What if?

AuntPeggy

AuntPeggy

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
8,480
Location
Oklahoma
Display Name
Display name:
Namaste
This question came to mind following this thread
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28436

Suppose PilotA owns a KingAir which is used in his business and also he uses it personally to fly his family. PilotA is fully qualified to fly solo and does so for business purposes, but when he is flying with his family he wants another pilot in the right seat.

Can he pay PilotB to sit in the right seat, having no flight responsibilities, if PilotB is a private pilot with an IFR rating, but no experience flying a King Air? PilotB's job title in this circumstance is "Nanny".

If the FAA gets involved, will PilotA be in trouble? Will PilotB be in trouble?
 
Pilot B is not PIC and is not longing PIC all he is is PAX so no problems there. Even he were to fly for a bit or op the radios pilot A is still the PIC and ultimately responsible. It would be like taking up a person for a ride and letting them have the stick for a while. You are PIC are still responsible.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Will PilotB be in trouble?
Click to expand...
Once Pilot A dies (as in the original thread you quoted) then an emergency exists and Pilot B is operating under 91.13. Pilot B will not be called onto the carpet solely for assuming and exercising PIC duties.

-Skip
 
Neither answer addresses the pay issue. THAT is the question I am interested in as far as an answer goes.
 
My guess is that since there is pay involved, as well as an airplane, this scenario is a no no.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
My guess is that since there is pay involved, as well as an airplane, this scenario is a no no.
Click to expand...

My inclination would be to agree with you, Greg. It's one of those "smells like a fish, swims like a fish... probably is a fish" scenarios.

The original poster said 'the right seater's not paid to fly, he's warming a seat, is paid to be a "nanny"...'

...however, my bet is that pilot A (the owner/PIC) wouldn't be interested in offering that same job to a non-rated pilot. Therefore, he IS hiring a pilot's services, regardless of what he wants to call the title or whether or not the "nanny / pilot" ever gets to touch the controls.

At least, that's how I think the FAA would see it in an enforcement action...
 
Greg Bockelman said:
My guess is that since there is pay involved, as well as an airplane, this scenario is a no no.
Click to expand...
Greg, you may be right, but it might depend on the wording of Pilot B's contract and any legal precedent. The OP suggests that Pilot B's has no flight duties, so arguably s/he is not being hired to exercise her pilot's certificate.

If there is no legal precedent to the contrary, I don't think this would pass the Duck Test with the FAA.

-Skip
 

Attachments

  • duck.jpg
    duck.jpg
    25.4 KB · Views: 27
Last edited:
Greg Bockelman said:
Neither answer addresses the pay issue. THAT is the question I am interested in as far as an answer goes.
Click to expand...

AuntPeggy said:
Right. That is the question.
Click to expand...

Well, it even goes further and will the experience be considered compensation. If the compensation is because the guy is a pilot, it's a no no. If the compensation is because the guy is along as a steward for the family, he's ok. If it's for the flying my take is he'll need a CPL.
 
Skip Miller said:
Greg, you may be right, but it might depend on the wording of Pilot B's contract and any legal precedent. The OP suggests that Pilot B's has no flight duties, so arguably s/he is not being hired to exercise her pilot's certificate.

If there is no legal precedent to the contrary, I don't think this would pass the Duck Test with the FAA.

-Skip
Click to expand...

Exactly, what is the compensation and what for? The other real issue is of course "will anyone care". In this case it's gonna be "no". As to the letter of the law, I don't think it's kosher, but I can't see it being called on. I used to fly with an 80+ year old guy to visit his daughter and granddaughter(who was my age) when I had a PP, I was compensated with time and errrr... benefits on those trips, as well as a lot of education. While I think it violated the letter of the law, I never had any concerns about being busted on it.
 
"...he wants another pilot in the right seat."
Click to expand...
I think that says it all. If he's paying that person to be a "pilot in the right seat," I think the FAA Chief Counsel would say that person will need a CP/ATP and a medical valid as Second Class or better, whether he's a required crewmember or not.
 
Ron Levy said:
I think that says it all. If he's paying that person to be a "pilot in the right seat," I think the FAA Chief Counsel would say that person will need a CP/ATP and a medical valid as Second Class or better, whether he's a required crewmember or not.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the wording that hung me as well on this. I still don't think it'll go anywhere unless the husband/PIC has a heart attack, is incapacitated.... the Right seater PPL then crashes the plane and the surviving family members decide to sue. If he gets in that jackpot, he's f-ed, the plaintiffs attorney will definitely haul the FAA in on it.
 
Henning said:
Yeah, that's the wording that hung me as well on this. I still don't think it'll go anywhere unless the husband/PIC has a heart attack, is incapacitated.... the Right seater PPL then crashes the plane and the surviving family members decide to sue. If he gets in that jackpot, he's f-ed, the plaintiffs attorney will definitely haul the FAA in on it.
Click to expand...
I can see other ways this would come to the FAA's attention, but pretty generally they, too, would require that either the PP screw something up or one of the parties involved say something inapt where the Feds can hear it (first-hand or otherwise). Might be some jealous young CFI's on the airport who'd love to report something like this if they found out what the story was.
 
Henning said:
Exactly, what is the compensation and what for? The other real issue is of course "will anyone care". In this case it's gonna be "no". As to the letter of the law, I don't think it's kosher, but I can't see it being called on. I used to fly with an 80+ year old guy to visit his daughter and granddaughter(who was my age) when I had a PP, I was compensated with time and errrr... benefits on those trips, as well as a lot of education. While I think it violated the letter of the law, I never had any concerns about being busted on it.
Click to expand...

Most important question- the Grand-daughter: was she hot?

(and I think you already answered it...)
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Do the rules regarding proof apply differently to the FAA?
Click to expand...
In comparison to a criminal proceeding, yes, they do, and they are way looser. The standard of proof is merely "more likely than not" compared to "beyond reasonable doubt." In addition, the rules of evidence are also much looser, including the admissibility of hearsay, and very little in the way of Fourth Amendment protections. As they said in Administrator v. Todd:
...while the exclusionary rule may be applied in certain civil proceedings, the "likely social benefits of excluding unlawfully seized evidence [are weighed] against the likely costs." INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1041 (1984), citing U.S. v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 446 (1976).
Click to expand...
And in Administrator v. Martz (yeah, the same dude with the oral sex in the helo tape, but from the earlier time when his license was suspended):
We have previously held that "searches" for evidence concerning an enforcement action is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, because the Administrator has broad authority to conduct investigations in pursuing an enforcement action, among other reasons. (citing Administrator v. Brodnax, 3 NTSB 2795, 2796 (1980) (quoting Administrator v. Patterson, NTSB Order No. EA-1265 at 8 (1979)); see also Administrator v. Weichert, NTSB Order No. EA-3650 at 1 n.4 (1992))
Click to expand...
Finally, from Weichert:
Respondent contends that the "evidence," i.e., the inspector's observations during the ramp inspection, should have been excluded because the inspector did not have a search warrant to conduct the inspection. Respondent fails to cite any legal authority in support of this contention, and the Board is unaware of any legal precedent requiring an extension of Fourth Amendment protections to the gathering of evidence used in FAA enforcement proceedings.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top