Company supported IFR training dilemma

Thee FAA doesn't care

May be overstated.

The FAA doesn't notice. Doesn't mean they don't care.

Their actions and words on the topic in the last two decades would indicate that they care quite a
bit.

I mean seriously, they fried Mangiamele for asking if it was okay to give a ride to a friend who he also happened to do business with, to a basketball game... and changed what an entire industry thought the purpose of a private certificate was in the process.

Or should I say "clarified" their position which they say hasn't changed? Either way...

They obviously do care.
 
May be overstated.

The FAA doesn't notice. Doesn't mean they don't care.

Their actions and words on the topic in the last two decades would indicate that they care quite a
bit.

I mean seriously, they fried Mangiamele for asking if it was okay to give a ride to a friend who he also happened to do business with, to a basketball game... and changed what an entire industry thought the purpose of a private certificate was in the process.

Or should I say "clarified" their position which they say hasn't changed? Either way...

They obviously do care.
That case is different than what we are discussing. We are talking about someone paying for training. Not pro rata share for a trip somewhere. Apples and oranges.
 
That case is different than what we are discussing. We are talking about someone paying for training. Not pro rata share for a trip somewhere. Apples and oranges.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

The other cases *changed* what the vast majority thought the regs meant, prior to those legal letters.

- Will the kid get caught? Unlikely.

- Will the kid be doing something his certificate doesn't allow by the letter of the law? Likely.

- Would everyone generally think FAA would prefer more training than less for safety? Certainly.

Catch-22. Like I said before.

There's so many safe ways to do it that have zero threat to the certificate... the question is: Will the employer do them instead?
 
Persons or property are not being transported for hire, so I don't see what "letter of the law" you think would be violated. The flight training is compensation, but it's not compensation for flying an aircraft, it's compensation for being an employee of the company.
 
Perhaps, perhaps not.

The other cases *changed* what the vast majority thought the regs meant, prior to those legal letters.

- Will the kid get caught? Unlikely.

- Will the kid be doing something his certificate doesn't allow by the letter of the law? Likely.

- Would everyone generally think FAA would prefer more training than less for safety? Certainly.

Catch-22. Like I said before.

There's so many safe ways to do it that have zero threat to the certificate... the question is: Will the employer do them instead?
There is nothing to get caught doing in this scenario.
 
There is nothing to get caught doing in this scenario.

As long as you are willing to hang your certificate on that, then carry on. You're PIC.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the possibility of a problem to a Private certificate holder.

Especially with the bulk of constantly changing legal opinions flying (pun intended) on the topic of Private certificate holders receiving compensation.

They get to decide what it all means. I can tell ya this, it was very obvious that it was a "special focus item" on both my recent Commercial and CFI rides with two different examiners.

It was very clear they were both under instructions to stress the topic. FAA is cranky enough about commercial ops and compensation that they've told them to specifically test it. (Every year it's something new in the guidance for emphasis but right now... it's an obvious hot button...)

The other one they both went after heavily was Airworthiness. Which isn't part of this discussion, but is interesting as a side note. Advisory Circular 91-67 would be a good read on that one, for home gamers reading along.
 
As long as you are willing to hang your certificate on that, then carry on. You're PIC.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the possibility of a problem to a Private certificate holder.

Especially with the bulk of constantly changing legal opinions flying (pun intended) on the topic of Private certificate holders receiving compensation.

They get to decide what it all means. I can tell ya this, it was very obvious that it was a "special focus item" on both my recent Commercial and CFI rides with two different examiners.

It was very clear they were both under instructions to stress the topic. FAA is cranky enough about commercial ops and compensation that they've told them to specifically test it. (Every year it's something new in the guidance for emphasis but right now... it's an obvious hot button...)

The other one they both went after heavily was Airworthiness. Which isn't part of this discussion, but is interesting as a side note. Advisory Circular 91-67 would be a good read on that one, for home gamers reading along.
Yes it was mentioned in my CFI renewal as well. I just don't see how this scenario conforms to any of the guidance for compensation. I guess we will just have to disagree.
 
Back
Top