Another "Does This Require a Commercial Pilot?" Thread

Ron Levy said:
Regional Counsel letter from 1976, overruled by the Chief Counsel in the more recent Mangiamele letter.
Click to expand...


How does one know Mangismle is most recent letter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Go to the Legal Interpretation web site and search it for 61.113 and incidental. And note that 61.113 was renumbered from 61.118 in 1997, so you'll have to search for that reg, too, for the older letters.
 
Ron Levy said:
Go to the Legal Interpretation web site and search it for 61.113 and incidental. And note that 61.113 was renumbered from 61.118 in 1997, so you'll have to search for that reg, too, for the older letters.
Click to expand...



Thanks. That helps,

So far, none of them really address a turnip farmer flying on his own behalf. Most of the letters all have somebody with a 2nd or 3rd party attempting to provide compensation / reimbursement. I will keep looking.

Are you aware of any letters that don't have another party "compensating"?
 
JoseCuervo said:
Thanks. That helps,

So far, none of them really address a turnip farmer flying on his own behalf. Most of the letters all have somebody with a 2nd or 3rd party attempting to provide compensation / reimbursement. I will keep looking.

Are you aware of any letters that don't have another party "compensating"?
Click to expand...
You're right -- none of them involve turnip farmers. But several of them as well as several NTSB cases involve people flying on business, and this is definitely business with money involved, and it involved the transportation of product to a paying customer. The fact that this is a business operation with a customer paying for the product, not a person flying for him/herself personally, is significant, as well as the fact that the farmer is being compensated in one way or another for his/her efforts.
 
Key points to remember:

The FAA does enforcements based upon regulations, not case law. To get the EIR started the Inspector must prove each element of the regulation violated and have appropriate IOP's to support. Case law is never even mentioned or brought up in the EIR process.

A case such as the above mentioned turnip farmer would be exceedingly difficult to get through an EDP and EIR, much less find a RC that would even take the time to pursue it. It's the proverbial "rabbit hole".
 
JoseCuervo said:
Are you aware of any letters that don't have another party "compensating"?
Click to expand...

Well, there is the one where the guy was flying without being paid any monetary compensation on superbowl weekend to take a number of people to an event sponsored by some bar/restaurant. When the legitimate commercial flight operation couldn't handle all of the people, the PPL jumped in to assist.

The NTSB held that even though he wasn't being paid, he did it for the "good will" of the bar/restaurant owner. So, they could always go that route. Factors they looked at included the number of flights, the fact that these weren't people he knew, and the actual cost of the flights which they thought wouldn't have just been incurred by the PPL just out of the kindness of his own heart.
 
PPC1052 said:
Well, there is the one where the guy was flying without being paid any monetary compensation on superbowl weekend to take a number of people to an event sponsored by some bar/restaurant. When the legitimate commercial flight operation couldn't handle all of the people, the PPL jumped in to assist.

...
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure in that case the passengers were actually paying money for the rides, his excuse was he wasn't getting that money, somebody else was.
 
PPC1052 said:
Well, there is the one where the guy was flying without being paid any monetary compensation on superbowl weekend to take a number of people to an event sponsored by some bar/restaurant. When the legitimate commercial flight operation couldn't handle all of the people, the PPL jumped in to assist.

The NTSB held that even though he wasn't being paid, he did it for the "good will" of the bar/restaurant owner. So, they could always go that route. Factors they looked at included the number of flights, the fact that these weren't people he knew, and the actual cost of the flights which they thought wouldn't have just been incurred by the PPL just out of the kindness of his own heart.
Click to expand...
The fact that the pilot had a prior existing business relationship with the bar owner was critical to the Administrator v. Murray decision. Absent such a relationship, he would have skated. Compare/contrast that case with Administrator v. Derkazarian, in which there was no such relationship between the pilot flying entirely at his own expense and the person getting the money.
JimNtexas said:
I'm pretty sure in that case the passengers were actually paying money for the rides, his excuse was he wasn't getting that money, somebody else was.
Click to expand...
Didn't matter. Note that in both Murray and Derkazarian, someone else was getting the money. The deciding issue in these cases was whether the pilot was receiving compensation ("goodwill", in Murray's case) or not (as in Derkazarian). And as the FAA has repeatedly said (especially in Murray), the compensation need not be actual money.
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
Well, there is the one where the guy was flying without being paid any monetary compensation on superbowl weekend to take a number of people to an event sponsored by some bar/restaurant. When the legitimate commercial flight operation couldn't handle all of the people, the PPL jumped in to assist.

The NTSB held that even though he wasn't being paid, he did it for the "good will" of the bar/restaurant owner. So, they could always go that route. Factors they looked at included the number of flights, the fact that these weren't people he knew, and the actual cost of the flights which they thought wouldn't have just been incurred by the PPL just out of the kindness of his own heart.
Click to expand...


There you get a "third party" involved, with the bar owner.

How does a $100 hamburger run with a girlfriend not involve "compensation" if you are trying to get "good will" from her?
 
Ron Levy said:
You're right -- none of them involve turnip farmers. But several of them as well as several NTSB cases involve people flying on business, and this is definitely business with money involved, and it involved the transportation of product to a paying customer. The fact that this is a business operation with a customer paying for the product, not a person flying for him/herself personally, is significant, as well as the fact that the farmer is being compensated in one way or another for his/her efforts.
Click to expand...


If one wants to broadly define "flight time" as "compensation", then any time I get in the plane as a PIC with private certificated, I am getting "compensation". It might be out of my household checkbook, it might be out of my "toy checkbook", it might be out of the "cash under the mattress", it might be out of lots of different checkbooks, all owned by me.


If I want to dream about starting my own flying business, and have a fresh-inked private certificate, and I decide to start building time, then the money I am spending on my time building is "compensation" by the business I will be starting in 209 hours.
 
FastEddieB said:
True, but I understand where Ron is coming from, since I had the same thought.

Individual comes on the forum to ask a question, phrased as if he does not already know the answer and sincerely wishes to be enlightened.

When some answers don't please him, he immediately begins defending and arguing for a position on the topic. You can see Jose doing this on the first page.

Certainly his right, and a springboard for discussion, but it does bring the motive for asking in the first place into doubt.

But carry on.
Click to expand...

OK, so he was hoping for a different answer. So what? What motive could he possibly have that would be in any way problematic? It's not as if this forum has any decision-making power on the subject.

And what rule says that you can't pose a question if you have your own opinion on the answer? If there is such a rule, it should be repealed! Personally, I think that exposing one's opinions to challenges from others is a GOOD thing.
 
RotorAndWing said:
It's a trolling question to start a debate, nothing more. My God, this topic gets beat to death over these forums. Give it time, another thread will be started on the same topic. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

This is my opinion and nothing more, but I consider trolling to refer to starting a discussion on a subject that one has no real interest in, for the sole purpose of watching other people fight. I don't think that's what happened here, since he very clearly DOES have an interest in the subject.
 
JoseCuervo said:
If one wants to broadly define "flight time" as "compensation", then any time I get in the plane as a PIC with private certificated, I am getting "compensation". It might be out of my household checkbook, it might be out of my "toy checkbook", it might be out of the "cash under the mattress", it might be out of lots of different checkbooks, all owned by me.


If I want to dream about starting my own flying business, and have a fresh-inked private certificate, and I decide to start building time, then the money I am spending on my time building is "compensation" by the business I will be starting in 209 hours.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that compensation involves receiving something of value from someone other than oneself. Otherwise, the flight time as compensation interpretation would mean that only a commercial pilot or above could make any logbook entries.
 
Palmpilot said:
OK, so he was hoping for a different answer. So what? What motive could he possibly have that would be in any way problematic? It's not as if this forum has any decision-making power on the subject.



And what rule says that you can't pose a question if you have your own opinion on the answer? If there is such a rule, it should be repealed! Personally, I think that exposing one's opinions to challenges from others is a GOOD thing.
Click to expand...



POA is a fascinating discussion forum where members would prefer not to have discussion take place.

There always seems to be a few who hurry to chide a poster to "use the search function" and look up the similar threads (that might not answer the question posed) or to quickly declare "troll", for some unknown reason.

No idea what the motive for trying to shut down discussions that other people may choose to participate.
 
By the way, Jose, in case you're not aware, Cap'n Ron is not an attorney. He is very well-read on the subject of aviation law, but one thing I have noticed about real attorneys is that they are less likely to express certainty about how hypothetical future cases would be decided.
 
Palmpilot said:
My understanding is that compensation involves receiving something of value from someone other than oneself. Otherwise, the flight time as compensation interpretation would mean that only a commercial pilot or above could make any logbook entries.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

That is definitely becoming one of the learnings, there is not a single example of someone flying on their own behalf and the FAA taking an adverse position on the flying.

Every example, so far, has an additional party. Not a single one applies to a person flying their own Turnips to make Turnip Soup.
 
Palmpilot said:
By the way, Jose, in case you're not aware, Cap'n Ron is not an attorney. He is very well-read on the subject of aviation law, but one thing I have noticed about real attorneys is that they are less likely to express certainty about how hypothetical future cases would be decided.
Click to expand...


Yes, I understand that.

I appreciate his understanding of the FAA information and how it is generated. I have learned quite a bit based on his input in this thread.
 
JoseCuervo said:
There you get a "third party" involved, with the bar owner.

How does a $100 hamburger run with a girlfriend not involve "compensation" if you are trying to get "good will" from her?
Click to expand...
Depends on whether or not you have a business relationship with her. :goofy:
 
JoseCuervo said:
If one wants to broadly define "flight time" as "compensation", then any time I get in the plane as a PIC with private certificated, I am getting "compensation".
Click to expand...
Only if you're getting something from someone else in return for carrying something or someone on that flight. "Quid pro quo, Clarisse, quid pro quo."

It might be out of my household checkbook, it might be out of my "toy checkbook", it might be out of the "cash under the mattress", it might be out of lots of different checkbooks, all owned by me.
Click to expand...
That is true, and that is why just flying yourself around at your own expense does not involved compensation. But when you're hauling turnips to a customer who's paying you or your business for them, then there is compensation involved.
 
Palmpilot said:
By the way, Jose, in case you're not aware, Cap'n Ron is not an attorney. He is very well-read on the subject of aviation law, but one thing I have noticed about real attorneys is that they are less likely to express certainty about how hypothetical future cases would be decided.
Click to expand...
I take a very conservative stance regarding issues where the FAA has no clear, explicit, specific direction on point. I do not discount the possibility that I'm wrong, but if I am wrong, it will be that you might have been legal had you done it, rather than that I said something looked OK and then you got burned for having done it. If you can get the an aviation attorney to guarantee that it's OK to do something I said I thought the FAA wouldn't allow, go right ahead, but I doubt many attorneys will make that guarantee.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
That interpretation, official as it may be, is total and utter BS, IMO.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
I take a very conservative stance regarding issues where the FAA has no clear, explicit, specific direction on point. I do not discount the possibility that I'm wrong, but if I am wrong, it will be that you might have been legal had you done it, rather than that I said something looked OK and then you got burned for having done it. If you can get the an aviation attorney to guarantee that it's OK to do something I said I thought the FAA wouldn't allow, go right ahead, but I doubt many attorneys will make that guarantee.
Click to expand...

Get over yourself Ron. No one made you the arbiter of regulations.
 
Last edited:
75f46c7d46156cb1347c0f8e24631137.jpg
 
denverpilot said:
Careful. They might enjoy each other's company and have a terrible breeding accident. You do not want to see the results. ;)
Click to expand...

no major concerns since the crossing of two pricks is always sterile...
 
Tarheelpilot said:
They could adopt. That would be an interesting nature vs. nurture experiment :rofl:
Click to expand...

maybe they could just get a dog...ya really wouldn't wanna subject a child to that environment...
 
Dunno. If they'll promise to feed it and clean the tank properly while arguing, maybe.

Perhaps something that will bite them if they are too busy arguing to remember to feed it? ;)
 
Has R&W and Ron actually met? Sure seem to have an "interesting" affection for each other
 
Flymeariver said:
Has R&W and Ron actually met? Sure seem to have an "interesting" affection for each other
Click to expand...


In the interest of civility and to shorten posts on what is legal, what is questionable and what is outright illegal....... I will coin the new phrase...

WWRD. = What Would Ron Do..:D:D:D..

Example... A poa'er asks a question like... I am going to get a 100 hamburger,, can the people riding with me buy me a 1 dollar iced tea at the restaurant.:dunno:

Or 3 dollar fries

Or a 8 dollar chicken dinner

Or a 15 dollar combination platter...

Where do the feds draw the line on compensation...:dunno::dunno:...:confused:

And WWRD.......:D
 
So...... About those Turnips..... They ain't gonna fly themselves...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top