Today's Avweb Flash had a letter from the Air Care Alliance over the signature of Rick Durden. The letter described the regulations that control volunteer piloting and the rationale behind them. It makes the point that the objective of the regulations is to protect passengers unfamiliar with the less stringent part 91 regulations that govern volunteer flight compared to the stricter regulations that govern parts 121 and 135 flight for hire.
The primary regulation is that a volunteer pilot cannot receive compensation for the flight. No gas money, no free rental, no use of an airplane borrowed from the Volunteer Pilot Organization.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong and if I am, please correct me. But I don't see how requiring that a pilot not receive any help with the costs provides any protection to a passenger. Now a requirement to tell passengers that they are flying under less stringent regulations would go some way towards doing that. But not the absence of compensation.
As I was thinking about it, I was wondering if the absence of compensation would have the opposite effect. I was thinking about a pilot bringing a patient to a big city (ready $8/gallon 100LL) airport and then back again later in the day. Is that pilot ever tempted to return home with less fuel than they could safely carry because they would rather pay $4/gal at home. I'm not saying that the pilot would take a high risk, but flying with less fuel rather than more fuel means the chances of something going wrong and running out are a little higher than they would have been if more fuel were carried.
Similarly with weather. Has anyone been tempted to fly home in deteriorating weather because they wanted to avoid an overnight in a big city $400/night hotel room. Whereas if they were able to receive compensation for expenses, it would be an easier decision to postpone until the next day.
I am not complaining about the FAA. I can see that they would be under tremendous political pressure from part 121 and 135 operators if they liberalized volunteer pilot flying. They can't do it. Protestations from the FAA to the contrary, that is reality. My question is why would the Air Care Alliance spread this story, though. Wouldn't it be simpler and more honest to just say what the regulations are and instruct pilots to violate them at their own peril.
I guess one possible explanation for the ACA trying to justify the regulations is that the alternative would be to expect them to be fighting to get the regulations changed. And they don't want to do that extra work.
The primary regulation is that a volunteer pilot cannot receive compensation for the flight. No gas money, no free rental, no use of an airplane borrowed from the Volunteer Pilot Organization.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong and if I am, please correct me. But I don't see how requiring that a pilot not receive any help with the costs provides any protection to a passenger. Now a requirement to tell passengers that they are flying under less stringent regulations would go some way towards doing that. But not the absence of compensation.
As I was thinking about it, I was wondering if the absence of compensation would have the opposite effect. I was thinking about a pilot bringing a patient to a big city (ready $8/gallon 100LL) airport and then back again later in the day. Is that pilot ever tempted to return home with less fuel than they could safely carry because they would rather pay $4/gal at home. I'm not saying that the pilot would take a high risk, but flying with less fuel rather than more fuel means the chances of something going wrong and running out are a little higher than they would have been if more fuel were carried.
Similarly with weather. Has anyone been tempted to fly home in deteriorating weather because they wanted to avoid an overnight in a big city $400/night hotel room. Whereas if they were able to receive compensation for expenses, it would be an easier decision to postpone until the next day.
I am not complaining about the FAA. I can see that they would be under tremendous political pressure from part 121 and 135 operators if they liberalized volunteer pilot flying. They can't do it. Protestations from the FAA to the contrary, that is reality. My question is why would the Air Care Alliance spread this story, though. Wouldn't it be simpler and more honest to just say what the regulations are and instruct pilots to violate them at their own peril.
I guess one possible explanation for the ACA trying to justify the regulations is that the alternative would be to expect them to be fighting to get the regulations changed. And they don't want to do that extra work.