Another compensation question.

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Tom-D
Can any Flyin type of gathering compensate a vintage aircraft owner for bring their aircraft to the show?

owner / pilot = PPL
 
"Any type"... No. A for profit airshow paying a pilot to fly their vintage airplane to the show is commercial. You're transporting an airplane and if there's nobody else on board, your percentage of the cost is 100%.

You can bring the airplane with you if you pay for it. Or, perhaps if it were a charity event you might be able to find room.
 
Uhh, devil's advocate here. He isn't getting paid to FLY the airplane there. He is getting paid to DISPLAY his airplane there.

"Sure. I can display my airplane. It will be $250 a day."

Being paid for static display, NOT flying the plane.
 
Good point, that. If the fly-in organizers don't care if he flies it in or trucks it in, they just want it there...
:dunno:
 
Tom-D said:
Can any Flyin type of gathering compensate a vintage aircraft owner for bring their aircraft to the show?

owner / pilot = PPL
Click to expand...

Yes, you are providing an attraction, not a flying service. For all intents and purposes you can truck it in. If you sell rides however, that has to be independent of them.
 
Do either Greg or Henning have any written reference to support their positions? I don't think the FAA will see it the same way. I think they'll see it as being reimbursed for the expenses of a trip he would not have made otherwise, and thus become compensation in violation of 61.113. If anyone has an interpretation or case on point either way, I'd like to see it.
 
There is nothing in the rules that says you can't get compensated for providing a static display.
 
Ron Levy said:
Do either Greg or Henning have any written reference to support their positions?
Click to expand...

Well, I WAS playing Devil's Advocate. But no, I do not have anything written.

I don't think the FAA will see it the same way.
Click to expand...

As of right now, that is your opinion.

If anyone has an interpretation or case on point either way, I'd like to see it.
Click to expand...

And if there IS no interpretation, one way or the other?
 
Ron always tries to create unwritten regulation through inference. For someone who once taught law at a university level, I find that quite odd. I would assume he understand that law is written exclusively. If it isn't in writing it doesn't exist.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well, I WAS playing Devil's Advocate. But no, I do not have anything written.
Click to expand...
Too bad.

As of right now, that is your opinion.
Click to expand...
It is indeed my opinion of what the FAA would say.

And if there IS no interpretation, one way or the other?
Click to expand...
Then you're betting your ticket that you're right, because (as Henning apparently does not understand) according to the US Court of Appeals, the FAA need not advance its interpretation of its own rules in advance of an enforcement action, and I'd get someone in the FAA to say it's OK before doing this.
 
Tom-D said:
The reason I ask

Quote

Pilots who fly Young Eagle flights will be given a $20 fuel card, lunch, snacks, coffee and a hat commemorating the event.

@
http://www.pacificnorthwestflying.com/index.php?topic=9047.0

read down a few posts. you'll see the quote.
end quote
Click to expand...
...and we were told by our FSDO that giving them fuel discounts for those flights would violate the rules. Do what you want, but understand that it may not be legal.
 
Tom-D said:
Can any Flyin type of gathering compensate a vintage aircraft owner for bring their aircraft to the show?

owner / pilot = PPL
Click to expand...

Have him bring someone along who pays him to be a guide for the purpose of hunting bears and he should be OK. :D
 
Ron Levy said:
...and we were told by our FSDO that giving them fuel discounts for those flights would violate the rules. Do what you want, but understand that it may not be legal.
Click to expand...

So, if a private pilot does an Angel Flight, PnP, etc. and gets a fuel discount from the FBO, is that violating the rules??
 
Ron Levy said:
...and we were told by our FSDO that giving them fuel discounts for those flights would violate the rules. Do what you want, but understand that it may not be legal.
Click to expand...

I have yet to get a definitive answer from SEA FSDO, So, I think I'll go, fly some kids, and not take the stuff.

I never have before.
 
Tom-D said:
No one ever thought they would screw with Bob Hover either.
Click to expand...

They did learn from that though, we haven't learned quite as much as they have in the mean time. Everything I see out of the career bureaucrat level planners and managers as well as rank and file is pretty positive and much more progressive than the attitudes of pilots and owners. I really like the noise about owner/experimental, if there was ever an idea I would love to see have a quantum entanglement with whatever governs the universal vibe, that is one I would so love to see. That or figuring out levitation. If I can ditch the plane I'm so golden.:yesnod: I've figured out throwing myself at the ground a long time ago; it's the missing part that's still elusive after all these tries though....:nonod:
 
Henning said:
They did learn from that though, we haven't learned quite as much as they have in the mean time. Everything I see out of the career bureaucrat level planners and managers as well as rank and file is pretty positive and much more progressive than the attitudes of pilots and owners. I really like the noise about owner/experimental, if there was ever an idea I would love to see have a quantum entanglement with whatever governs the universal vibe, that is one I would so love to see. That or figuring out levitation. If I can ditch the plane I'm so golden.:yesnod: I've figured out throwing myself at the ground a long time ago; it's the missing part that's still elusive after all these tries though....:nonod:
Click to expand...

Never trust a bureaucrat that has any thing to gain by placing a X in the block of their activity sheet.
 
Ron Levy said:
If anyone has an interpretation or case on point either way, I'd like to see it.
Click to expand...

I don't have any such document, but I do have a precedent. You may think its apples to oranges. In the eyes of the FAA, a CFI is being paid to instruct, not to fly. Therefore a second class medical is not required. For that matter, NO medical is required. In the example we are discussing, the pilot is being paid to display his airplane, NOT fly his airplane. The fact that he had to fly it to the airport to display it is irrelevant. If I get paid to display my airplane at my home field, I did not fly it anywhere and everything is cool. But if I get paid to display my airplane at a field 10 miles away and have to fly it there, then somehow I am crosswise with the FAA?

Ron Levy said:
It is indeed my opinion of what the FAA would say.
Click to expand...

Given the fact that there is no interpretation to be found on the subject, why is your opinion more valid than mine?

Then you're betting your ticket that you're right, because (as Henning apparently does not understand) according to the US Court of Appeals, the FAA need not advance its interpretation of its own rules in advance of an enforcement action, and I'd get someone in the FAA to say it's OK before doing this.
Click to expand...

You know, the FAA CANNOT write an interpretation on EVERY CONCEIVABLE scenario. Hell, they cannot CONCEIVE every scenario. A pilot can only do the best they can with what is available.

Bottom line, I am comfortable with my opinion. You can't prove to me that I am wrong and I don't have to prove to you that you are wrong.

I have this opinion that the FAA can violate ANYBODY at ANYTIME for ANYTHING. I choose not to worry about it. Flying is supposed to be fun. I will not let them take the fun out of it.
 
Contrary to popular belief, the FAA is not "out to get everyone".

The idea that every regulation has an interpretation attached is akin to an organization such as the USAF that spends endless hours and resources developing guidelines and "SOP's" to try to cover every possible scenario that could happen. Thankfully the FAA doesn't operate in this manner.

And I am in Greg's camp on his opinion in this situation.
 
Tom-D said:
thank you Karl, but that doesn't mean any one is exempt.
Click to expand...

Not on this board!

I do have to laugh at the grandstanding that goes on around here. Like Shania Twain sings "That don't impress me much."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqFLXayD6e8

What DOES impress me is at ANA meetings, when they ask for WWII pilots please raise their hands. And then you see a few quiet, reserved hands go up.
 
They can pay you as consultant. Flying yourself there is in furtherance of your business.
 
Well, Well, look what's on the EAA boards this AM,

looks like ol Rotor is wrong again.

way to go Ron. :)

May 3, 2012 - EAA members and pilots can still comment to EAA's petition for an exemption from pilot reimbursement restrictions when Young Eagles pilots receive free fuel while flying youth in the popular aviation education program.

Without the exemption (FAA-2012-0442), pilots would not be able to accept free fuel during Young Eagles free flight experiences, because it would be considered reimbursement that is contrary to operations by private pilot, recreational, or sport pilot certificate holders, or the operation of experimental aircraft.

The exemption request also includes pilots who would fly adults within EAA's new Eagle Flights program, which is scheduled to launch this summer.
 
Tom-D said:
Well, Well, look what's on the EAA boards this AM,

looks like ol Rotor is wrong again.

way to go Ron. :)

May 3, 2012 - EAA members and pilots can still comment to EAA's petition for an exemption from pilot reimbursement restrictions when Young Eagles pilots receive free fuel while flying youth in the popular aviation education program.

Without the exemption (FAA-2012-0442), pilots would not be able to accept free fuel during Young Eagles free flight experiences, because it would be considered reimbursement that is contrary to operations by private pilot, recreational, or sport pilot certificate holders, or the operation of experimental aircraft.

The exemption request also includes pilots who would fly adults within EAA's new Eagle Flights program, which is scheduled to launch this summer.
Click to expand...

This is a different situation than what you asked about.

Once again your comprehension skills ( or lack thereof) are showing.
 
I am loosing track here.

Is the question:
- can you get compensated with free fuel and flight time for flying someone elses kids around ?
- can you receive compensation for providing a plane for static display at a fly-in or airshow ?
 
weilke said:
I am loosing track here.

Is the question:
- can you get compensated with free fuel and flight time for flying someone elses kids around ?
- can you receive compensation for providing a plane for static display at a fly-in or airshow ?
Click to expand...

I thought it was about providing a plane for a static display.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I don't have any such document, but I do have a precedent. You may think its apples to oranges. In the eyes of the FAA, a CFI is being paid to instruct, not to fly. Therefore a second class medical is not required. For that matter, NO medical is required. In the example we are discussing, the pilot is being paid to display his airplane, NOT fly his airplane. The fact that he had to fly it to the airport to display it is irrelevant. If I get paid to display my airplane at my home field, I did not fly it anywhere and everything is cool. But if I get paid to display my airplane at a field 10 miles away and have to fly it there, then somehow I am crosswise with the FAA?



Given the fact that there is no interpretation to be found on the subject, why is your opinion more valid than mine?



You know, the FAA CANNOT write an interpretation on EVERY CONCEIVABLE scenario. Hell, they cannot CONCEIVE every scenario. A pilot can only do the best they can with what is available.

Bottom line, I am comfortable with my opinion. You can't prove to me that I am wrong and I don't have to prove to you that you are wrong.

I have this opinion that the FAA can violate ANYBODY at ANYTIME for ANYTHING. I choose not to worry about it. Flying is supposed to be fun. I will not let them take the fun out of it.
Click to expand...

Yep, and it's not apples to oranges at all. It all revolves around being paid for the things listed in 91, 119, 121, 135, 137.... If we aren't talking about that stuff, flight operations for hire, it's legal to take money for.

As for the $20 coupon on gas from a good cause... That's hardly compensation, I would argue that as an enticement for them to participate in a charity event that will cost the participant a likely $750-$1000 in total cost. Do you you really think an inspector will stake making such a huge blunder as the guys with Hoover did again? If he's really stupid maybe. But someone a couple steps up will see the problem and prevent that from happening again with so many news networks now needing content.

BTW, how many of these inspectors looking to make their bones busting the Young Eagles charter ring are there supposed to be? IME FAA doesn't hire too many Mittyesque personalities.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
I thought it was about providing a plane for a static display.
Click to expand...

That was my take on the OP as well not that it changes the result having a discount coupon on your fuel purchase for flying Young Eagles. My answer to both is "no worries" and I don't think that's being exceptionally risk tolerant.
 
So can a PPL share the expenses or not? $20 fuel card is clearly a percentage (a small one too) of the cost so why would that be a problem?
 
Captain said:
so why would that be a problem?
Click to expand...

...because it's the FAA we are talking about.

'shared purpose' is what prohibits even cost sharing here.

You can fly a PC12 with 10 passengers from Idaho to Florida and back and get a $6,000 check at the end from your uncle Bill, as long as you also go to Disney World with his kids while you are there, everything is a-ok with the FAA. However, if someone gives you a fuel-card for $50 after you spent $500 of your own money on a charity event, it is 'compensation'. And no, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
...because it's the FAA we are talking about.

'shared purpose' is what prohibits even cost sharing here.

You can fly a PC12 with 10 passengers from Idaho to Florida and back and get a $6,000 check at the end from your uncle Bill, as long as you also go to Disney World with his kids while you are there, everything is a-ok with the FAA. However, if someone gives you a fuel-card for $50 after you spent $500 of your own money on a charity event, it is 'compensation'. And no, it doesn't have to make sense.
Click to expand...


Can you link to an enforcement action that verifies that your opinion is an operational reality?
 
Ron has a really good point, lack of precedent has never stopped the FAA, and lack of good sense has never stopped the NTSB. However, most everything legal revolves around the written word. If you are compensated for having your rare aircraft on display at an airshow, and you have a signed invoice or contract showing that the reimbursement is for said display, setting out the parameters of the display and the rate of remuneration, I think the FAA would have a really hard time of it, especially if said invoice was on a form used for such (a handwritten note on a paper towel is less likely to be convincing).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top