A hypothetical - Legal or not?

MauleSkinner said:
OK...I missed the sarcasm. You don't have the misconception that any reasonable person would believe that what you're talking about is illegal.
Click to expand...
Of course I also don't expect the next FAA guy I deal with to be a reasonable person, either. So far they've run about 80/20 reasonable/twits.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So " you decline any monetary payment, but still log that flight time while not paying the costs of operating the aircraft, you’ve received compensation" indicates that logging flight time is "money changing hands"?
Click to expand...
This is the whole point stultus. If you take someone somewhere for their purpose, but you pay all the costs you've violated no regs. Yes, you get to log the time as PIC, but so what? If you're that worried about it, don't log the time. Or are you going to start telling me that the experience of flying your own airplane on your own dime is some sort of fudiciary benefit?

MauleSkinner said:
Regs:
119.5(k) No person may advertise or otherwise offer to perform an operation subject to this part unless that person is authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct that operation.

119.21, Commercial operators engaged in intrastate common carriage and direct air carriers.
119.23, Operators engaged in passenger-carrying operations, cargo operations, or both with airplanes when common carriage is not involved.
119.25, Rotorcraft operations: Direct air carriers and commercial operators.
Click to expand...
I suspect that if you can come up with a definition of "common carriage" you'll find money changes hands. Where some of you come up with this nonsense I'll never know. But just for you:
 
steingar said:
This is the whole point stultus. If you take someone somewhere for their purpose, but you pay all the costs you've violated no regs. Yes, you get to log the time as PIC, but so what? If you're that worried about it, don't log the time. Or are you going to start telling me that the experience of flying your own airplane on your own dime is some sort of fudiciary benefit?
Click to expand...
I’m not telling you that. But if the FBO says, “Hey, Steingar, we need this airplane flown to the avionics shop. If you take it, we won’t charge you for it...and we’ll give Bob a free ride home at the same time,” you’ve entered into a whole nuther area with no money changing hands.


I suspect that if you can come up with a definition of "common carriage" you'll find money changes hands. Where some of you come up with this nonsense I'll never know. But just for you:
Click to expand...
ok... show me a reg that says money changing hands defines common carriage.

I’ll admit it’s usually an indicator, but it’s not necessary, nor does it always mean common carriage.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
“Hey, Steingar, we need this airplane flown to the avionics shop. If you take it, we won’t charge you for it...and we’ll give Bob a free ride home at the same time,” you’ve entered into a whole nuther area with no money changing hands.
Click to expand...
Somebody paid for the airplane, fuel, etc. And it wasn't the pilot.
 
Ambiguity at its finest...the FAA has succeeded yet again!
 
steingar said:
Best be ready to cite some regs there partner. What you guys are saying is my pal committed a crime flying me up to get my airplane. Doesn't really make a lot of sense, and I think you're WRONG.
Click to expand...
I've been reading. Not one person even remotely suggested a crime was being committed.
 
Especially since it's administrative ?
 
One more time for the cognitively challenged. So far no one has been able to cite a FAR contravening an appropriately rated pilot flying a non pilot on a flight entirely paid for by the pilot. While the pilot could violate lots of regulations, carrying a non-paying passenger is not one of them.
 
steingar said:
One more time for the cognitively challenged. So far no one has been able to cite a FAR contravening an appropriately rated pilot flying a non pilot on a flight entirely paid for by the pilot. While the pilot could violate lots of regulations, carrying a non-paying passenger is not one of them.
Click to expand...
So far no one is saying that one exists.
 
Steve needs a refrigerator in his hangar. If he had enjoyed a beer while wiping down his plane, he could have told his wife, "Sorry, honey, I can't fly for eight hours." Issue resolved.

Once again, beer is the answer no matter the question
 
Half Fast said:
Steve needs a refrigerator in his hangar. If he had enjoyed a beer while wiping down his plane, he could have told his wife, "Sorry, honey, I can't fly for eight hours." Issue resolved.

Once again, beer is the answer no matter the question
Click to expand...
You sir, are a genius!
 
Is this real life? Yes, the flight is legal.
 
What if his wife says:

"Steve. I'll be at the hangar in 10 minutes. Oh, by the way. I know your Skylarkbonanzamooney needs some fuel. I'm bringing $300 in cash with me so you can call the fuel truck over. I sold some of my custom jewelry today. It's my treat."
 
Of course, we must acknowledge whether or not compensation in any form is given to the pilot.
 
I just want to know if two rated PPLs, neither of whom are night current, can fly together at night.
 
Rgbeard said:
What if his wife says:

"Steve. I'll be at the hangar in 10 minutes. Oh, by the way. I know your Skylarkbonanzamooney needs some fuel. I'm bringing $300 in cash with me so you can call the fuel truck over. I sold some of my custom jewelry today. It's my treat."
Click to expand...

That scenario can’t happen, a women would never sell any jewelry
 
First reaction: That's 3 minutes of my life I'm never getting back again.
Sober second reaction: Where's Mrs @Ted DuPuis 's dozer when you really, really need it?

1RTK1 said:
That scenario can’t happen, a women would never sell any jewelry
Click to expand...

Mine might. But only to buy another horse, NEVER for anything to do with my airplanes.
 
Rgbeard said:
What if his wife says:

"Steve. I'll be at the hangar in 10 minutes. Oh, by the way. I know your Skylarkbonanzamooney needs some fuel. I'm bringing $300 in cash with me so you can call the fuel truck over. I sold some of my custom jewelry today. It's my treat."
Click to expand...
Who are you and what have you done with my wife?

I say this because my wife doesn’t have custom jewelry, not because she wouldn’t be that generous!
 
steingar said:
This is the whole point stultus. If you take someone somewhere for their purpose, but you pay all the costs you've violated no regs. Yes, you get to log the time as PIC, but so what? If you're that worried about it, don't log the time. Or are you going to start telling me that the experience of flying your own airplane on your own dime is some sort of fudiciary benefit?


I suspect that if you can come up with a definition of "common carriage" you'll find money changes hands. Where some of you come up with this nonsense I'll never know. But just for you:
Click to expand...

Common carriage makes reference to compensation. Compensation doesn’t necessarily mean money changing hands.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...ompensation-the-faa-knows-it-when-they-see-it
 
Ryanb said:
The answer to that should be quite obvious.
Click to expand...

I know, I know, but it's just so stupid. And as long as we're on dumb hypotheticals...
 
(It was just a joke, but I think you knew that, figured I’d let you know if not).

It’s actually not you, it’s the rest of us, lol!
 
texasclouds said:
If he is lit in the hangar, then no. 8 hours throttle to bottle.
Click to expand...

That is serious restraint right there. I never, EVER wait 8 hours from throttle to bottle. In fact, I’ve often cracked open a “landing beer” before I even tie down and wipe bugs.
 
@Ryanb , I think you have introduced an new interpretation of “holding out” into the Part 91 vs. 135 debate. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top