Why can't private pilots fly for hire?

Why would you give Schumer a shot at any reg involving GA?

DrMack said:
The common purpose doctrine is explicitly preserved in the proposed bill. Nowhere in the proposal does it advocate the abolition of the distinction between commercial and private operations. In fact, it does just the opposite.
Click to expand...
 
Captain said:
Great. So instead of raising required flight experience post Colgan you folks want to get rid of the commercial ticket all together. That will be a fine day when the airlines can fire all those expensive pilots and replace them with PPL looking to offset 100LL costs.

You guys are on to something here!

[/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

Told you guys, whining commercial pilots have brought this stuff on. You want fries with your next furlough?
 
wabower said:
Why would you give Schumer a shot at any reg involving GA?
Click to expand...
It would actually be in the hands of Maria Cantwell if she manages to defeat "go f#$* yourself" Michael Baumgartner in November. If she fails, who knows who would end up with the appointment. That's up to the leadership to decide. We can only speculate at this point. The House on the other hand is more certain as most of the majority members of the Subcommittee on Aviation are expected to return for the 113th.
 
DrMack said:
It is way past time for the private citizen to have their right to use their private property for private benefit restored without interference from the Machiavellian bureaucrats who have twisted themselves into a Gordian knot of irrational decrees that necessarily commands the attention of the people to unravel through the legislative process.
Click to expand...

This statement applies to more than just aviation. But that's Spin Zone stuff.

Great ideas, great legislation.

Sent from my Nexus 7
 
Looks like I came in late in this game. I don't have a problem with requiring a CPL and 135 ops to fly people for commercial purposes. I am, however, less than happy I can't be fully compensated for a flight with passengers.

If I fly myself to a business meeting, I can recoup the expense of the flight 100%. If I take a coworker that is a required attendee, I can only recoup 50% of the expense, and that half technically comes from the co worker. How bizarre is that. ( You betcha I'm getting compensated one way or the other, just sayin'.)
 
Jay Honeck said:
In another thread, I marveled at the gymnastics some poor guy was going through to find a ride to Wyoming. The convoluted FAA rules banning private pilots from receiving compensation of any kind for flying are really quite amazing.

Which begs the question: Why? What historic event, or train of events, led the FAA to take away our ability to charge -- or be voluntarily compensated -- for providing a valuable service?

Sent from my Nexus 7
Click to expand...
I think it's three things at work:

1. Protection of the public. Pilots and operations that are being paid to carry passengers and their property are held to a higher standard. You're welcome to quibble about this but I'm not sure I'd get on a city bus if I knew its wasn't been driven by a driver who was held to higher quality standards and a company held to higher safety standards. And as as a commuter, I know a heck of a lot more about busses than the typical passenger knows about airplanes. So it's about higher safety standards to protect those who are nor really in a position to protect themselves. I mentioned busses. You can also say cross country trucking. For that matter, let's go back to the stagecoach, one of the original public carriers.

2. To protect the investment of those who follow the rules. The pilots and operators who do this stuff legitimately have made investments in training, time and money to meet the standards. It would not be fair to those who play by the rules to turn a blind eye to those who try to get around them.

3. People are creative. The same multiple threads that bemoan the rules as they are usually have at least a few folks who play "super-technical-jailhouse-lawyer" and find these teeny inconsequential ways around the rules. "If we do it this way...maybe...?" The kinda vague nature of the rules is a direct response to that kind of creativity. They appear less convoluted, though, when you consider them in this way.

YMMV
 
ClimbnSink said:
Told you guys, whining commercial pilots have brought this stuff on. You want fries with your next furlough?
Click to expand...

midlifeflyer said:
I think it's three things at work:

1. Protection of the public. Pilots and operations that are being paid to carry passengers and their property are held to a higher standard. You're welcome to quibble about this but I'm not sure I'd get on a city bus if I knew its wasn't been driven by a driver who was held to higher quality standards and a company held to higher safety standards. And as as a commuter, I know a heck of a lot more about busses than the typical passenger knows about airplanes. So it's about higher safety standards to protect those who are nor really in a position to protect themselves. I mentioned busses. You can also say cross country trucking. For that matter, let's go back to the stagecoach, one of the original public carriers.

2. To protect the investment of those who follow the rules. The pilots and operators who do this stuff legitimately have made investments in training, time and money to meet the standards. It would not be fair to those who play by the rules to turn a blind eye to those who try to get around them.

3. People are creative. The same multiple threads that bemoan the rules as they are usually have at least a few folks who play "super-technical-jailhouse-lawyer" and find these teeny inconsequential ways around the rules. "If we do it this way...maybe...?" The kinda vague nature of the rules is a direct response to that kind of creativity. They appear less convoluted, though, when you consider them in this way.

YMMV
Click to expand...


First quote misses the mark.

Second quote is valid and spot on.
 
ClimbnSink said:
At least you admit it aint about safety.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It is about safety. That is the root of the authority granted to the FAA by Congress to enact 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.

The proposed legislation affirms the need for a clear distinction between commercial and private operations and strives to unambiguously bar the private pilot 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. So through the democratic process we have to do it for them and for ourselves.
 
DrMack for Congress!

(I do believe he is smarter and calmer than the rest of us)
 
I'm all for private property rights.

Maybe some sort of 'established relationship' could be devised. I don't know. It seems whatever you do can be gamed and would end up being worse than what we have. I do understand it ain't perfect now and it's crazy people can't share rides.

I think the interpretations presented here go way too far and would never be enforced...but then again, cap'n ron and others I'm sure would come right in with case law where they were enforced.

Again, I don't know the fix. I do know Greg has an axe to grind for some reason.
 
I have never understood why providing the plane can't be considered in shareing the cost for a common purpose. If we rent a plane, the non- pilot can share in the rental cost but if I own a plane, I can't say "I'll provide the plane, you buy the fuel".
 
Graueradler said:
I have never understood why providing the plane can't be considered in shareing the cost for a common purpose. If we rent a plane, the non- pilot can share in the rental cost but if I own a plane, I can't say "I'll provide the plane, you buy the fuel".
Click to expand...

Don't most aircraft owning partnerships have a dry rate they charge their partners for maintenance? Could you do something like that for a personally owned aircraft and split the dry rate?
 
douglas393 said:
You do not realize how close you are to the truth in medicine. Once you grtaduate from medical school you are called doctor. Once you are licensed by a state, you can call yourself any type of doctor you want. In every state I have practiced, there are no laws that say all because you do not have formal traing in a specialty you cannot say your practice is limited to that specialty. You cannot say you are board certified or board eligible if you are not, but you can call yourself whatever you want. The hospitals have control over what you can do in the hospital, but you can put a shingle up and practice whatever you want. If you screw up enough the state will eventually find out and do what is appropriate, but believe me there is a lot of stuff that is done out there in the name of medicine that is just plain unacceptable.

Oh and why are people always picking on the neurosurgeons?

Doug
Click to expand...

Picking on docs who play with brains is more fun than picking on those who remove hemorrhoids.:goofy:
 
Micheal Burgess, R-TX 26th, is a private pilot. He does not fly now that I know of, but we shared one CFI and he told me he sold his Cherokee 6 a few years ago. He may be a friendly ear.

DrMack said:
But I am. The idea is beginning to gain some traction both in Congress and various interests in the GA community. My goal is to find a sponsor in the US House immediately after the session begins in January. Here is the proposal that I am currently discussing with the legislative coordinator for Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX32):


[FONT=&quot]Restoring the Freedom to Fly for Private Benefit[/FONT]​








[FONT=&quot]Timothy F. McDonough, Ph.D.[/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]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]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]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]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]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]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]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]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]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]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]The fountainhead of these fetters is the proscription on private pilots enumerated in 14 CFR 61.113(b)(2):[/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]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]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]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]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]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]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]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]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]It is therefore proposed to urge Congress to enact the following draft language of an amendment to the FAA Act of 1958:[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]One Hundred Thirteenth Congress of the[/FONT]​



[FONT=&quot]United States of America[/FONT]​



[FONT=&quot]AT THE FIRST SESSION[/FONT]​



[FONT=&quot]Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]An Act 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. 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]
Click to expand...
 
DrMack said:
I disagree. It is about safety. That is the root of the authority granted to the FAA by Congress to enact 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.

The proposed legislation affirms the need for a clear distinction between commercial and private operations and strives to unambiguously bar the private pilot 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. So through the democratic process we have to do it for them and for ourselves.
Click to expand...
The beginnings of the federal control of aviation were more about the delivery of mail more than anything else. Passengers were a second thought, and were apparently included because if you had paying passengers then it would cheaper to fly the mail. Safety was mentioned, but I think it was more about protecting the mail, more so than people. The early aviation accident rates were quite high.

Doug
 
Aviation attorneys are quick to point out that the FAA has pretty much gone it's own way insofar as definitions and interpretations of various terms are concerned. They lament the fact that various government agencies that interact with aviation (primarily IRS and FAA) disagree on many fundamental concepts.
 
wabower said:
Aviation attorneys are quick to point out that the FAA has pretty much gone it's own way insofar as definitions and interpretations of various terms are concerned. They lament the fact that various government agencies that interact with aviation (primarily IRS and FAA) disagree on many fundamental concepts.
Click to expand...

I don't know many aviation attorneys, but among the few law cases that I have read, I found the use of the words "incidental" and "common purpose" were defined inconsistently. I do not think it wise to use them in any proposed legislation.

But I think it is nice of DrMack to put the effort in and I'd help out if there was anything he thought he needed. I'm just a working plebe without any political influence.
 
texasag93 said:
Micheal Burgess, R-TX 26th, is a private pilot. He does not fly now that I know of, but we shared one CFI and he told me he sold his Cherokee 6 a few years ago. He may be a friendly ear.
Click to expand...

For someone on the other side: Collin Peterson D-MN owns a Bonanza and uses it to travel around his district.

Look at whoever was on the PBOR, ther were some oddball urban democrats in the list of cosponsors.
 
It might be an idea to get pilots from several states pushing this at the same time to their Congressman / Representative. If it comes from several sources at one time then the legislation may gain more traction.

I'm in TX as well (Olson's district)
 
Thank you to all who have weighed in with some very constructive criticism and expressions of support and apologies to my friend Jay for diverting the discussion on his original question but on that point I would like to respond with my opinion that private pilots should not be allowed to fly "for hire". Promotion of my agenda necessarily incorporates the arguments against allowing private pilots to fly for hire so I took advantage of the opening on this thread to present them along with the core objective of my legislative proposal to allow private pilots to at least be fairly reimbursed for expenses incurred when their private property (rented or owned) is used incidentally in connection with a business.

So there is my response to the original question and to be fair to the spirit of that discussion I will now move the dialogue on the legislative proposal to a thread of its own. And again, sorry Jay if your original question got drowned out in the din of the discussion on the legislation.
 
DrMack said:
Thank you to all who have weighed in with some very constructive criticism and expressions of support and apologies to my friend Jay for diverting the discussion on his original question but on that point I would like to respond with my opinion that private pilots should not be allowed to fly "for hire". Promotion of my agenda necessarily incorporates the arguments against allowing private pilots to fly for hire so I took advantage of the opening on this thread to present them along with the core objective of my legislative proposal to allow private pilots to at least be fairly reimbursed for expenses incurred when their private property (rented or owned) is used incidentally in connection with a business.

So there is my response to the original question and to be fair to the spirit of that discussion I will now move the dialogue on the legislative proposal to a thread of its own. And again, sorry Jay if your original question got drowned out in the din of the discussion on the legislation.
Click to expand...

No problem, Doc! I'm with you 100%! :D

Sent from my Nexus 7
 
I do find it odd that such an enormous sea change took place in aviation, and no one seems to remember what happened. Somehow we lost the right to compensation for the use of private property -- and no one knows why, other than some vague, dimly recalled muscle memories of "safety issues".

Usually, a dramatic change like this is preceded by some catastrophic event. Think: the midair collision of two airliners over the Grand Canyon that precipitated the creation of the modern ATC system. THAT was an event that changed everything.

In the case I've brought up, however, there seems to be no defining moment, no major event that spurred Herbert Hoover and Congress to rein in aviation. It doesn't seem like there were planes raining from the skies, or any major accident of note.

(Hmmm. Wait a minute. When did Will Rogers die in that plane wreck? Gonna have to Google that...)

(Edit: Nope, that happened in 1935. Never mind.)

Rather, it seems that the invention of the Civil Aviation Authority in 1926 was viewed at the time, by pilots ad non-pilots alike, as a relatively benign, mostly harmless new government entity -- that then gradually accumulated and expanded power, until ten years later the barnstormers were gone, and we had lost our right to be compensated for the use of our private property and skills.

A cautionary tale, to be sure. One can't help noting the similarities between TSA ten years ago, and TSA today.

Sent from my Nexus 7
 
Last edited:
My Opinion:

I do not believe a pilot should hold out to the public as air transportation unless they have met a higher standard than the private pilot.

I no not believe a pilot should use their aircraft to make money, unless that aircraft and pilot meets a higher standard.

I do believe that any private pilot should be able to legally take a friend to where they want to go and recoup expenses for doing so.
 
When we owned child care centers we had a fleet of vehicles ranging from SUV's to full-size school busses. Hauling kids was incidental to our business and no fee for transportation was charged. CDL's were required.
 
Tom-D said:
I do not believe a pilot should hold out to the public as air transportation unless they have met a higher standard than the private pilot.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Tom-D said:
I no not believe a pilot should use their aircraft to make money, unless that aircraft and pilot meets a higher standard.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Tom-D said:
I do believe that any private pilot should be able to legally take a friend to where they want to go and recoup expenses for doing so.
Click to expand...
Agreed, with the proviso that the PP shares a common purpose with the "friend", as the acquisition of "friends" too easily morphs into holding out to the public.
 
DrMack said:
Agreed, with the proviso that the PP shares a common purpose with the "friend", as the acquisition of "friends" too easily morphs into holding out to the public.
Click to expand...

So Facebook friends don't count. ;) ;)
 
texasag93 said:
Picking on docs who play with brains is more fun than picking on those who remove hemorrhoids.:goofy:
Click to expand...
There you go again picking on those poor neurosurgeons. Neurosurgeons do not PLAY with brains, we carefully operate on them, and I would suggest that there are probably more proctology jokes anyhow. :goofy:

Doug
 
DrMack said:
Agreed, with the proviso that the PP shares a common purpose with the "friend", as the acquisition of "friends" too easily morphs into holding out to the public.
Click to expand...

I think I should be able to take anyone anywhere they want to go, as long as I don't profit from it.

Nothing is stoping me from putting an ad in the paper, and taking as many as 3 people anywhere in the US, provided I do it at no charge to them.

If I can do it for free, I just can't be compensated for my expenses, you have not solved a safety issue.

Funny, I have heard a joke before about Prostitution, it went something like this:

Sex: The only thing in America that's illegal to charge for, but legal to give away for free.

I guess that's not completely accurate.
 
Last edited:
How are such expenses defined? Would the same provisions apply as those used by the FAA under the disallowance rules for personal use of business aircraft?

DrMack said:
Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed, with the proviso that the PP shares a common purpose with the "friend", as the acquisition of "friends" too easily morphs into holding out to the public.
Click to expand...
 
Are other lawyer jokes permitted?

douglas393 said:
There you go again picking on those poor neurosurgeons. Neurosurgeons do not PLAY with brains, we carefully operate on them, and I would suggest that there are probably more proctology jokes anyhow. :goofy:

Doug
Click to expand...
 
DrMack said:
Agreed, with the proviso that the PP shares a common purpose with the "friend", as the acquisition of "friends" too easily morphs into holding out to the public.
Click to expand...

I see no reason for there to be a need for a common reason for the flight.

If I know the person well enough to do it, then that should be all there is to it.

Holding out to the public is telling the world in some fashion that you are available to fly them any where at any time for money.

That's a commercial operation and is not in the realm of friends helping one another.
 
Tom-D said:
I see no reason for there to be a need for a common reason for the flight.

If I know the person well enough to do it, then that should be all there is to it.

Holding out to the public is telling the world in some fashion that you are available to fly them any where at any time for money.

That's a commercial operation and is not in the realm of friends helping one another.
Click to expand...
The common purpose doctrine solves the problem of a private pilot receiving compensation (even if only reimbursement for expenses) for a flight in which the pilot has no reason to conduct except for the compensation. It also puts a choke on the bureaucrats' notion of "compensation" encompassing what we economists call "psychic income."
 
DrMack said:
The common purpose doctrine solves the problem of a private pilot receiving compensation (even if only reimbursement for expenses) for a flight in which the pilot has no reason to conduct except for the compensation.
Click to expand...

Why would a pilot fly for compensation, when the cost is the same? That makes no sense.

How about if no money actually ever goes to the pilot, but at the FBO, when they look over the counter and say "plane is all filled up", that the guy your flying hands that person his credit card?

I see no reasonable reason why that should be illegal.

I have no problem flying someone somewhere, and making nothing in return. I can find a lot less reasons to pay to fly people places. That hurts no one, other then the person looking for a ride.
 
Jay Honeck said:
I do find it odd that such an enormous sea change took place in aviation, and no one seems to remember what happened. Somehow we lost the right to compensation for the use of private property -- and no one knows why, other than some vague, dimly recalled muscle memories of "safety issues".
Click to expand...


New Chief Counsel who read the words differently than the previous person.

I don't think it was a sudden change, it was a different interpertation. When it happened, some said "yeah, that's how it's always been", others said "wow, I didn't know that" and a few said "No, that's wrong". But guess who they listened to? None of them.
 
Mafoo said:
Why would a pilot fly for compensation, when the cost is the same? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Jackpot. I am totally with you on that thought. The problem is, the FAA is not. They even take the position that earning "good will" is "compensation" under 61.113! So if we don't want to jeopardize our tickets we all need to become mean, nasty, cantankerous, old men who wouldn't bother to cross the street to save the life of a child. Oh wait...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top