the commercial carriage of passengers is highly regulated, and there are no exploitable loopholes between the two which would just make the entire exercise a scenic detour back to the regulatory mess we started from.

The FAA's solution, which has evolved over the course of a century of loopholes being exploited and sometimes people dying, is to draw the line where it is now. The advantage of drawing the line there is that it is easy to draw a clear line with less room for exploitable loopholes. The disadvantages include a multitude of threads like this one, where people discuss potential loopholes and conclude that the law is absurd.

Accepting that the line must be drawn and that making money carrying passengers is not going to migrate to the unregulated side of the line, is there a better way to draw the line so that the results are more to the liking of people like us, who just want to legally use our private plane the same way we can use our private car, to haul a friend somewhere and accept gas money in return?

Another idea might be to revise regulations to adhere to the 'being in business' standard which has a long history of litigation and decisions. That will raise in importance the question of whether a pilot is "holding themselves out" which is already part of the regulatory equation, but would allow someone to be partly paid by a friend, for example. Thus a bit more freedom. And again, one could try and actually figure out the increased risk, if any, of using that less restrictive scheme.

That would be good territory to draw the line in, if it's practical to do so. The devil is always in the details. There is a vast gray area between the existing line and the most libertarian place we could possibly get away with drawing it (scheduled air carriers that sell tickets to people they don't personally know are regulated and nobody else is). For example, I get asked a few times a year to fly people I kind of know, at their expense, just because enough people who know me know that I love flying and have a plane (but not that I am prohibited from accepting such compensation) so they suggest that their friends who need to go somewhere call me. I'm not holding myself out or in the aviation business. Should it be legal for me to accept compensation for trips like that? If so, at what point does my acceptance of trips like that cross the line into holding myself out as willing to accept them?

Another place to draw the line, following your earlier posts a bit, would be to make it mandatory to have insurance with certain limits if you have any passengers at all. But at the end of the day, we would probably be following 10,000-page insurance policies instead of the FARs, so I don't think this is really a solution.

The idea of assuming the market will self-regulate through natural selection of flights that have insurance coverage is also, I think, unrealistic. It forces passengers to internalize and analyze risks that they lack sufficient information to understand. The transaction costs of passengers obtaining and reading insurance policies to determine which flights to take are too great, and the likelihood of passengers even being sophisticated enough to care about insurance coverage when selecting flights is low. Regulations on commercial air travel make sense because they put responsibility for safety in the hands of the parties most capable of measuring safety.

I really do wish that people as a species were capable of adhering to "do what you want, just don't try to make money flying," so the FAA could draw the line there. But they're not, so it can't.

 

[RyanB]

But does the no compensation for private pilots regulation contribute to greater flight safety?

No it doesn’t. The fact that one person holds a CPL and the next guy holds a PPL doesn’t make one pilot any better than the other, nor does it make them any more capable of safely flying passengers from point A to point B. It’s essentially a formality.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The idea of assuming the market will self-regulate through natural selection of flights that have insurance coverage is also, I think, unrealistic. It forces passengers to internalize and analyze risks that they lack sufficient information to understand. The transaction costs of passengers obtaining and reading insurance policies to determine which flights to take are too great, and the likelihood of passengers even being sophisticated enough to care about insurance coverage when selecting flights is low. Regulations on commercial air travel make sense because they put responsibility for safety in the hands of the parties most capable of measuring safety.

I guess this is the primary place where we may differ. I think asserting that market forces working is unrealistic is an unjustified assumption. If that assumption is not correct, then I trust we would agree that perhaps we should be rid of this no compensation for private pilots rule?

So what data is there to justify this assumption? There is a large body of work on regulatory capture and the ineffectiveness of regulation to help in situations like this. This body of work directly examines the notions advanced above here regarding analysis of risk, sophistication, etc. Clearly the FAA is _not_ in a position to judge what the risk-cost tradeoffs are for individual passengers. They have no real knowledge of same and are incentivized to always err on the side of greater regulation and safety. There is a tradeoff between risk, cost, and cost of information and historically regulatory agencies are not very good or efficient at approximating what consumers in a free market will choose. I am suggesting that people look at the actual data and studies regarding this, rather than simply assuming. If there is a study or white paper relating these general ideas to FAA regulation, I would be very happy to see it.

As noted, most of the FAA regulations were adopted over the course of a century as a response to some one particular disaster or problem. That is not necessarily a rational or productive way to create a legal or regulatory environment which promotes safety. In fact, such knee jerk reactions often have the opposite from their intended effects due to unintended side effects. I am not aware of any studies which have demonstrated that the no compensation for private pilot rule enhances flight safety. That is why I keep asking essentially "where's the data" ?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Very brief search turned up the following: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811419/

Conclusion: "No effect of the rule change on crash rates of 10–30-seat aircraft was apparent. The decline in their crash rates began before the rule change and may have been related to the 1992 requirement for ground proximity warning devices."

While not directly related to the no compensation for private pilot safety rule, I post this as an example where the assumed effects of regulation do not come to pass, and yet we bear the costs of the regulations.

As to costs, reference here to a study on increased costs due to regulation: https://news.uci.edu/2018/05/01/str...-pilots-linked-to-higher-fares-fewer-flights/

I think these examples illustrate that there is good reason to be suspicious of assumptions that FAA regulation increases safety at a reasonable cost. Where's the data that these regulations work?

 

[Clip4]

We could also try simply eliminating rule and regulatory systems which have no demonstrated positive effect on flight safety. That would be a huge simplification.

Is there any evidence that the current no compensation rule improves flight safety ? I’ve asked before and have not heard of any.

People will always look for the edges of laws and rules, that is the nature of such systems. If you think about it, there are in most cases strong economic reasons people will be incentivized to find out where the lines actually are.

The question isn't has the no compensation private pilot rules demonstrated a positive impact on safety, the question is has the commercial rules demonstrated an impact on safety.

If you can show the commercial rules have no impact, then you can argue the private compensation rules should be amended.

Since the private pilot Part 61 minimums are only 40 hours compared to 250 hours for the commercial with a wide range of other minimum training and experience requirements, your argument is without merit.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

If you can show the commercial rules have no impact, then you can argue the private compensation rules should be amended.

While that is true, it is also possible that the additional training for commercial could have some impact on safety beyond the training for private pilot. I suspect it does not, but it could.

In other words, the argument that if 250 hours does not improve safety, then 40 will not seems on pretty good ground. The argument that 250 might have some safety value, therefore 40 might also seems less plausible.

Since the private pilot Part 61 minimums are only 40 hours compared to 250 hours for the commercial with a wide range of other minimum training and experience requirements, your argument is without merit.

Not sure what argument exactly you are referring to there or why the above would show it is without merit, but perhaps if you like to further that contention, more explanation would help?

 

[Clip4]

While that is true, it is also possible that the additional training for commercial could have some impact on safety beyond the training for private pilot. I suspect it does not, but it could.

In other words, the argument that if 250 hours does not improve safety, then 40 will not seems on pretty good ground. The argument that 250 might have some safety value, therefore 40 might also seems less plausible.



Not sure what argument exactly you are referring to there or why the above would show it is without merit, but perhaps if you like to further that contention, more explanation would help?

Most accidents (49.1%) were conducted with individuals holding a private pilot certificate. Second in incidence were commercial pilots (28.2%), followed by Airline Transport Pilots (ATPs) (13.7%), and student pilots (5.7%) (AOPA, 2012). Private pilots represent 30.8% of certificates held but have a much higher rate of accidents (FAA, 2012).

 

[chemgeek]

The rules and regs as they currently stand are not that hard to figure out and comply with. And I dare say that for the overwhelming majority of pilots they are not the least impediment to flying for business or pleasure, alone or with friends. The objections to the current regulations are more theoretical than practical, I think. There are people out there who like to rationalize all sorts of ways of avoiding compliance with rules they don't like. That's how we wind up with more rules. It happens in every large organizational structure.

 

[Kritchlow]

Most accidents (49.1%) were conducted with individuals holding a private pilot certificate. Second in incidence were commercial pilots (28.2%), followed by Airline Transport Pilots (ATPs) (13.7%), and student pilots (5.7%) (AOPA, 2012). Private pilots represent 30.8% of certificates held but have a much higher rate of accidents (FAA, 2012).

While I do agree with you in theory, I don’t think these statistics mean much.
Generally the ATP will be flying airline type airplanes, while the PP is flying a small SE airplane. The CP often somewhere in between.
So, is it pilot training or reliability of aircraft?

Again, I am firmly in the camp of more training and experience leads to safer pilots.

 

[Clip4]

While I do agree with you in theory, I don’t think these statistics mean much.
Generally the ATP will be flying airline type airplanes, while the PP is flying a small SE airplane. The CP often somewhere in between.
So, is it pilot training or reliability of aircraft?

Again, I am firmly in the camp of more training and experience leads to safer pilots.

Those stats are from the 2012 Nall report, which is GA accidents. If you isolated the accidents by pilot certificate in SEL airplanes only, the Private Pilot percentage maybe double.

 

[Kritchlow]

Those stats are from the 2012 Nall report, which is GA accidents.

Indeed that gives it some cred

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Most accidents (49.1%) were conducted with individuals holding a private pilot certificate. Second in incidence were commercial pilots (28.2%), followed by Airline Transport Pilots (ATPs) (13.7%), and student pilots (5.7%) (AOPA, 2012). Private pilots represent 30.8% of certificates held but have a much higher rate of accidents (FAA, 2012).

Still unclear how that argues that the no compensation for private pilots rule improves flight safety. As noted, there are lots of reasons, including less training, that may account for a higher accident rate for private pilots. That doesn’t imply that rule has any effect. It just doesn’t follow.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

To demonstrate that a rule like the no compensation for private pilots rule works to improve the safety of flight, one has to something like the following.

Measure the safety of flight prior to the rule being in place, enact the rule, measure the safety of flight again, and show there is a difference in safety of flight afterward enactment.

Best if the change is significant, though even a non-significant change can be suggestive. And best if there are controls for other possible confounding factors, like general trends, but again that is not entirely necessary.

Is there any data like that or a study for this rule? If there isn’t, then the FAA is coercing pilots to not do what they want on the basis of a hunch or guess.

 

[weilke]

Which requires drug testing and a letter of authorization from you friendly FSDO.

The idiot(t)syncrasies of FAA regulation: You need a drug test to take someone for a lap around the town in a 172 but you don't need one to take up 10 jumpers in a King Air.

 

[Clip4]

The idiot(t)syncrasies of FAA regulation: You need a drug test to take someone for a lap around the town in a 172 but you don't need one to take up 10 jumpers in a King Air.

At least the jumpers have a way out.

I believe the FAA’s concern is carrying tourists.

 

[weilke]

At least the jumpers have a way out.

I believe the FAA’s concern is carrying tourists.

Tandem passengers are tourists.

 

[apr911]

Since the private pilot Part 61 minimums are only 40 hours compared to 250 hours for the commercial with a wide range of other minimum training and experience requirements, your argument is without merit.

Looking at hours doesn't really say much. A private pilot can have 1000's of hours without ever having gone for a higher certificate/commercial while a commercial pilot can have 250 hours.

This is again an issue of how we measure experience. Is a 250 hour commercial pilot who has 44 hours of 50NM XC time, 4hours of100NM XC time and 2 hours on a single 300NM XC time and 200 hours of flying in and out of the same airport (i.e. no other XC time as defined under 61.1) inherently safer than the private pilot flying the bush or making regular flights from coast to coast with different origins, destinations and intermediate fuel stops?

I would posit the answer to that question is no; a pilot with a commercial pilot certificate is not inherently any safer than a private pilot by virtue of their certificate or even their hours.

Most accidents (49.1%) were conducted with individuals holding a private pilot certificate. Second in incidence were commercial pilots (28.2%), followed by Airline Transport Pilots (ATPs) (13.7%), and student pilots (5.7%) (AOPA, 2012). Private pilots represent 30.8% of certificates held but have a much higher rate of accidents (FAA, 2012).

I'm reading the Nall 2015 report right now. The 2015 non-commercial fixed-wing accident rates shows GA Accident rates of 481 accidents or 49.2% by PPL holders, 261 accidents or 26.7% by CPL holders and 125 or 12.8% by ATPs.

The issue/question I still have about the Nall report though echoes @Kritchlow 's earlier statement though... It does not show the total number of GA operations performed by the various certificate holders nor is it a "total accident count."

It could be completely possible (though improbable in the extreme) that every ATP that goes up GA results in an accident while only every other PPL that goes up GA results in an accident. Who/which is safer? The 100% accident rate of an ATP or the 50% accident rate of a PPL? Just because PPL's account for a higher total number of accidents does not necessarily mean they are not as safe as a CPL or ATP, it could (and likely) just mean they perform more GA operations than the typical CPL or ATP.

This is aptly illustrated by the Commercial Fixed-Wing Accident rates which shows Part 135 Cargo and Charter Accidents occur at a rate of 13 or 50% by CPL holders and 13 or 50% by ATP holders. Are commercial pilots really as skilled/safe as an ATP or conversely an ATP just as risky as a commercial pilot?

For Part 137 Aerial Application Accidents occur at a rate of 45 or 88.2% by CPL holders and 6 or 11.8% by ATP holders... Is a CPL holder really 8 times more likely than a ATP holder to have an Aerial Application Accident?

The correlation between these numbers are not so direct that such conclusions can be reached.

If we add non-commercial accidents and commercial accidents together we end up with the number of PPL accidents remaining the same and a decrease to 45.6% of total acccidents while CPL's number of accidents is up 22% to 319 with an increase to 30.2% of all accidents and the number of accidents involving an ATP increases 15% to 144 with an increase to 13.6% of all accidents. This also ignores flights accidents both commercial and non-commercial where a CFI is onboard (such flights seem to be attributed to the level of pilot receiving instruction and are not attributed at the level of the CFI who is at least a commercial pilot).

Additionally, in theory, commercial operators should have a lower rate of mechanical failures though in reality the rates show that the rate of accidents due to mechanical error actually increases though ultimately the accident rate attributed to pilot/mechanical/other errors do not differ significantly between commercial and non-commercial operations (73.8% non-commercial vs 70.1% commercial - Pilot error, 15.7% non-commercial vs 18.2% commercial - mechanical error and 10.4% non-commercial vs 11.7% commercial - other/unknown error)

Lastly, the correlation to the number of issued certificates also seems to be a bit off to me. First off the FAA statistics show approximately 41.8% PPL holders not 30.8% in 2012 (188,001 PPL, 116,400 CPL and 145,590 ATP). Using more recent stats according to the FAA statistics, in 2018 there were 163,695 PPL holders (38.4%), 99,880 CPL holders (23.5%) and 162,145 ATP holders (38.1%).

PPLs make up 38.4% of certificate holders in 2018; that does mean that at 49.2% of accidents they account for approximately 128% of their fair share of accidents but I dont believe it fair to look at a direct comparison that includes all ATPs as it has been my general observation that a significant majority of ATP's dont fly GA.

If we say only half of the ATP's fly GA aircraft (which still seems like a high number too me), the share of PPL's increases to 47.5% while CPL's make up 28.9% and ATP's make up 23.5%. At those numbers, PPL's account for 103.5% of their fair share of non-commercial GA accidents, CPL's account for 92.4% of their fair share and ATP's make up just 54.5% of their fair share of accidents.

If we factor in the commercial GA accident rates, the numbers change further with PPL's accounting for 96% of their fair share, CPL's accounting for 104.5% of their fair share and ATP's account for 57.9% of their fair share.

So yeah the numbers lack the context required to really determine what it is they are saying about the overall safety of a PPL vs CPL vs ATP. Considering PPL's are more likely to fly GA and specifically non-commercial GA than their CPL or ATP counterparts, I would expect they make up the majority of the accident rate flying under those conditions.

 

[Sundancer]

Gamecocks! Hypothetically, of course.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

Gamecocks! Hypothetically, of course.

This happened to me a few years back for the World Series. End of game 6 a friend calls “hey do you want to go to game 7, I’ll cover tickets and expenses while we are there, you get us there”.
The flying part was implied because we all had to be back to work at 7am the next morning.
To me, that’s the kind of stuff that makes having a pilot certificate awesome.