What would you do?

[poadeleted20]

There is a reason I only fill in the log on a quarterly basis - so many hours, so many TOL, so many night hours, so many XC hours, so many IFR approaches, etc. for the quarter ending 3/31/2010...
No individual flights are logged in the official book...

You can do that if you wish, but then your "official book" doesn't meet the FAA's standard for Pilot Logbooks as established by 14 CFR 61.51(b), and that "logbook" could not be used to establish Part 61 aeronautical experience, training, or currency compliance.

 

[poadeleted20]

99% of the times someone has gotten into a hassle with the FAA over compensation is because they have been running their mouth in the pilot's lounge...

My friends at the FSDO suggest that they get into this more over complaints by passengers and observation of fishy operations than by word of mouth, but telling other folks about your illegal activities is always contrary to your own self-interest, especially since hearsay evidence of a "statement against penal interest" is admissible even in criminal actions, not just administrative proceedings like FAA enforcement actions.

 

[Ted]

Ummm...maybe not. See Administrator v. Martz. Of course, when you make a video, what happens in the plane may not stay in the plane (or helo).

Well, doing something like that AND taking video of it is double stupid. Plus it doesn't sound like the guy was an upstanding pilot, having multiple previous suspensions and revokations.

 

[RotorAndWing]

If you'd read further down that section, you would have seen that cases involving "Operating without having been issued a required certificate, rating, or other required and valid authorization" (and carrying property for hire without CP and 135 certificates is such) are automatically excluded from the E-EDP process and legal action is required. Also, while not specifically stated in the books, it appears to me that taking money can hardly be called "inadvertent," a necessary condition for use administrative action such as you described rather than legal enforcement action. After reviewing numerous cases on point, FAA Order 2150.3B on sanctions, and the entirety of Section 14-8 in FAA Order 8900.1, it appears that the sanction in a case of "Operation for compensation or hire when a valid commercial pilot certificate had not been issued" (which is what this would be) is a minimum 90-day suspension and a max of revocation -- hardly things to be toying with.

But perhaps the Inspectors you know are softies who bend their own rules in cases like this.

So which is it Ron? On the one hand you state this should be a 90 day suspension, but in another post:

I agree, and it wouldn't even get to a court, no less the Regional Counsel. However, the original question asked about accepting expense money, and it is this point which I was addressing. Of course, as I said up front, if there is no money involved (other than the cash in the wallet, assuming it all goes to hubby along with the wallet without any "shrinkage" en route), it's completely legal.

So which is it?

You have some odd takes on the FAR's and FAA enforcement but when it really boils down to it, these are just your observations based upon no real working experience in the system with no basis in fact.

But perhaps the Inspectors you know are softies who bend their own rules in cases like this.

No, the Inspectors I'm associated with use the tools and references provided to do the job. But they also use common sense and training to know their limitations.

If you truly knew what is involved in opening an EIR and what follows you would understand why ASI's don't just pursue unjustified violations. There is an entire chain above him that must approve his actions and any of them can send it back down if they don't deem it actionable.

 

[somorris]

My interpretation of the regs agrees with Cap'n Ron. I think all of us know getting paid to take the wallet up would be contrary to the regulations, just like doing 65 mph in a 55 mph zone is illegal. Most of the drivers around here are criminals. Just do it, but not for hire.

 

[Aztec Driver]

So which is it Ron? On the one hand you state this should be a 90 day suspension, but in another post:



So which is it?

You have some odd takes on the FAR's and FAA enforcement but when it really boils down to it, these are just your observations based upon no real working experience in the system with no basis in fact.



No, the Inspectors I'm associated with use the tools and references provided to do the job. But they also use common sense and training to know their limitations.

If you truly knew what is involved in opening an EIR and what follows you would understand why ASI's don't just pursue unjustified violations. There is an entire chain above him that must approve his actions and any of them can send it back down if they don't deem it actionable.

It is clearly illegal by the regs, however, people do it everyday and the feds will not really care unless an incident or accident occurs, or someone pushes the issue into the spotlight.

Ron said it was illegal per the regs, then said it was not a big issue. What's your beef?

 

[RotorAndWing]

It is clearly illegal by the regs, however, people do it everyday and the feds will not really care unless an incident or accident occurs, or someone pushes the issue into the spotlight.

Thank you. That's the correct observation.

Ron said it was illegal per the regs, then said it was not a big issue. What's your beef?

I guess you can say "my beef" is the constant hammering that someone will be immediately violated for the smallest infraction of a reg, and that somehow the FAA will pursue anyone for the hint of an infraction without using judgment or common sense. More myths being perpetuated via internet forums.

 

[poadeleted20]

So which is it Ron? On the one hand you state this should be a 90 day suspension, but in another post:



So which is it?

If you look at the answers to differing questions, it's OK (and should even be expected) to see differences in the answers. One last time for the hard-of-reading...

In the posted situation (delivery of neighbor's wallet by a flight a private pilot made only to deliver the wallet), if there's no money changing hands (not a dime), there's no issue. If you accept money for transporting that property by air, you've violated 61.113 (among other rules) and if the FAA finds out (which is unlikely unless your neighbors complain to them), you are subject to an enforcement action and significant suspension without the option of administrative action.

Got it?

 

[poadeleted20]

I guess you can say "my beef" is the constant hammering that someone will be immediately violated for the smallest infraction of a reg, and that somehow the FAA will pursue anyone for the hint of an infraction without using judgment or common sense. More myths being perpetuated via internet forums.

Perhaps you're OK with giving people false information just because you think it's unlikely they'll get caught, but when someone asks what the rule are, I give them the rule. If they ask what the chances of getting caught breaking that rule are, I'll give them my opinion on that, but I won't omit the potential consequences if they do get caught.

 

[RotorAndWing]

if the FAA finds out (which is unlikely unless your neighbors complain to them), you are subject to an enforcement action and significant suspension without the option of administrative action.

That's just your opinion of the situation without any basis of actual working knowledge of such. Once again, as you are so infamous for doing, you have cherry picked a piece of information that suits your needs and have ignored the rest in order to make your case.

It simply doesn't work that way.

Got it?

 

[poadeleted20]

That's just your opinion of the situation without any basis of actual working knowledge of such.

As I said above, that's not my "opinion," that's what it says in FAA Order 2150.3B. Whether an individual inspector chooses to follow the book or not is unpredictable (on occasion, I've seen them let piddly stuff slide), but that's what the book says, and those are the penalties to which you may be subject.

 

[RotorAndWing]

As I said above, that's not my "opinion," that's what it says in FAA Order 2150.3B. Whether an individual inspector chooses to follow the book or not is unpredictable (on occasion, I've seen them let piddly stuff slide), but that's what the book says, and those are the penalties to which you may be subject.

You're taking only a small piece of information and drawing a conclusion on the whole process and ignoring everything else.

Since you've never been trained in the process and have no working knowledge of what's actually involved we'll just drop it there.

 

[RotorAndWing]

At least I gave you something new to read (Order 2150.3 )from all your postings here and another board in reference thereof.

 

[poadeleted20]

Since you've never been trained in the process

And you were? In any event, for those confused by the discussion, R&W has provided his opinion on the likelihood of the FAA taking action, while I've provided the law and FAA direction to its employees on point. I think you all have enough information to make your own choice the next time someone offers you money for air transportation. Please choose wisely?

 

[weilke]

And you were?

With 'Aviation Safety Inspector' as stated occupation in his profile.....

 

[Henning]

I posted this on the Purple board and so I will post it here, too.
I would like to ask about a hypothetical situation. Lets say a guys wife would contact you and say something like, " My husband left, in the car, real early this morning for a meeting in a town about 200 miles distant, and when I got up I found he left his billfold here at the house." Lets say she wants to know if you could fly his billfold up to him. Now does the FAA say that you can't fly someone for hire without a commercial license, or does it say you can't fly a billfold without a commercial license. Could you make this trip to fly a billfold? How about for expenses?

The rules say no compensation for the flight. The rules don't say you can't bring your buddy his wallet and save his rear. The rules don't say your buddy can't give you $200 to help you with a credit card bill.

 

[poadeleted20]

With 'Aviation Safety Inspector' as stated occupation in his profile.....

Since he has made several posts which are contrary to what I've been told directly by several FSDO's, I have my doubts.

 

[weilke]

Since he has made several posts which are contrary to what I've been told directly by several FSDO's, I have my doubts.

So he's a liar because he disagrees with you at times ?

 

[poadeleted20]

So he's a liar because he disagrees with you at times ?

Didn't say that. I simply said I have doubts because what he has said in the past disagrees with what folks I know are FAA Inspectors have told me. Also, if he is an Inspector, given his background, I suspect he's on the Air Carrier rather than GA side, and there are differences. I've often had AC inspectors had me off to GA inspectors because of their lack of familiarity with the GA side. In any event, his statement that a reported case of a private pilot being paid for carrying cargo would be handled as a verbal reminder of the regs is contrary to the FAA Orders on the issue (8900.1 and 2150.3B) -- and that's a demonstrable fact. I'll be talking to some Inspectors I know on Monday about what they'd do in this case, and will report back.

 

[weilke]

A good percentage of cases that involve suspensions get appealed and should be in the NTSB files.

I wonder whether there is a case where:
- a single personal effect (not commercial merchandise),
- was transported for a single instance,
- the pilot/operator received partial reimbursement for his expenses,
- it did not revolve around a competitive situation between a charter outfit and a local part91 operator such as a FBO with scenic flight authorization,

....that ended with a suspension based on part 119 and 135 regulations.

Other than that, this discussion is about as relevant as prior discussions about whose credit card is used at the fuel pump on a joint flight to Oshkosh or during a pancake run.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Didn't say that. I simply said I have doubts because what he has said in the past disagrees with what folks I know are FAA Inspectors have told me. Also, if he is an Inspector, given his background, I suspect he's on the Air Carrier rather than GA side, and there are differences. I've often had AC inspectors had me off to GA inspectors because of their lack of familiarity with the GA side. In any event, his statement that a reported case of a private pilot being paid for carrying cargo would be handled as a verbal reminder of the regs is contrary to the FAA Orders on the issue (8900.1 and 2150.3B) -- and that's a demonstrable fact. I'll be talking to some Inspectors I know on Monday about what they'd do in this case, and will report back.

Since he has made several posts which are contrary to what I've been told directly by several FSDO's, I have my doubts.

You can have all the doubts you want Ron since it really doesn't matter what you think. I'm not Air Carrier even though I retired after 24 years in the Airline. I have an extensive background in GA (Fixed Wing, Rotor Wing and Maintenance).

You tend to take items to the extreme since you are the self proclaimed "expert" in everything FAA. What I have tried to point out to you is there are several other factors when dealing with these situations that you are unaware of and you're too stubborn to listen since it diminishes your fiefdom.

I don't get on these forums and claim to be a "spokesman" for the FAA (unlike you). I'm here because I am still active in GA and enjoy it and try to promote Aviation Safety and awareness.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Other than that, this discussion is about as relevant as prior discussions about whose credit card is used at the fuel pump on a joint flight to Oshkosh or during a pancake run.

Good analogy.

 

[poadeleted20]

A good percentage of cases that involve suspensions get appealed and should be in the NTSB files.

I don't think that's true at all. Do you have any statistics?

I wonder whether there is a case where:
- a single personal effect (not commercial merchandise),
- was transported for a single instance,
- the pilot/operator received partial reimbursement for his expenses,
- it did not revolve around a competitive situation between a charter outfit and a local part91 operator such as a FBO with scenic flight authorization,

....that ended with a suspension based on part 119 and 135 regulations.

Since this was a private pilot, 61.113 would come into play, and FAA Order 2150.3B makes the distinction.

In any event, your qualification of the case makes it so specific that it's unlikely to have come before the NTSB or even to have occurred before. However, there are cases in which a single instance was prosecuted, cases in which partial reimbursement was prosecuted, and cases where a competitive situation was not involved. In addition, the long history of legal interpretations on point make clear the FAA Chief Counsel's position. So, the question is not whether it is illegal, and sustainable before an ALJ or the NTSB, but whether the FSDO will let it slide. R&W suggests they would, but many inspectors may not see it that way. I'll be getting some other input on that point from inspectors I know on Monday.

That said, it would seem irresponsible to me if an FAA Inspector were to suggest that one could get away with such an illegal act, but that's just a personal opinion.

 

[weilke]

I don't think that's true at all. Do you have any statistics?

Do you have any ?

I don't know the percentage. But if people get their license taken away (and according to you, carrying that wallet would mean an automatic suspension), they tend to fight.

As alledgedly the FAA is going around and strip-searching pilots for contraband, there should be plenty of FAA enforcement actions for 'illegal wallet carriage', some of them should have made their way to the NTSB by now.

Since this was a private pilot, 61.113 would come into play, and FAA Order 2150.3B makes the distinction.

And a search of the NTSB database turns up three cases where 61.113 was cited as the basis of the action:
- 1 case of someone killing 4pax while flying an overloaded pa32 carrying mail to the bahamas as a regular courier service.
- 1 case of a private pilot flying skydivers for hire with one getting killed.
- 1 case of a shuttle run in competition with a part135 outfit (the 'Mr Eds Bar' case).

In any event, your qualification of the case makes it so specific that it's unlikely to have come before the NTSB or even to have occurred before.

It is the case that started this whole episode of regulation wanking: Bob Bement being asked to fly a fellows wallet down the valley.

However, there are cases in which a single instance was prosecuted, cases in which partial reimbursement was prosecuted, and cases where a competitive situation was not involved.

Yes, and that makes all the difference. All those other cases had other, more egregious violations or consequences (e.g. people dead) attached which drove the prosecution.

In addition, the long history of legal interpretations on point make clear the FAA Chief Counsel's position.

But as the chief counsel doesn't perform ramp-checks or makes the phonecalls when a violation is alledged. Humans, who often have been in the same shoes before (as pilots, CFIs, mechanics) are the ones who make those decisions in the field.
Yes, the attorney general of the state may have issued a policy that anyone speeding more than 15mph should be handcuffed and hauled to jail. Still, in real life, the trooper on the interstate is more likely to give the 16mph speeder a 14mph ticket and a 'inappropriate tint' citation than taking him to jail.

So, the question is not whether it is illegal, and sustainable before an ALJ or the NTSB, but whether the FSDO will let it slide. R&W suggests they would, but many inspectors may not see it that way. I'll be getting some other input on that point from inspectors I know on Monday.

We'll take your word for it

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm trying to ascertain the point you're making. In any event, the fact that there is no directly parallel case doesn't change the fact that this is a violation of the rules, and the potential penalty is a long suspension. Whether or not the Inspector who catches the complaint will proceed by the book or let it go with a talking-to seems to be the only issue remaining, and if you want to bet your ticket on the chance that an Inspector with R&W's attitude towards this situation is the investigating officer, that's your choice to make. The only thing remaining is to find out what the general attitude of FAA Inspectors is, and I'm working on that.

 

[wabower]

Well, this is an aviation forum. And like the FAA, we sometimes seem to take the position that nothing is so small that we can't make a big deal out of it, a veritable cacophony of nattering nabobs.

Other than that, this discussion is about as relevant as prior discussions about whose credit card is used at the fuel pump on a joint flight to Oshkosh or during a pancake run.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The only thing remaining is to find out what the general attitude of FAA Inspectors is, and I'm working on that.

Make sure to include their names along with the quotes.

 

[weilke]

I'm trying to ascertain the point you're making.

I do that too sometimes. If I run out of answers, I claim that my opponent is confused.

The only thing remaining is to find out what the general attitude of FAA Inspectors is, and I'm working on that.

Your hearsay from 'unnamed inspectors' will have exactly the same weight in this question as the statements of R&W who chooses to be anonymous in this forum.

 

[poadeleted20]

Your hearsay from 'unnamed inspectors' will have exactly the same weight in this question as the statements of R&W who chooses to be anonymous in this forum.

We'll see if they agree to go "on the record."

 

[weilke]

We'll see if they agree to go "on the record."

If they do, you win

 

[weilke]

Let's make it a real scenario then:


---------------------------------
Pilot: 'Bob'
Plane: Polished 50s era 182
Site: the great american west

Undisputed facts:

On or about some day, Bob flies wallet from his little town in the mountains to 'the city' and receives $120 in cash to offset the fuel cost.

Now, outside of an accident, there are basically two ways how this could come to the FSDOs attention:

1. Husband goes to the 'big city' FBO and asks whether, 'the pilot who is bringing a package for me' has arrived. Nosy busybody wannabe charter pilot who has to man the FBO front-desk to make at least minimum wage notes down the n-number and rats 'Bob' out to the FSDO.

2. Husband and wife fight about the waste of $120, husband would have been just fine without his wallet and is mad at 'Bob' that he dared to take money for what he felt Bob should have done for free. Husband calls FSDO.

Now, the starting situation is a phonecall to the FSDO from either of those parties.

What will the ASI who gets the voicemail on the 'talk to an ASI' number at the FSDO DO ??

- open a full investigation
- make a phonecall to 'Bob'

-------------------------------------------

 

[poadeleted20]

If they do, you win

It ain't about winning. It's about making sure pilots understand the risks they take, and the potential consequences, if they choose to break the rules. I think even R&W will agree that for a Private Pilot to accept payment for delivering a wallet by air is unarguably a violation of 61.113, among other rules. The only question is what actually happens if the FAA finds out s/he did it.

 

[wabower]

What percentage of GA flights in the USA would you guess are made without any violation of FAA regs?

It ain't about winning. It's about making sure pilots understand the risks they take, and the potential consequences, if they choose to break the rules. I think even R&W will agree that for a Private Pilot to accept payment for delivering a wallet by air is unarguably a violation of 61.113, among other rules. The only question is what actually happens if the FAA finds out s/he did it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Let's make it a real scenario then:


---------------------------------
Pilot: 'Bob'
Plane: Polished 50s era 182
Site: the great american west

Undisputed facts:

On or about some day, Bob flies wallet from his little town in the mountains to 'the city' and receives $120 in cash to offset the fuel cost.

Now, outside of an accident, there are basically two ways how this could come to the FSDOs attention:

1. Husband goes to the 'big city' FBO and asks whether, 'the pilot who is bringing a package for me' has arrived. Nosy busybody wannabe charter pilot who has to man the FBO front-desk to make at least minimum wage notes down the n-number and rats 'Bob' out to the FSDO.

2. Husband and wife fight about the waste of $120, husband would have been just fine without his wallet and is mad at 'Bob' that he dared to take money for what he felt Bob should have done for free. Husband calls FSDO.

Now, the starting situation is a phonecall to the FSDO from either of those parties.

What will the ASI who gets the voicemail on the 'talk to an ASI' number at the FSDO DO ??

- open a full investigation
- make a phonecall to 'Bob'

-------------------------------------------

That's essentially the question I'm asking the Inspectors I know. And we're assuming that if/when contacted, "Bob" admits to the facts as presented. I'll pass on what I learn.

 

[poadeleted20]

What percentage of GA flights in the USA would you guess are made without any violation of FAA regs?

If you're speaking of inadvertant or unknowing violations, I suspect it's pretty small, and the FAA makes allowance for that in the rules governing enforcement action. But I don't think that's relevant to the issue at hand which involves a deliberate action (unless someone just slipped the money into the pilot's pocket while s/he wasn't looking).

 

[weilke]

(unless someone just slipped the money into the pilot's pocket while s/he wasn't looking).

I have received medications from a US park service ranger before. His statement to me was
'I am a park ranger and neither a doctor nor a pharmacist licensed to dispense medications. However, I will now go into the adjoining office and if that package of TylenolIII in front of me has disappeared upon my return, I will not make a report'.

 

[poadeleted20]

I have received medications from a US park service ranger before. His statement to me was
'I am a park ranger and neither a doctor nor a pharmacist licensed to dispense medications. However, I will now go into the adjoining office and if that package of TylenolIII in front of me has disappeared upon my return, I will not make a report'.

I think we both know that is not the same sort of situation at all. And if hubby finds out his wife's hands were in your pockets while he was out of town, the FAA may be the least of your problems.

 

[wabower]

I disagree with your assertion that the situations are different. Both are nonsense technicalities that are of no consequence whatsoever, assuming at least high two-digit IQ levels. The difference IMO is that some inspectors are former private-sector pilots who understand the realities, and some are chicken-**** government employees whose only demonstrated excellence is the nuances of the rule book. We have some of each here, at least until Vito finds them.

I think we both know that is not the same sort of situation at all. And if hubby finds out his wife's hands were in your pockets while he was out of town, the FAA may be the least of your problems.

 

[weilke]

The difference IMO is that some inspectors are former private-sector pilots who understand the realities, and some are chicken-**** government employees whose only demonstrated excellence is the nuances of the rule book.

The latter are politely referred to as 'college boys' by the local operators

 

[RotorAndWing]

It ain't about winning. It's about making sure pilots understand the risks they take, and the potential consequences, if they choose to break the rules. I think even R&W will agree that for a Private Pilot to accept payment for delivering a wallet by air is unarguably a violation of 61.113, among other rules. The only question is what actually happens if the FAA finds out s/he did it.

Capitulating now? No one said it wasn't a violation. You read an Order (which I provided for you) and now making the statement the consequences are in stone even though you are not familiar with the process.

We'll see if they agree to go "on the record.

They can't. But since you are the "guru" of everything FAA you would know that, right?