Can a PPL do it?

Ron Levy said:
You should read the full case, including the CAB pronouncement. The case you cite was strictly limited to hunting guides in Alaska. In all other cases (such as Administrator v. Murray, cited above), the inclusion of air transportation as part of a package deal was ruled a commercial operation requiring a 135 certificate or better by whoever provides the air transportation. Just ask Carnival cruise lines about how they operate their own airline -- it ain't Part 91.

In addition, the FAA has never allowed private pilots to cover their entire flight costs from passenger payments. At best, only during a 91.146 flight may the direct costs of a flight with passengers be reimbursed (and only by the charity, not by the passengers), and outside of the very limited confines of those 91.146 charity flights, the pilot must pay his/her own pro rata share of the direct costs and cannot collect that portion from the passengers. Also, the indirect costs must always be borne by the private pilot. So, there are no circumstances where a Private Pilot may recover "their entire flight costs from passenger payments."
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you get the idea that it was strictly limited to guides in Alaska. That would be ludicrous. The Alaska Prof. Hunters judge effectively deconstructed the reasoning in Marshall and noted its scope. That judge wrote:


"The Civil Aeronautics Board, adopting the hearing examiner's opinion as its own, ruled that Marshall's flight with the hunter in search of polar bear was "merely incidental" to his guiding business, in part because he had not billed for it separately."​

You may claim what you like, but the facts as laid out in Alaska Prof. Hunters appear to me unequivically contrary to your narrow view.

In your view, if someone booked a night's stay at Minam Lodge in Oregon, which can only be reached by hiking in or flying, and a private pilot owner flew out to pick the guest up, the pilot would be in violation of the regs. But I see no reason why the ruling of Marshall would not apply, even though it does not involve Alaskan hunting guides.
 
Ron Levy said:
Works fine as long as Johnny doesn't pilot an airplane to make it happen.
Click to expand...
BSS doesn't specify how Johnny should get it there. They don't even know an airplane is an option.
 
Jim Logajan said:
I'm not sure where you get the idea that it was strictly limited to guides in Alaska. That would be ludicrous. The Alaska Prof. Hunters judge effectively deconstructed the reasoning in Marshall and noted its scope. That judge wrote:


"The Civil Aeronautics Board, adopting the hearing examiner's opinion as its own, ruled that Marshall's flight with the hunter in search of polar bear was "merely incidental" to his guiding business, in part because he had not billed for it separately."​

You may claim what you like, but the facts as laid out in Alaska Prof. Hunters appear to me unequivically contrary to your narrow view.

In your view, if someone booked a night's stay at Minam Lodge in Oregon, which can only be reached by hiking in or flying, and a private pilot owner flew out to pick the guest up, the pilot would be in violation of the regs. But I see no reason why the ruling of Marshall would not apply, even though it does not involve Alaskan hunting guides.
Click to expand...
If that is a hunting lodge providing the services described in the CAB memo, it might apply. Otherwise, it doesn't, and the FAA has made that clear repeatedly over the years. And there is absolutely no way this would apply to the case at hand.
 
Last edited:
Nevermind the regs. Librarian issues aside. Why is it less safe to the public for a PPL to deliver a logbook, in VFR, to an airplane 200 miles away in a C-172 than drive all night.

Isn't it his choice? Nobody said, "Hey, I'll pay you to fly." They said, "I'll pay you to do a thing"... if you can do it easier because you're a pilot then why isn't that a perk of your hard work?

Honestly, the greater danger to the public would be Johnny driving to school after 3 hours of sleep on public roads because BSS paid him a sum he couldn't refuse to drive all night.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry -- I though the whole point of this thread was to determine the legalities. If you only wanted to look at the morality and philosophy issues, you can have that discussion without me. Nevertheless, there is no legal way for Johnny to fly that logbook to BSS and collect money for doing it.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm sorry -- I though the whole point of this thread was to determine the legalities. If you only wanted to look at the morality and philosophy issues, you can have that discussion without me. Nevertheless, there is no legal way for Johnny to fly that logbook to BSS and collect money for doing it.
Click to expand...

My sincere appoligizes Cap'n Ron. I sorta 'tacked right' a bit with my last post. My 'situation' started the way you said and I thought I'd move the discussion over to a new track...what 'should' be legal vs. what 'is'.
 
So you have no opinion if Johnny could move a logbook 200 miles VFR without safety concerns for the public? Johnny is working on his instrument...flies three times a week. That lawyer or paralegal flying that brief to trial only flies once a month or two. Why is Johnny afoul the law while the lawyer get free range?

Maybe the law is screwed up.
 
Ron Levy said:
If that is a hunting lodge providing the services described in the CAB memo, it might apply. Otherwise, it doesn't, and the FAA has made that clear repeatedly over the years. And there is absolutely no way this would apply to the case at hand.
Click to expand...

The FAA lost the Alaska Prof. case precisely because it had not been consistently clear in its interpretation of its own regulations or application of case law.

Whether the lodges involved are for hunting or not appears (to me) to be about as material as the color of the airplanes involved.

Anyone interested in reading the somewhat infamous Alaska Prof. Hunters ruling can find the judge's opinion here, then judge for yourselves whether the interpretation used by the Alaska Region was based on some general principles that might be applied to variants of this hypothetical situation (keeping in mind that the regulations have changed since 1999):
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=cecil+humble+rainy+pass&hl=en&as_sdt=2,14&case=11524765852581158083&scilh=0
 
Last edited:
Some people have to make a grand exit when they lose interest in a thread.
 
I haven't lost interest. I guess I was just sorta perplexed as to WHY it should be illegal for Johnny to deliver the logbook.
 
Captain said:
So you have no opinion if Johnny could move a logbook 200 miles VFR without safety concerns for the public? Johnny is working on his instrument...flies three times a week. That lawyer or paralegal flying that brief to trial only flies once a month or two. Why is Johnny afoul the law while the lawyer get free range?

Maybe the law is screwed up.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of pilots would agree that the interpretations and case law on reimbursement of non-commercial pilots and operators have gone overboard.
 
Well, this is a representative government. They're OUR laws.
 
Palmpilot said:
I think a lot of pilots would agree that the interpretations and case law on reimbursement of non-commercial pilots and operators have gone overboard.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but the FAA has a real problem with their ability to identify violators. I suspect they believe that draconian enforcement is required to gain reasonable compliance. Draconian enforcement does this in at least two ways, first it encourages compliance through fear and second it increases the likelihood of tattling (by those in the know who want to distance themselves and/or those who have become convinced delivering a log book is a really big deal).

Similar logic involved in IRS enforcement.
 
Last edited:
RJM62 said:
The lawyer is flying himself or herself to the city to make thousands, not the brief, which is incidental to his or her work. He or she is not being paid to fly, but to do his or her lawyer thing once he or she gets there. The flying is incidental to the work. The attorney is not being paid to fly, but to lawyer.

Although... I have to wonder how the lawyer would be able to bill for his or her travel without running afoul of the FARs. Would that make it a "for-hire" flight? I imagine that the answer would be that the client is paying for the lawyer's presence regardless of the mode of travel.

Either that, or the lawyer could waive the travel expenses, but bill for the time spent thinking about the case during the flight. :D

As for a paralegal, I guess that would depend on whether the paralegal's presence was required, or merely the brief. I suspect that it would be considered for-hire unless the paralegal's presence and services were genuinely needed. Otherwise, I think it would be a for-hire cargo flight.

-Rich
Click to expand...
That being the case, suppose the BBS "hires" Johnny to come to wherever and polish his aircraft's windscreen, and by the way, bring the logbook with you and then, of course, pays his travel expenses.
 
Tell Johnny to pay for his own flight, hide logbook in the back. Text whoever is waiting for the logbook that they can find it under the back seat of Johnny's airplane when he arrives. Ha.
 
AuntPeggy said:
That being the case, suppose the BBS "hires" Johnny to come to wherever and polish his aircraft's windscreen, and by the way, bring the logbook with you and then, of course, pays his travel expenses.
Click to expand...

I think I hear Capt. Ron's ducks quacking...

-Rich
 
On a sort of related note...

A certain flight school with which I was once enrolled once did something that had me scratching my beard because it just didn't seem quite kosher to me.

What had happened was that a CFI and his student experienced a mag failure at a grass field about 40 miles away. Because it was late in the day and the A&P had gone home already, they decided to leave the airplane there overnight and send the A&P (who was also a pilot) to replace the mag the next day.

In the meantime, they sent one of the students (who was signed off for solo to that field) to the grass field in a 172, and then the CFI flew the three of them back.

The thing that didn't seem kosher to me was that they waived the rental cost for the 172 in return for the student flying out there to fetch the CFI and the other student. I never said anything about it, but it always seemed to me that the student, in that case, was basically flying a 135 operation because he received compensation in the form of free use of an airplane and loggable solo time.

Was I correct in my suspicion?

-Rich
 
Last edited:
Was he a commercial student and did he file a flight plan?

Seriously, smells bad to me too.
 
RJM62 said:
The thing that didn't seem kosher to me was that they waived the rental cost for the 172 in return for the student flying out there to fetch the CFI and the other student.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a possible violation of 61.89(a)(3):

§61.89 - General limitations.
(a) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:
(1) That is carrying a passenger;
(2) That is carrying property for compensation or hire;
(3) For compensation or hire;
(4) In furtherance of a business;​

With the CFI along on the return flight instructing can take place, so (1) is unlikely to apply. No property is being carried as such in either direction, so far as I can see, so (2) doesn't seem applicable.. It isn't the student's business, which I believe is the intent of (4). So that leaves (3).
 
Sounds like (4) to me. Furtherance of A business.

Doesn't say the students business. I'd say the flight school was furthering their business by moving equipment into position.
 
Captain said:
Sounds like (4) to me. Furtherance of A business.

Doesn't say the students business. I'd say the flight school was furthering their business by moving equipment into position.
Click to expand...

I think the FAA intended (4) to mean a business the student already had a financial interest in. Such as being a doctor who decides to travel solo somewhere to perform medicine.

The reason I believe (4) was intended to include only student businesses is because every time a student rents an airplane or a CFI the student is furthering the business of the FBO or CFI. Even though the student is paying! This is the literal construction of the regulations. There being no exclusion in the regulation concerning those classes of businesses, every student would find themselves in violation of clause (4).

But they used "a business" where they should have used a phrase such as "a business in which the student has any picuniary interest."

I don't think the people within the FAA who write and review their regulations are particularly bright or think very far ahead. Historically they've shown a lot of legal ineptness. Maybe it is because they really want to exert more control than they are willing to expose to the world in their published regulations. All in my humble opinion.
 
I bet that any of the large flight school mills that have "dispatchers" send student flights to pick up other broke down students every day of the week.

They probably don't, however, give the second aircraft any discounts on the flying. They just tell them they have to go there and pick up fellow students.

Any UND, FlightSafety, ATP, or Embry-Riddle grads feel like commenting?

Does the "dispatcher" always send a Commercially-rated pilot to fetch the wayward?
 
RJM62 said:
The thing that didn't seem kosher to me was that they waived the rental cost for the 172 in return for the student flying out there to fetch the CFI and the other student.
Click to expand...
Congratulations, Rabbi -- your knowledge of the Torah on point is accurate. That said, that sort of thing happens all the time, and the FAA isn't out there checking bills unless someone complains. Otherwise, it's a tree falling in an empty forest. Yes, it fell, but nobody heard it.
 
Ron Levy said:
Congratulations, Rabbi -- your knowledge of the Torah on point is accurate. That said, that sort of thing happens all the time, and the FAA isn't out there checking bills unless someone complains. Otherwise, it's a tree falling in an empty forest. Yes, it fell, but nobody heard it.
Click to expand...

Years ago, at an airport far, far away, that tree fell for meerrr, someone in our flight school.

-Skip
 
denverpilot said:
I bet that any of the large flight school mills that have "dispatchers" send student flights to pick up other broke down students every day of the week.

They probably don't, however, give the second aircraft any discounts on the flying. They just tell them they have to go there and pick up fellow students.

Any UND, FlightSafety, ATP, or Embry-Riddle grads feel like commenting?

Does the "dispatcher" always send a Commercially-rated pilot to fetch the wayward?
Click to expand...


FlightSafety alumn. It never happened to me. Once I was hired as an intern with a wet CFI I started doing all sorts of it though. Picking up planes from paint, taking them to paint, evacuating hurricanes, giving demo flights ect.

I don't think FSI would risk what they have by having students do work they can have a minimum wage intern do.
 
denverpilot said:
I bet that any of the large flight school mills that have "dispatchers" send student flights to pick up other broke down students every day of the week.
Click to expand...

In violation of the passenger-carrying prohibition? Why wouldn't they just send a CFI instead?
 
Jim Logajan said:
Sounds like a possible violation of 61.89(a)(3):
§61.89 - General limitations.
(a) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:
(1) That is carrying a passenger;
(2) That is carrying property for compensation or hire;
(3) For compensation or hire;
(4) In furtherance of a business;​
With the CFI along on the return flight instructing can take place, so (1) is unlikely to apply. No property is being carried as such in either direction, so far as I can see, so (2) doesn't seem applicable.. It isn't the student's business, which I believe is the intent of (4). So that leaves (3).
Click to expand...

Is not the airplane itself the property being carried, in violation of (2)?

-Rich
 
Ron Levy said:
Well, I said I wasn't sure about the law on interstate ground transportation. However, I think there is still some sort of agency with rules about interstate transportation of cargo for hire.
Click to expand...

Nope - Not unless commercial vehicles (>26,000 lbs or with a trailer >10,000 lbs) are involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top