Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by JoseCuervo, Jan 27, 2015.
Well in that case..... They don't have to say who flew those gourmet turnips in lol
Now, I am confused how these letters work.
I was told the San Bernadino letter was old and had been voided by a newer letter.
Would somebody have gone and busted the San Bernadino employees when the new letter came out?
And, is it really my obligation to know the content of all these Counsel letters? I don't think that was covered in ground school.
That's what you got out of this thread???????
Don't you like turnips?
I don't think their are any.
Flight time is compensation.
Goodwill is compensation.
Try flying without generating either of those.
True Story Time:
I was out at the airport today, getting ready to fly, and a c-185 taxied away and took off (I couldn't see the runway from my hangar.).
A few minutes later another plane taxied up and waved me over. He wanted to know if I had the tail wheel the c-185 dropped on the runway as he took off.
Pretty soon another guy came over carrying a tail wheel.
It seems the tail wheel fell off on take off, and then the guy in the second plane talked to the 185 and told them he would go look for it.
The 185 flew over toward a dirt strip to land without a tail wheel.
Three of us stood around the tail wheel, somebody needing to get it to the dirt strip for the 185.
Nobody even mentioned this might require a commercial ticket to fly the tail wheel to the stranded pilot (carrying a good and earning goodwill, while getting flight time.).
How does the computer tech do the work of they are not allowed to haul a replacement hard drive?
How does the computer tech do his job if he is not allowed to carry new firmware on a rom chip to update the system?
Wouldn't flying over to solve the clients problem create goodwill?
How does the legal secretary travel without a tape recorder and camera to film the deposition?
Correct, it is your property until such time it is sold. It is private property. You are PAYING to haul it to market for your own business in your plane you pay the bills on. There is no compensation in this entire scenario.
Now you have delivered the turnips and taken the check. The buyer now says "Don't unload them here. Take them over to my customer, they will meet you at this airport." Now we run into trouble, but not until you get paid for the produce. It's the same as everything in America, follow the money. Not until the money changes hands does ownership change hands.
OK, can I play?
Suppose he flies his turnips to a State Fair and buys a booth to display his wares for sale.
But due to a CNN news story concerning E. coli and turnips, not a single turnip gets sold.
No money has changed hands. So your position is that its not a commercial enterprise?
Nope. Only if you want to play internet lawyer on an aviation forum.
14 CFR 91.311
8900.1, Vol.3, Ch3, Sec1
These are examples of Legal operation without CP?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It never was a commercial flying enterprise regardless if he sold them at the fair or not. If the fair had bought them and asked for them to be flown in, that would be a commercial flying enterprise. Until he sells them, those turnips count the same as luggage.
Why? You'd have to ask the lawyers, but the FAA Chief Counsel's repeated position is that "goodwill as compensation" only applies when there is a business relationship. However, if you do have a business relationship with your sister-in-law (selling turnips to her), then technically I suppose it would apply there, too.
I've figured it out. I just need to stop spreading goodwill and spread ill will wherever I go. Problem solved!
You don't get the cost of the flight covered out of the farm budget, and thus some cut-rate flying off the tax deduction?
Then it's not business.
I suppose if you try hard enough, you can turn it into a business relationship where goodwill applies and technically it's not legal. But as R&W says, the FAA has better things to do with their time than to go after people like that even if it is technically illegal.
As long as you're learning, I'm happy to help.
Read the reg -- what's generally prohibited is flying with property for compensation/hire. No compensation, no prohibition.
Not my answer, the Chief Counsel's, and yes, it surprised me, too. See the Cox interpretation, and read the fourth paragraph under "Bookkeeping Services", where a PP flies a balloon which advertises his own bookkeeping company and the FAA says it's legal.
Given the six-month "stale complaint" limit on FAA enforcement actions, no that would not be possible regarding something which happened in 1976. But since the US Court of Appeals said it's OK for the Chief Counsel to advance a new interpretation for the first time as part of an enforcement action, I suppose the Chief Counsel could do that as long as the action was initiated within 180 days of the FAA finding out it had happened.
It's your obligation to know the regulations and the conduct they allow/prohibit. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", and all that. If your instructor didn't teach you what you are allowed/not allowed to do as a PP, then your instructor failed in his/her duty to prepare you for the PP practical test, for which very first thing in the PP Area/Task list in the PTS is to explain "private pilot certificate privileges, limitations, and recent flight experience requirements" (Area I, Task A1a).
Again, unless you have a business relationship with the pilot of the plane with the tailwheel issue (in which case goodwill comes into play), and you don't accept a $20 bill or free gas or anything like that from him, then there is no compensation and no need for a CP ticket. The FAA has never indicated that the opportunity to move your "good turn" coin from your left pocket to the right is considered "compensation".
Any number of things can go wrong that don't require spare parts.
Is firmware on a ROM chip "property"?
The tech doesn't have the business relationship -- the company does. But either way, the FAA grants permission in 61.113(b) for PP's to fly on business when there's no transportation of persons or property.
My reading of numerous interpretations is that if it's just the tools of your trade that don't get delivered to the customer, and go back with you, it's OK.
That would be true if the FAA did not consider "goodwill" in a business context to be relevant, but they do.
That might be relevant if the regulation said "the property of another", but it doesn't -- just "property". Whether ownership of the property changes hands at the destination or somewhere else is not germane.
Not relevant to whether or not the pilot needs a CP ticket when there is no compensation/hire involved. From that section of 8900.1:
...and the Chief Counsel said in Cox that advertising your own company is OK with a PP ticket. Sure, you need the 91.311 waiver, but you don't need a CP ticket.
I think so.
I don't think the FAA would agree with Henning.
Last I checked, depositions were not done for free. So the lawyer and the court reporter are going to go do the deposition in exchange for money. Also those records from the deposition aren't free either, someone is paying for those as well.
Maybe, maybe not. Unknown at this point.
So advertising is not compensation?
Except that 61.113(b) and the Mangiamele letter say this is legal since the flight is only incidental to the job and the pilot is not carrying persons or property for compensation/hire.
Apparently not, as long as it's done as discussed in the Cox letter. But if that balloon pilot was advertising someone else's firm, that would be another story -- see "Balloon corporation" further down the Cox letter.
No doubt about what I think (that's clearly not unknown :wink2, but there is always doubt about what the Chief Counsel would say until they say it -- nobody I know thought they'd come down the way they did on Mangiamele, which said that it wasn't legal to do what pretty much everyone flying thought for decades was legal. But if you track the history, when it comes to PP's and compensation, the Chief Counsel always seems to come down more strictly (e.g., the ride-board business with the original Alkaly RC letter versus the recent Chief Counsel letter), which is why I think what I do about their likely response.
Everyone please remember a very important thing here: Enforcements are not written using "Chief Counsel" letters or anyone else's letters. Enforcements are written only on the regulation on it's face value, period. In order to pursue a violation on any regulation the Inspector must prove (through IOP's) that each element of the regulation was violated. Ignore an element and the enforcement fails.
If an Inspector was foolish enough to make a reference in an EIR to a CC letter it will be removed promptly on review.
As far as all of this "case law" and "interpretations" it's all very elementary and just mental masturbation exercises. It's worth exactly what you are paying for it.
What about when a case comes before an ALJ or the NTSB? Do CC letters ever get cited at that point?
I'm skeptical of the appearance of certainty in some of Cap'n Ron's posts on legal issues, but don't cases represent situations that did make it through the EIR process? Wouldn't that at least make them useful in gaining an understanding of how the FAA and NTSB handle various situations?
When it get's to that point, yes. Realize that most enforcements never make it above the Regional level.
I'm skeptical about most of his post on legal issues. On more than one occasion Ron has referenced case law that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Remember, most of the time it's his personal opinion and the way he would like to see it. Ron also lacks training and education on matters of law, and Ron has zero experience when it comes to FAA enforcement matters or formal training from the FAA in regards to Compliance and Enforcement.
This is no more than a couple of guys sitting at a bar arguing football tactics during the Superbowl.
Patriots WILL win btw
But flying over to get the part for my Turnip Harvester involves compensation?
I don't even know who's playing, so I'll just go with your prediction!
I want to know if you're doing the turnip run where you're handing out samples (legal) and someone demands at the second stop to buy all of your samples on the spot... What are you going to say?
"Oh no. I flew here by private airplane so the government says I can only give you samples!"
I don't see where they have an option, possession and transfer of possession is clearly defined in law. Until money changes hands, neither does title, and that is regardless of possession. Whether title is explicate or expressed is irrelevant.
Oh....and if by turnip you mean cannabis.....all bets are off.
Exactly, just like the advertising is his business therefore the compensation gained by advertising exempt, so are the turnips.