Another compensation question.

Henning said:
Can you link to an enforcement action that verifies that your opinion is an operational reality?
Click to expand...

No enforcement action, but rulemaking.

The compassion flight organizations have been in talks with the FAA for years on getting this prohibition softened. One of them obtained a waiver last year to be able to contribute to their volunteer pilots fuel cost. The waiver comes with all kinds of strings attached, recurrent training requirements etc.

http://www.angelflightmidatlantic.org/wp-content/uploads/FAA-2009-0702-0005-11.pdf

So while I can't point you to a NTSB appeals case of that exact scenario ($50 gift card for young eagles event), their stance on the question of compensation and cost sharing is clear. Free has to be free (with the exception of taking a tax deduction on the out of pocket cost).
 
Last edited:
I am taking a keen interest in this thread... Several times a year I get contacted by various fly in / airshow organizers to have me display my V-8 Zenith... They range from "please show up" to enticements of fuel discounts, free food and if it's a two day show, a hotel room for 1 night..
 

Attachments

  • P1090179.jpg
    P1090179.jpg
    3.4 MB · Views: 7
Last edited:
N801BH said:
I am taking a keen interest in this thread... Several times a year I get contacted by various fly in / airshow organizers to have me display my V-8 Zenith... They range from "please show up" to enticements of fuel discounts, free food and if it's a two day show, a hotel room for 1 night..
Click to expand...

Given your expertise I would think you could easily generate a paper trail to allow remuneration independent of any flight operations.
 
weilke said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's not quite true. If that $6000 check is contingent on taking the kids to Disney World, and you had no other reason for making the trip but to pilot the plane, then there's a quid pro quo, and you cannot accept it. In addition, you must still pay your own pro rata share of the flight out of your own pocket.

Of course, the FAA doesn't get into family finances unless Uncle Bill complains to them that you overcharged him, or something like that. But if you just want to know the law rather than the chances of getting caught, what I said is what the FAA has said in the past.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
This is a different situation than what you asked about.

Once again your comprehension skills ( or lack thereof) are showing.
Click to expand...

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...

Well, actually the scope of the question changed midstream. The original question was for display. Then it evolved into Young Eagles.

Thing is, last I knew, the FAA had a dual, if not opposing, mandate. One is to promote, the other is to enforce.

If they are going to go after a YE pilot for accepting some insignificant remuneration, they sure as hell are not promoting aviation. Bad PR in my opinion.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well, I think I would move to another FSDO district.
Click to expand...
Per the discussion above, apparently it's not limited to our district, since EAA is trying to get it changed nationwide.

As for Tom's original question, it's the old duck test. Does it appear that he's receiving compensation for flying the plane there, i.e., free flying time in exchange for exhibiting the airplane? While R&W might not concern himself over this case, other ASI's might.
 
Ron Levy said:
Actually, that's not quite true. If that $6000 check is contingent on taking the kids to Disney World, and you had no other reason for making the trip but to pilot the plane, then there's a quid pro quo, and you cannot accept it. In addition, you must still pay your own pro rata share of the flight out of your own pocket.
Click to expand...

If direct operating cost, fuel, oil, hangar, handling etc. is $7200, this is a family trip, and aunt+uncle come along to disneyworld, there is no breach of the shared purpose.
This was simply the most extreme example of how a large payment can be permissible under the cost-sharing doctrine while a seemingly small payment may not.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Thing is, last I knew, the FAA had a dual, if not opposing, mandate. One is to promote, the other is to enforce.
Click to expand...

That may be on paper. The actual mission of a buerocracy in a buerocratic system is self preservation. How can I justify next years budget and not be cut when the goverment goes broke again.

If they are going to go after a YE pilot for accepting some insignificant remuneration, they sure as hell are not promoting aviation. Bad PR in my opinion.
Click to expand...

The only audience they have to please are a couple of committee chairmen in congress that have the congress-sheep vote on their budget.
 
weilke said:
If direct operating cost, fuel, oil, hangar, handling etc. is $7200, this is a family trip, and aunt+uncle come along to disneyworld, there is no breach of the shared purpose.
Click to expand...
...assuming the pilot would have made the trip between the same airport on the same dates whether they went or not. That's the "common purpose" definition.

This was simply the most extreme example of how a large payment can be permissible under the cost-sharing doctrine while a seemingly small payment may not.
Click to expand...
Right -- the issue is not the amount of money received, but the conditions under which the money was received. But in your case, unless the pilot involved had reason to be in Orlando on those dates (other than to fly the kids down there), there is no common purpose and the pilot cannot accept the check.
 
Ron Levy said:
...assuming the pilot would have made the trip between the same airport on the same dates whether they went or not. That's the "common purpose" definition.
Click to expand...

Having made the trip without the pax is not the definition of common purpose. I quote from the Bobertz letter:

Assuming, however, that the pilot planned to attend the race and conducted the flights with this purpose, his bona fide common purpose with his passengers for making the trip would only extend to the first flight to the race site. This is because following this flight he would be at his destination and able to attend the race. If the pilot had carried any passengers from the race back to Honolulu, then the bona fide common purpose would also extend to the one flight the pilot needed to conduct in order to return home. Subsequent flights would not be necessary for achieving his purpose of attending the race and would therefore be solely for the purposes of transporting the team.​
Also in the Haberkorn letter:

2). Second, you question whether you and your passengers share a common purpose if you are travelling to Long Island for a wedding but your passengers express an interest in.going to Long Island to attend a baseball game. The existence of a bona fide common purpose is determined on a case-by-case basis. Based on these facts, there appears to be a bona fide common purpose, as the destination was dictated by the pilot, not the passengers, and both you and your passengers have personal business to conduct in Long Island. The purpose of this flight is not merely to transport your passengers to Long Island. ​
​
​
​
See Bobertz Interpretation (explaining that a pilot who planned to attend a race and transported a race team to and from the race site would have a bona fide common purpose with his passengers for those two flights, but not for additional flights conducted in order to transport more team
members back and forth); Legal Interpretation to Thomas H. Chero from John H. Cassady, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations and Enforcement (Dec. 26, 1985) (finding no common purpose if the pilot is transporting passengers to a destination where the pilot has no particular business to conduct).​
Going to the same place for 'personal business' is a common purpose. If I have a reservation for a hotel in Orlando and tickets to Disney, I have the same reason to go there as the folks in the back.

Now all I need is a PC12 :)
 
steingar said:
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).
Click to expand...

I'll just get an invoice that states I'm getting paid for being "Pure Awesome" and then fly myself everywhere. Hahaha.
 
denverpilot said:
I'll just get an invoice that states I'm getting paid for being "Pure Awesome" and then fly myself everywhere. Hahaha.
Click to expand...

If you can get someone to sign it...

OK, but I'll bet if you make it for something reasonable, put it on a form that you use for your other invoices, and get it signed by someone in charge of money on the other end, it will stand a far better chance of holding water with the FAA or NTSB than not having anything.
 
weilke said:
Having made the trip without the pax is not the definition of common purpose. I quote from the Bobertz letter:

Assuming, however, that the pilot planned to attend the race and conducted the flights with this purpose, his bona fide common purpose with his passengers for making the trip would only extend to the first flight to the race site. This is because following this flight he would be at his destination and able to attend the race. If the pilot had carried any passengers from the race back to Honolulu, then the bona fide common purpose would also extend to the one flight the pilot needed to conduct in order to return home. Subsequent flights would not be necessary for achieving his purpose of attending the race and would therefore be solely for the purposes of transporting the team.​

Also in the Haberkorn letter:


2). Second, you question whether you and your passengers share a common purpose if you are travelling to Long Island for a wedding but your passengers express an interest in.going to Long Island to attend a baseball game. The existence of a bona fide common purpose is determined on a case-by-case basis. Based on these facts, there appears to be a bona fide common purpose, as the destination was dictated by the pilot, not the passengers, and both you and your passengers have personal business to conduct in Long Island. The purpose of this flight is not merely to transport your passengers to Long Island.
See Bobertz Interpretation (explaining that a pilot who planned to attend a race and transported a race team to and from the race site would have a bona fide common purpose with his passengers for those two flights, but not for additional flights conducted in order to transport more team
members back and forth); Legal Interpretation to Thomas H. Chero from John H. Cassady, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations and Enforcement (Dec. 26, 1985) (finding no common purpose if the pilot is transporting passengers to a destination where the pilot has no particular business to conduct).​

Going to the same place for 'personal business' is a common purpose. If I have a reservation for a hotel in Orlando and tickets to Disney, I have the same reason to go there as the folks in the back.​
Click to expand...
You totally misread what I said. You don't need the reservation at the same hotel or the tickets to Disney. All you need is a reason to go to Orlando on the same dates ("same day, same way") other than to pilot the plane. It could be to esort the kids to Disney World, it could be to visit Universal, it could be to attend your other cousin's wedding in Orlando, it could be for a job interview at some company in Orlando. The point is that you must have a reason for making the trip from the same airport to the same airport on the same days besides the fact that you are the pilot they need to fly the plane.

​
 
Ron Levy said:
You totally misread what I said. You don't need the reservation at the same hotel or the tickets to Disney. All you need is a reason to go to Orlando on the same dates ("same day, same way") other than to pilot the plane. It could be to esort the kids to Disney World, it could be to visit Universal, it could be to attend your other cousin's wedding in Orlando, it could be for a job interview at some company in Orlando. The point is that you must have a reason for making the trip from the same airport to the same airport on the same days besides the fact that you are the pilot they need to fly the plane.
Click to expand...

Ah, no.

You tried to introduce a novel test for 'common purpose' with:

...assuming the pilot would have made the trip between the same airport on the same dates whether they went or not. That's the "common purpose" definition.

There is no such test anywhere in the interpretations readily accessible. You have to have something or the other to do at the destination, there is no requirement that you would have gone anyway. What you are trying to introduce is that taking others along is incidental to the trip.

But yes, I dont have to go to Disney. I could go and get a floatplane rating or do any of the other fun things available in that area.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
I thought it was about providing a plane for a static display.
Click to expand...

It all happens same place, same airshow. Buy apparently you didn't read the links.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
other ASI's might.
Click to expand...

"Other ASI's" ???

We know he isn't an ASI.

Because if he was, he'd use the FAA E-mail address as the FAA like the ASIs to do.

He's just a wannabe
 
As I said in the beginning, just separate the appearance coupon contract from the flying, in this case the Young Eagles event. This is totally different as it still falls under what would be Pt 91 rather than Pt 135 as with the compassion flights. Split the contracts, this is not a worry. I am sure that EAAs lawyers have not left that exposure available and would provide representation should this issue arise. Please everybody, lets get real about this.
 
Last edited:
Rotor&Wing said:
Believe what you want. Several people here know me personally and know better.



Government email addresses are for official business only, not for personal use.
Click to expand...


It was government business when I asked for the accident data on my Fairchild, but it came from a Dr. House at Yahoo.

and it was only what was in the Aircraft history records that any one can get.

My ASI got the info and sent it to me e-mail.

You once said you could get all the 337s that I filed on all the aircraft I worked on, but couldn't. you did get 1 for my 24 but that was all. because you can look under the N number not my file.

Just a wannabe
 
Anymouse said:
Your FSDO sucks.
Click to expand...

Well, if was just 1 FSDO, would the EAA and AOPA be worried about it?

The EAA and AOPA are trying to get the FAA away from the personal exemption and into the broad blanket exemption for all pilots who volunteer to fly Eagles.

IMHO, if they don't do some thing to relieve the costs of flying the Eagles program is in deep trouble.

I'm going to beg off tomorrow's event because I have aircraft to fix for those who work them. I took off 1 week to go fishing and find myself a month behind.
 
Tom-D said:
Well, if was just 1 FSDO, would the EAA and AOPA be worried about it?

The EAA and AOPA are trying to get the FAA away from the personal exemption and into the broad blanket exemption for all pilots who volunteer to fly Eagles.

IMHO, if they don't do some thing to relieve the costs of flying the Eagles program is in deep trouble.

I'm going to beg off tomorrow's event because I have aircraft to fix for those who work them. I took off 1 week to go fishing and find myself a month behind.
Click to expand...

Take one more day off and show the aviation thirsty general public a piece of flying history.. You ain't gettin any younger Tom. Why deny the little kids the experience of pulling on mommy and daddy's hand while they shout " look at that one" as they point to your plane. :dunno:
 
N801BH said:
Take one more day off and show the aviation thirsty general public a piece of flying history.. You ain't gettin any younger Tom. Why deny the little kids the experience of pulling on mommy and daddy's hand while they shout " look at that one" as they point to your plane. :dunno:
Click to expand...

You talking about Tom or the plane? :goofy: :rofl: ;)

Heh. Go flying Tom. If the owners can't wait half a day for the little kids... they've got something wrong with them. :)
 
Tom, WTF, are you serious? Go fly, if you're worried, decline the coupon, simple as that; there is no issue if you do just that. Go have some fun and fly some kids around. That new engine would do well with a good day's running on it.
 
Henning said:
Tom, WTF, are you serious? Go fly, if you're worried, decline the coupon, simple as that; there is no issue if you do just that. Go have some fun and fly some kids around. That new engine would do well with a good day's running on it.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about any coupon, but I do have people who are dependent upon me.
 
Henning said:
Turn down the coupon there is no longer an issue present. The Young Eagles have insurance IIRC.
Click to expand...

Get over the coupon Henning, This is about maintenance contract commitments, I'd much rather be at the Show.
 
Tom-D said:
Get over the coupon Henning, This is about maintenance contract commitments, I'd much rather be at the Show.
Click to expand...

:confused::confused::confused: Ok, again, I will ask, "WTF Tom?" You're retired and you can't take a day off work to go fly your plane? How about you ask them if they mind if you play hooky for a day to go take kids flying? See what they say.
 
Henning said:
:confused::confused::confused: Ok, again, I will ask, "WTF Tom?" You're retired and you can't take a day off work to go fly your plane? How about you ask them if they mind if you play hooky for a day to go take kids flying? See what they say.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what they will say. The weather is right, and they must spray.
 
Henning said:
Perhaps we have a slight lack in understanding of the basic principles of retirement.;)
Click to expand...

Never retire. You get too busy.

so much for a day ruined by a bad mag lead.
 
A better retirement plan...

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Nothing.gif
    Nothing.gif
    35.1 KB · Views: 17
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top