FAA grounds whooping crane migration formation

mikea

mikea

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
16,975
Location
Lake County, IL
Display Name
iWin
Home Airfield
C81
WASHINGTON — Ten young whooping cranes and the bird-like plane they think is their mother had flown more than halfway to their winter home in Florida when federal regulators stepped in.

Now the birds and the plane are grounded in Alabama while the Federal Aviation Administration investigates whether the journey violates regulations
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...osentinel/news/local/state+(OrlandoSentinel.c
Click to expand...

They didn't have the mandatory formation flight training either.
 
Hey, if it's part of a government partnership... Issue a contract to that pilot and call it PUBLIC USE FLYING.
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
Hey, if it's part of a government partnership... Issue a contract to that pilot and call it PUBLIC USE FLYING.
Click to expand...

Actually, that sounds like a great solution.

According to Avweb, the FAA didn't stop the activity. One of the pilots involved questioned the legality, and the company ceased on its own and contacted the FAA for clarification.

From what I understand, the main issue is the use of paid pilots to fly the ultralights that lead the cranes. That's not allowed, under Part 103 ("...recreation or sport purposes only...").

Ron Wanttaja
 
This absurd case could prove to be a good thing if it can spark a sorely needed public dialogue on the spirit of the regulations with which the FAA is now pounding this project, a project that is obviously in the public good. Beyond this project, a stroke of the pen is all that is needed to breath new life into the distressed general aviation industry as a whole which is being strangled by the FAA General Counsel's interpretation of a single regulation, 14 CFR 61.113 (b).

The FAA GC has determined that a private pilot may be reimbursed by an employer for expenses incurred by the pilot if they fly their own airplane to attend to company business but ONLY if that pilot flies ALONE. If there is any other passenger (let's say a business colleague) on the trip then no reimbursement is allowed. The spirit of the regulation is to prevent private pilots from holding out their piloting skills for compensation without obtaining the necessary commercial license or from circumventing regulations applicable to commercial flight operations, a policy that I'm sure most pilots would agree is in the public interest.

The execution however is deeply flawed. We have thrown the baby out with the bath water. If employees who happen to hold private pilot licenses were able to be reimbursed for the use of their own airplane, providing that all the provisions of the regulations to distinguish such operations from commercial flying enterprise are kept intact, then it is probable that general aviation would expand dramatically and immediately. Aviation industries would employ more, build more, design more, and all businesses who have private pilots in their employ (not as pilots mind you) would experience all the efficiency gains inherent in general aviation that our forebears who built this amazing infrastructure had envisioned.

For this to work, employees who operate as private pilots would necessarily not be required to possess a pilot license as a condition of their employment and the employer would have to be indifferent as to the mode of transportation that en employee chooses to use for any business trip, i.e., the employee can never be compelled to use their airplane (or one they rent) for a business trip. As long as the common purpose test is met and the pilot is not compensated as a professional pilot, reimbursement of direct expenses of the use of a private aircraft for incidental business purposes should be allowed, regardless of whether other employees or business associates are carried.

We have relied on government regulators and the courts to provide relief but to no avail. Under the current statutory, regulatory and case law regime no change in the status quo will occur. Therefore, a change in the statutes is the best unambiguous way to achieve this goal.

No other country on Earth has a general aviation infrastructure that compares to the Untied States. Let's put it to work for the benefit of all Americans! Private aviation is an exceptional characteristic of the American economy, unique in the world. Let us unfetter this miracle of the modern age from the shackles of onerous and unnecessary government meddling in our freedom to fly for private benefit.

Write your members of congress and industry leaders, and urge them to lead the lobbying charge for a statutory amendment to 14 CFR 61.113 (b) to unleash this powerful yet sadly, underemployed pent up engine of our nation's economy.
 
I believe it's LSAs not ultralights but the underlying issue is the same. Those are only for sport/recreation and not in support of a business. The group already had a determination from the Milwaukee FSDO as to the non-commercial nature (allowing them to use sport/private pilots). Someone does seem to have a bone to pick and is causing them problems.
 
Dr. Mack, I think what you write has a lot of merit. However, I do not think it will have much impact on GA as a whole. Very, very few companies are going to expose themselves to that risk. If a plane went down with multiple employees and the company was paying for the flight it will be a liability nightmare. Private pilot, in small airplane crashes killing 4 key employees. The plaintiff's attorney would have a field day. Point out the pilot did not have a commercial ticket and when you introduce the statistics for small aircraft, just too much liability. Insurance companies for both the aircraft and the company would go balistic. I wish I were wrong but, I doubt I am. JMO
 
DrMack said:
This absurd case could prove to be a good thing if it can spark a sorely needed public dialogue on the spirit of the regulations with which the FAA is now pounding this project, a project that is obviously in the public good. Beyond this project, a stroke of the pen is all that is needed to breath new life into the distressed general aviation industry as a whole which is being strangled by the FAA General Counsel's interpretation of a single regulation, 14 CFR 61.113 (b).

The FAA GC has determined that a private pilot may be reimbursed by an employer for expenses incurred by the pilot if they fly their own airplane to attend to company business but ONLY if that pilot flies ALONE. If there is any other passenger (let's say a business colleague) on the trip then no reimbursement is allowed. The spirit of the regulation is to prevent private pilots from holding out their piloting skills for compensation without obtaining the necessary commercial license or from circumventing regulations applicable to commercial flight operations, a policy that I'm sure most pilots would agree is in the public interest.

The execution however is deeply flawed. We have thrown the baby out with the bath water. If employees who happen to hold private pilot licenses were able to be reimbursed for the use of their own airplane, providing that all the provisions of the regulations to distinguish such operations from commercial flying enterprise are kept intact, then it is probable that general aviation would expand dramatically and immediately. Aviation industries would employ more, build more, design more, and all businesses who have private pilots in their employ (not as pilots mind you) would experience all the efficiency gains inherent in general aviation that our forebears who built this amazing infrastructure had envisioned.

For this to work, employees who operate as private pilots would necessarily not be required to possess a pilot license as a condition of their employment and the employer would have to be indifferent as to the mode of transportation that en employee chooses to use for any business trip, i.e., the employee can never be compelled to use their airplane (or one they rent) for a business trip. As long as the common purpose test is met and the pilot is not compensated as a professional pilot, reimbursement of direct expenses of the use of a private aircraft for incidental business purposes should be allowed, regardless of whether other employees or business associates are carried.

We have relied on government regulators and the courts to provide relief but to no avail. Under the current statutory, regulatory and case law regime no change in the status quo will occur. Therefore, a change in the statutes is the best unambiguous way to achieve this goal.

No other country on Earth has a general aviation infrastructure that compares to the Untied States. Let's put it to work for the benefit of all Americans! Private aviation is an exceptional characteristic of the American economy, unique in the world. Let us unfetter this miracle of the modern age from the shackles of onerous and unnecessary government meddling in our freedom to fly for private benefit.

Write your members of congress and industry leaders, and urge them to lead the lobbying charge for a statutory amendment to 14 CFR 61.113 (b) to unleash this powerful yet sadly, underemployed pent up engine of our nation's economy.
Click to expand...

Or just ask them to put pressure on the FAA to rescind that interpretation, since before it came out, I was free to take my colleagues along on flights to meetings we were all attending.

Better yet, rescind it and FIRE the current counsel, as her record has been bizzare.

Warning, even if the rule went away, insurance concerns would still restrict this activity once medium size businesses ask about their liability. Example, when the rule allowed flying in furtherence of a business and reimbursement of costs for private pilots even if they had other "common-purpose" passengers on board, the small start-up company I worked for loved it and I flew many trips on business, sometimes solo, sometimes with other folks (employees and partners) on board.

Move to a small-medium size business. Company policy requires an instrument rating, currency, WINGS in the past 12 months, and 250 PIC. Not too bac.

Move to medium-size business - Commercial/Instrument, 250 PIC, Currency and WINGS.

Move to Northrop Grumman - Piloting an aircraft on company time is forbidden unless your specific job function in the company is a pilot on a contract. Even then you may only fly on the customer's time, you may not fly on any other company business.
 
Many universities have a policy similar to this: http://blink.ucsd.edu/travel/training-guidelines/booking/air/private-aircraft.html. There is no reason it can't be used for everybody else in the economy except for the GC opinion. Unless there is a statutory change (i.e., act of congress), the FAA bureaucrats and the courts will continue to impose the irrational status quo and the potential of GA that our forebears envisioned will continue to be unrealized.

The same liability issues arise when a private automobile is used to carry multiple employees.
 
DrMack said:
Many universities have a policy similar to this: http://blink.ucsd.edu/travel/training-guidelines/booking/air/private-aircraft.html. There is no reason it can't be used for everybody else in the economy except for the GC opinion. Unless there is a statutory change (i.e., act of congress), the FAA bureaucrats and the courts will continue to impose the irrational status quo and the potential of GA that our forebears envisioned will continue to be unrealized.

The same liability issues arise when a private automobile is used to carry multiple employees.
Click to expand...
Not so much from a liability standpoint, as it's not the passengers they're worried about as much as the schoolyard full of kids that your plane crashes into.

Not saying it's rational, but that's the worry. The exposure to damages from third parties is larger for airplanes than cars, because everyone knows that little planes are unsafe.
 
Actually it is different than driving. First there is statistically more risk than driving. Second, driving is much more accepted by the general population which make up jurys. The position of the insurance companies is a very good measurment. Their whole business model is based on accessing risk and they are quite good at it.
Most companies will not accept the additional risk of promoting general aviation for transportation of their employees. The risk benefit is way too one sided. There are a sizable number of corporations that will not embrace turbine aircraft flown by professional pilots. The legal system in this country is one of the most detrimentel things to GA.
 
DrMack said:
Many universities have a policy similar to this: http://blink.ucsd.edu/travel/training-guidelines/booking/air/private-aircraft.html. There is no reason it can't be used for everybody else in the economy except for the GC opinion. Unless there is a statutory change (i.e., act of congress), the FAA bureaucrats and the courts will continue to impose the irrational status quo and the potential of GA that our forebears envisioned will continue to be unrealized.

The same liability issues arise when a private automobile is used to carry multiple employees.
Click to expand...
I've flown for my college twice. The first time, it was just me, and they reimbursed at the equivalent coach airline fare. The second time I went with two colleagues and a new controller said that I couldn't be reimbursed by the college as a matter of policy, notwithstanding the FAA chief counsel ruling. However, at least they didn't forbid me from flying or taking my colleagues. My spouse's not-for-profit company won't let he fly herself for business period.
 
I think Grant's situation is about as good as you are ever going to see it. There are many, perhaps a vast majority that will not even go that far. Grant's wife's experience will be the more norm. Most institutions, private or public are not big on taking on extra risk.
 
n12365 said:
Unfortunately, my company is the same way.
Click to expand...

Neither will mine. Light aircraft are dangerous you know. We should know, we build them, their propellers, and their engines.
 
Heather Ray said:
Score one for the cranes! We received the exemption this afternoon!
Click to expand...

:yes:
 

Attachments

  • photo.jpg
    photo.jpg
    13.2 KB · Views: 7
Yeah, I've got a corporate bad attitude. I'm an airplane owner, but the airframe, engine, and the prop are all from our competitors. I did get a sweet corporate discount on a golf car.
 
You heard it here first!

mikea said:
:yes:
Click to expand...
WASHINGTON — The pilots of the bird-like aircraft that has been leading nine young whooping cranes to their winter home in Florida have been granted a special exemption by federal regulators to continue their journey.

The Federal Aviation Administration has provided a one-time waiver to Operation Migration, a conservation organization trying to re-establish an Eastern flyway for whooping cranes by teaching young birds how to make the flight.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...d-like-plane/2012/01/09/gIQA7IYHmP_story.html
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top