FlyteNow v. FAA

JeffDG said:
No, they don't.

If my company reimburses me for my hotel room, I don't declare that as compensation for tax purposes, do I?
Click to expand...

Tell that to the 50 or so coworkers of mine who just learned that they "earned" $150,000 in travel compensation last year.
 
acrophile said:
Can you say why? Are you sure your interpretation of (a) isn't being influenced by your preconception that (c) is indeed an exception?
Click to expand...

I think my interpretation is being influenced by the fact that (a) says "Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h)...." I don't think the FAA would have written it like that unless they intended all of the paragraphs within that range to be exceptions. For example, look at 61.39 (a):

"Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (e) of this section, to be eligible for a practical test for a certificate or rating issued under this part, an applicant must..."​

That example shows that if there is a paragraph, within a range of paragraphs, that they don't intend to be considered an exception, then they make that very clear. They don't expect the reader to infer it.

Furthermore, if (c) were NOT an exception to (a), what meaning would (c) have? What purpose would (c) serve? My understanding is that courts don't like to adopt interpretations that render parts of a law or regulation meaningless.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's a heck of a lot of business travel for one person in one year.
Click to expand...

In on Monday morning, depart on Thursday afternoon. That's meals, plane tickets, hotels and cars. Welcome to the world of an SAP consultant.

Used to be every week, now it's 3 weeks in a row with a week of at home work to stay under the IRS' threshold. So to recap, car rental company, airline, hotel and local restaurants get less revenue. Employees get less face time with customer, IRS doesn't get anything. A real win/win success story for taxation. There is a huge number of people this affects.
 
bartmc said:
In on Monday morning, depart on Thursday afternoon. That's meals, plane tickets, hotels and cars. Welcome to the world of an SAP consultant.

Used to be every week, now it's 3 weeks in a row with a week of at home work to stay under the IRS' threshold. So to recap, car rental company, airline, hotel and local restaurants get less revenue. Employees get less face time with customer, IRS doesn't get anything. A real win/win success story for taxation. There is a huge number of people this affects.
Click to expand...

No thank you!

Not for all the tea in China!!
 
bartmc said:
Tell that to the 50 or so coworkers of mine who just learned that they "earned" $150,000 in travel compensation last year.
Click to expand...

Your coworkers may owe this tax.

Temporary assignment vs. indefinite assignment. If your assignment or job away from your main place of work is temporary, your tax home does not change. You are considered to be away from home for the whole period you are away from your main place of work. You can deduct your travel expenses if they otherwise qualify for deduction. Generally, a temporary assignment in a single location is one that is realistically expected to last (and does in fact last) for 1 year or less.
However, if your assignment or job is indefinite, the location of the assignment or job becomes your new tax home and you cannot deduct your travel expenses while there. An assignment or job in a single location is considered indefinite if it is realistically expected to last for more than 1 year, whether or not it actually lasts for more than 1 year.
If your assignment is indefinite, you must include in your income any amounts you receive from your employer for living expenses, even if they are called travel allowances and you account to your employer for them. You may be able to deduct the cost of relocating to your new tax home as a moving expense. See Publication 521 for more information.
Click to expand...

IRS Publication 464 (emphasis added)

You will need professional representation if you disagree with the IRS's opinion of your company's particular facts and circumstances. Your representative will review the actual law, rather than relying on the IRS opinions. The tax code is so complicated that the IRS gets it wrong about as often as anyone else.


Fortunately for your coworkers, the IRS appeal system is far more consistent and fair then that used by the FAA.
 
Palmpilot said:
I think my interpretation is being influenced by the fact that (a) says "Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h)...." I don't think the FAA would have written it like that unless they intended all of the paragraphs within that range to be exceptions. For example, look at 61.39 (a):

"Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (e) of this section, to be eligible for a practical test for a certificate or rating issued under this part, an applicant must..."​

That example shows that if there is a paragraph, within a range of paragraphs, that they don't intend to be considered an exception, then they make that very clear. They don't expect the reader to infer it.

Furthermore, if (c) were NOT an exception to (a), what meaning would (c) have? What purpose would (c) serve? My understanding is that courts don't like to adopt interpretations that render parts of a law or regulation meaningless.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Those are good points.

The comparison you make with 61.39 is only a matter of stylistic consistency. True, there's a reasonable presumption of such consistency. But it's a fairly weak presumption, nowhere near sufficient to overcome the actual wording of (c).

Furthermore, even if (a) did refer to (c) as an exception, that wouldn't necessarily override (c)'s wording. After all, if we had to choose between them, it might be (a) that's worded in error, rather than (c).

You also suggest that (c) would have no effect if it were not an exception. That would indeed be a strong argument that (c) was intended as an exception, contrary to its wording. In fact, though, (c) still does have an effect: it limits the compensation a private pilot can receive under the exceptions given in (b)-(h).

Anyway, the FAA itself does of course regard (c) as an exception. I just wish they'd be more careful about the wording of their regulations.
 
Last edited:
acrophile said:
http://bit.ly/1H8FnZQ
Click to expand...

Where do you think I found that Acronym Finder site? :rofl:

The first Google entry that didn't appear to be an ad led to a Wikipedia article that was nearly incomprehensible. *I* clarified the first sentence of that article, after I followed enough links to figure it out. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
acrophile said:
Thanks. Those are good points.

The comparison you make with 61.39 is only a matter of stylistic consistency. True, there's a reasonable presumption of such consistency. But it's a fairly weak presumption, nowhere near sufficient to overcome the actual wording of (c).

Furthermore, even if (a) did refer to (c) as an exception, that wouldn't necessarily override (c)'s wording. After all, if we had to choose between them, it might be (a) that's worded in error, rather than (c).

You also suggest that (c) would have no effect if it were not an exception. That would indeed be a strong argument that (c) was intended as an exception, contrary to its wording. In fact, though, (c) still does have an effect: it limits the compensation a private pilot can receive under the exceptions given in (b)-(h).
Click to expand...

Those are good points as well. I didn't think of that last one.

It probably doesn't pay to try to take (c) too literally though, because if we do, then the part after the comma could be taken to mean that the restriction before the comma doesn't apply if the expenses include even one item other than "fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees." Reading it that way, the pro rata share requirement would not apply to any of those listed items if an aircraft maintenance reserve were included among the expenses, for example.

"(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees." [emphasis added]​

The part after the comma would only have the meaning intended if the part before the comma had been written permissively.

I think this is an example of why the courts spend so much time trying to figure out the intent of laws and regulations.
 
Palmpilot said:
It probably doesn't pay to try to take (c) too literally though, because if we do, then the part after the comma could be taken to mean that the restriction before the comma doesn't apply if the expenses include even one item other than "fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees." Reading it that way, the pro rata share requirement would not apply to any of those listed items if an aircraft maintenance reserve were included among the expenses, for example.

"(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees." [emphasis added]​

The part after the comma would only have the meaning intended if the part before the comma had been written permissively.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a distinct problem. Even if (c) began "A private pilot may accept up to, but not more than..." as apparently intended, the "provided" part would still be wrong, since it would limit the restriction, as well as the permission, to the enumerated expenses (or worse, to flights that incur only the enumerated expenses). Correct wording would be "...and only for...".

Perhaps the lesson here is that FAA regulations are best understood by ignoring the words. :)
 
acrophile said:
Yes, that's a distinct problem. Even if (c) began "A private pilot may accept up to, but not more than..." as apparently intended, the "provided" part would still be wrong, since it would limit the restriction, as well as the permission, to the enumerated expenses (or worse, to flights that incur only the enumerated expenses). Correct wording would be "...and only for...".

Perhaps the lesson here is that FAA regulations are best understood by ignoring the words. :)
Click to expand...

What's the meaning of "is"?
 
I'm going with my original point... You guys are arguing the minutia of the regs.
The point is the general public sees this as a commercial operation, and expects commercial operation operations.

In short, it's a bit deceiving.
 
Could that be dealt with by requiring them to prominently post comparative accident statistics between GA, Part 135, and Part 121? That might kill off FlyteNow right there! :hairraise:
 
Palmpilot said:
Could that be dealt with by requiring them to prominently post comparative accident statistics between GA, Part 135, and Part 121? That might kill off FlyteNow right there! :hairraise:
Click to expand...

At least prominently show that you may not be flying with a professional pilot.
When passengers see "pay", they think commercial ops. They don't read, or understand the fine print.
 
Kritchlow said:
I'm going with my original point... You guys are arguing the minutia of the regs.
The point is the general public sees this as a commercial operation, and expects commercial operation operations.

In short, it's a bit deceiving.
Click to expand...

Here's my proposal: Since it appears we have so many PP's wanting to get into the "air transportation" business, the FAA needs to relax the regulations and allow them this privilege.

But also add in the regulations that PP's engaged in air transportation will be required an annual check ride that must be demonstrated to PP PTS with the FAA. Also, if they wish to fly IFR, they must pass a 6 month check ride as well to the IA PTS, again with the FAA.

Also, their airplanes must pass a conformity inspection by the FAA.

Seems very fair to me, and offers an equivalent level of safety with Part 135.

So, who's gonna sign up? :yes:
 
RotorAndWing said:
Also, their airplanes must pass a conformity inspection by the FAA.

So, who's gonna sign up? :yes:
Click to expand...

That should run about all of them away :rofl:.

FAA: Ok we will start the inspection with interior flammability, do you have your burn certs with you?

Airplane owner: Blank face <crickets>
 
RotorAndWing said:
Here's my proposal: Since it appears we have so many PP's wanting to get into the "air transportation" business, the FAA needs to relax the regulations and allow them this privilege.

But also add in the regulations that PP's engaged in air transportation will be required an annual check ride that must be demonstrated to PP PTS with the FAA. Also, if they wish to fly IFR, they must pass a 6 month check ride as well to the IA PTS, again with the FAA.

Also, their airplanes must pass a conformity inspection by the FAA.

Seems very fair to me, and offers an equivalent level of safety with Part 135.

So, who's gonna sign up? :yes:
Click to expand...

I propose that the more frightening scenario, from an FAA perspective, is not that private pilots will begin falling out of the sky under the weight of all the filthy lucre that they accept for their trouble, but rather that precisely nothing out of the ordinary will happen, proving once an for all the impotence the apparatus including its tens of thousands of employees and their reams of regulations, including but certainly not limited to those concerning the burn testing certification of the fabric under the pilot's ass.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Here's my proposal: Since it appears we have so many PP's wanting to get into the "air transportation" business, the FAA needs to relax the regulations and allow them this privilege.

But also add in the regulations that PP's engaged in air transportation will be required an annual check ride that must be demonstrated to PP PTS with the FAA. Also, if they wish to fly IFR, they must pass a 6 month check ride as well to the IA PTS, again with the FAA.

Also, their airplanes must pass a conformity inspection by the FAA.

Seems very fair to me, and offers an equivalent level of safety with Part 135.

So, who's gonna sign up? :yes:
Click to expand...
If they did a program like that, I think I'd try for it.
 
DJTorrente said:
I propose that the more frightening scenario, from an FAA perspective, is not that private pilots will begin falling out of the sky under the weight of all the filthy lucre that they accept for their trouble, but rather that precisely nothing out of the ordinary will happen, proving once an for all the impotence the apparatus including its tens of thousands of employees and their reams of regulations, including but certainly not limited to those concerning the burn testing certification of the fabric under the pilot's ass.
Click to expand...

And you would be wrong.

GA (part 91) safety record proves that out.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Sure.

Also remember, if you fail a check ride you will be required additional training. Fail again and you will be subject to a 44709 evaluation (just like the 135 folks).
Click to expand...

No, there is absolutely no possibility that the FAA is using regulation as a tool of intimidation... :rolleyes2:

Surely what you meant to say is that failing a checkride (from an oddly aggressive inquisitor) would surrender their ability to accept revenue, not the right to fly altogether.... right?
 
DJTorrente said:
No, there is absolutely no possibility that the FAA is using regulation as a tool of intimidation... :rolleyes2:

Surely what you meant to say is that failing a checkride (from an oddly aggressive inquisitor) would surrender their ability to accept revenue, not the right to fly altogether.... right?
Click to expand...

The exercise here is how could a PP could operate carrying passengers for hire (holding out). If PP wanting the privilege shouldn't they be held to the same standards as 14 CFR Part 135 operators?
 
RotorAndWing said:
The exercise here is how could a PP could operate carrying passengers for hire (holding out). If PP wanting the privilege shouldn't they be held to the same standards as 14 CFR Part 135 operators?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the PP should lose their private privileges if they don't meet the part 135 standard?
 
DJTorrente said:
Are you saying that the PP should lose their private privileges if they don't meet the part 135 standard?
Click to expand...

The scenario is this: the FAA suddenly grants PP the right to fly passengers for compensation as long as they are held to the same standards of the 135 operators.

If the 135 pilot can't pass his check ride, he is retrained and rechecked. If he fails again he may be required to do a 44709 evaluation for his certificate, which means he can't fly anyone ( only a CFI ) until he passes the evaluation.

Shouldn't the PP be held to the same standard?
 
RotorAndWing said:
The scenario is this: the FAA suddenly grants PP the right to fly passengers for compensation as long as they are held to the same standards of the 135 operators.

If the 135 pilot can't pass his check ride, he is retrained and rechecked. If he fails again he may be required to do a 44709 evaluation for his certificate, which means he can't fly anyone ( only a CFI ) until he passes the evaluation.

Shouldn't the PP be held to the same standard?
Click to expand...

So that's a yes; a PP can TRY to meet a higher standard -- to be judged by the FAA, against the FAA's expressed wishes -- and if he fails he gets grounded for his trouble. Line forms to the right.

Thanks, Franz.
 
RotorAndWing said:
The scenario is this: the FAA suddenly grants PP the right to fly passengers for compensation as long as they are held to the same standards of the 135 operators.

If the 135 pilot can't pass his check ride, he is retrained and rechecked. If he fails again he may be required to do a 44709 evaluation for his certificate, which means he can't fly anyone ( only a CFI ) until he passes the evaluation.

Shouldn't the PP be held to the same standard?
Click to expand...


I thought the scenario was the FAA lets loose of this and focuses on more important things......
 
DJTorrente said:
So that's a yes; a PP can TRY to meet a higher standard -- to be judged by the FAA, against the FAA's expressed wishes -- and if he fails he gets grounded for his trouble. Line forms to the right.

Thanks, Franz.
Click to expand...

How is this different for a Commercial/ATP rated pilot on a 14 CFR Part 135 certificate? He is judged by the FAA, and if he fails he is subject to a reexamination of his privileges.

So what you are saying, using my scenario, is that the PP should not be subject to increased scrutiny, he shouldn't be required to demonstrate skills appropriate to his certificate, his aircraft shouldn't meet minimum requirements and he should be granted the same rights and privileges as an air carrier to hold out for compensation.

Wow, talk about the proverbial "Cake and eat it too"......:rolleyes:
 
jbarrass said:
I thought the scenario was the FAA lets loose of this and focuses on more important things......
Click to expand...

No, my scenario says drop the compensation prohibition from the PP but have him demonstrate the same level of competence and safety as a 14 CFR Part 135 counterpart.

Wouldn't that be fair? :dunno:
 
RotorAndWing said:
No, my scenario says drop the compensation prohibition from the PP but have him demonstrate the same level of competence and safety as a 14 CFR Part 135 counterpart.

Wouldn't that be fair? :dunno:
Click to expand...
I think it would be fine, and as I said, I'd try it. I'd prefer it to be once a year, though maybe if one could prove a certain number of hours of flight time logged. Also, maybe one could have a minimum of say 1000 hours of time like they have minimums for things like flying for charity events. Honestly, I'd be fine with taking a checkride every 6 months if it was reasonable and I knew I could stay proficient. The real question would be if insurance would be happy... and I think that'd be the killer. For a guy like me who already has commercial insurance on a bird, it probably wouldn't cost too much more and it'd be fun to be able to take a friend from church to some city and get an airline ticket's compensation to offset the flight's costs.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I think it would be fine, and as I said, I'd try it. I'd prefer it to be once a year, though maybe if one could prove a certain number of hours of flight time logged. Also, maybe one could have a minimum of say 1000 hours of time like they have minimums for things like flying for charity events. Honestly, I'd be fine with taking a checkride every 6 months if it was reasonable and I knew I could stay proficient. The real question would be if insurance would be happy... and I think that'd be the killer. For a guy like me who already has commercial insurance on a bird, it probably wouldn't cost too much more and it'd be fun to be able to take a friend from church to some city and get an airline ticket's compensation to offset the flight's costs.
Click to expand...


OK, thanks for the well thought reply.
 
RotorAndWing said:
No, my scenario says drop the compensation prohibition from the PP but have him demonstrate the same level of competence and safety as a 14 CFR Part 135 counterpart.

Wouldn't that be fair? :dunno:
Click to expand...

How about the airplane? Shouldn't maintenance also be held to the higher standard? One would think the public would expect such a thing.
 
Words mean things. Cost sharing isn't 'compensation', any more than a Youtube video is a commercial operation.
 
Don't forget to add class II medical standards to the mix, especially if they go for the drivers license thing.

OR.... Just make it abundantly clear on the site that the pilots are NOT commercially qualified and may not have a lot of flight experience. Also point out they may not be able to fly in low visibility weather.
 
JimNtexas said:
Words mean things. Cost sharing isn't 'compensation', any more than a Youtube video is a commercial operation.
Click to expand...

Your average non aviation person sees "pay for flight", and they assume commercial. IMO, that's the whole issue at hand.
 
RotorAndWing said:
OK, thanks for the well thought reply.
Click to expand...

I find it interesting how I'm legal and insured to rent aircraft to the general public, I can also teach the general public how to fly the things, I can also with my sole authority teach someone to fly and send them on a solo across the entire country.

I can charge for all of the above. I have to pay a premium for insurance, have to do essentially an annual every one hundred hours, etc.

I can't however take a person to another airport 25 miles away in perfect day VFR weather, drop them off, and accept payment for the aircraft and my time. I would argue that's less risk than much of what I can do with the general public.

That just doesn't make much sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top