Just delete the thread

960px-Don_Quixote_fighting_windmills.jpg
 
It will be interesting to see how the courts handle these. One problem is language like this in cases such as FlyteNow (flight-sharing website), which, while referring to Auer deference, says

Even without such deference, we have no difficulty upholding the FAA’s interpretation of its regulations in this case.​

So, the courts could toss Auer and still find the FAA ‘s treatment within the scope if the 61.113 limited exception for shared flights.
 
Last edited:
To me it seems they are in fact running a Part 135 operation.
Also said pilot logging PIC time that is partially funded by third party?
Pilot flying gets expenses paid to log time which would further enhance his career if so chosen?

My feeling is if a pilot wishes to volunteer his time and aircraft for such a mission then all costs should be paid by him alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
I had a bright idea in my younger flying days that I would fly people to Key West for the day.
I could share the plane rental and gas with three other people. I could probably do this several weekends a month with word of mouth. It would partially pay for my flying hours.

I personally had no interest in seeing Key West as I've been there many times. I would as a Favor do it for my friends And strangers alike.

My CFI said no I couldn't do that! Oh shucks
 
midlifeflyer said:
It will be interesting to see how the courts handle these. One problem is language like this in cases such as FlyteNow (flight-sharing website), which, while referring to Auer deference, says

Even without such deference, we have no difficulty upholding the FAA’s interpretation of its regulations in this case.​

So, the courts could toss Auer and still find the FAA ‘s treatment within the scope if the 61.113 limited exception for shared flights.
Click to expand...
I think they’re not only going for the overturning of Auer, but also the overturning of their current interpretation of 61.113(c), as “the regulation’s text does not support it”.
 
Jon Wilder said:
I think they’re not only going for the overturning of Auer, but also the overturning of their current interpretation of 61.113(c), as “the regulation’s text does not support it”.
Click to expand...
No thinking required on that point. If they weren't attacking specific interpretations, there would be no case.
 
bonefishpete said:
To me it seems they are in fact running a Part 135 operation.
Also said pilot logging PIC time that is partially funded by third party?
Pilot flying gets expenses paid to log time which would further enhance his career if so chosen?

My feeling is if a pilot wishes to volunteer his time and aircraft for such a mission then all costs should be paid by him alone.
Click to expand...
IIRC there was an FAA interpretation letter involving CAF pilots, in which the Chief Counsel's office opined that the "free flight time = compensation" problem could be avoided by not logging the flight time.
 
Personally, I like that they're doing it even if they end up tilting at windmills. There are real logical questions about why one thing is safe and another is not just because of paperwork, and we all know that paperwork sometimes isn't reflective of reality. Also, compensation, while perhaps extremely valuable for a young pilot, often isn't a real incentive for someone like myself with say 7,000+ hours who might be willing to volunteer for a flight.

I will always obey the FAA rules, but the truth is that some of them are archaic and arbitrary.
 
bonefishpete said:
To me it seems they are in fact running a Part 135 operation.
Also said pilot logging PIC time that is partially funded by third party?
Pilot flying gets expenses paid to log time which would further enhance his career if so chosen?

My feeling is if a pilot wishes to volunteer his time and aircraft for such a mission then all costs should be paid by him alone.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing that most of us weren't aware of until these lawsuits came to light.

Congress, in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2012, Section 821, added "Clarification Of Requirements For Volunteer Pilots Operating Charitable Medical Flights", which states in relevant part -

(a) REIMBURSEMENT OF FUEL COSTS - Notwithstanding any other law or regulation, in administering section 61.113(c), or title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation), the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall allow an aircraft owner or operator to accept reimbursement from a volunteer pilot organization for the fuel costs associated with a flight operation to provide transportation for an individual or organ for medical purposes (and for other associated individuals), if the aircraft owner or operator has -
(1) volunteered to provide such transportation; and
(2) notified any individual that will be on the flight, at the time of inquiry about the flight, that the flight operation is for charitable purposes and is not subject to the same requirements as a commercial flight.
Click to expand...

Congress even expanded on this in the most recent authorization act (see FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 Section 830) to include airport expenditures associated with the flight.

The problem: The agency is ignoring this.

This is what will give the lawsuit the traction it needs to succeed.
 
Last edited:
Jon Wilder said:
Here's the thing that most of us weren't aware of until these lawsuits came to light.

Congress, in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2012, Section 821, added "Clarification Of Requirements For Volunteer Pilots Operating Charitable Medical Flights", which states in relevant part -



Congress even expanded on this in the most recent authorization act (see FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 Section 830) to include airport expenditures associated with the flight.

The problem: The agency is ignoring this.

This is what will give the lawsuit the traction it needs to succeed.
Click to expand...
You should probably mention the FAA’s response to section 821 in 2013: https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...y-clarification-on-charitable-medical-flights
 
If the organizations win this because the FAA is ignoring the law, does it mean I will finally get my picture on my certificate?
 
Brad Z said:
You should probably mention the FAA’s response to section 821 in 2013: https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...y-clarification-on-charitable-medical-flights
Click to expand...
The requirement laid out by Congress in (a)(2) in relevant part states -

(2) notified any individual that will be on the flight, at the time of inquiry about the flight, that the flight operation is for charitable purposes and is not subject to the same requirements as a commercial flight.

Yet in the FAA's response to Section 821, they outline equivalent requirements to a commercial flight in order for Section 821 to apply, thereby ignoring Section 821.
 
X3 Skier said:
If the organizations win this because the FAA is ignoring the law, does it mean I will finally get my picture on my certificate?
Click to expand...
That’s just too difficult and expensive. All of the states have had photos on driver’s licenses for 40 or 50 years+. Why does the FAA get to keep not dollowing the law that was supposed to take effect in 2008?
 
ateamer said:
That’s just too difficult and expensive. All of the states have had photos on driver’s licenses for 40 or 50 years+. Why does the FAA get to keep not dollowing the law that was supposed to take effect in 2008?
Click to expand...

Congress mandated photos on pilot certificates years ago. However, each year congress fails to allocate the money to the FAA to carry it out.

No money, no pictures.
 
Look let's keep it on topic. I will include this regarding the photo on certificate mandate, but a separate thread really should be started for that discussion, as that is a whole separate case to bring.

That said -

2004 Mandate: Following intelligence and security legislation after 9/11 (IRTPA), Congress directed the FAA to issue tamper-resistant pilot certificates featuring photographs and optional biometric identifiers.

2004 Agency Response: The agency chose instead to issue credit card-sized, tamper resistance plastic certificates and required pilots to carry a separate government-issued photo ID (such as a driver license) when flying, under FAR 61.3.

2010 Photo Proposal: The FAA changed course and issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled "Photo Requirements for Pilot Certificates" to finally add photos and an eight-year expiration cycle.

Industry Pushback: General aviation groups like AOPA strongly opposed the 2010 proposal, arguing it added unnecessary financial and logistical burdens ($22+ fees plus processing costs) without providing actual safety or security benefits since pilots already carried government photo IDs.

Current Status: The 2010 photo-certificate rule was ultimately not finalized into a permanent photo-ID mandate, leaving the requirement for a separate photo ID intact.
 
Jon Wilder said:
I think they’re not only going for the overturning of Auer, but also the overturning of their current interpretation of 61.113(c), as “the regulation’s text does not support it”.
Click to expand...
You win. Amendment- (c) A private pilot may not share operating expenses of a flight with passengers.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
You win. Amendment- (c) A private pilot may not share operating expenses of a flight with passengers.
Click to expand...
What reference are you citing?

The Texas Public Policy Foundation, the organization bringing these two lawsuits, cites the following in regards to the current interpretation of 61.113(c) -

Three specific interpretations preclude reimbursement. The “common purpose” test requires the pilot and passenger to share a purpose for the flight. FAA says that is not possible when the patient chooses the destination medical facility. FAA also requires the pro-rata reimbursement come from the passengers, not a third party such as a charity. Finally, FAA’s definition of “compensation” is so broad that it treats logging flight time, or even a free meal, as compensation that triggers commercial regulations.
Click to expand...

Their argument is that these interpretations find no support in the regulation's text and are not in accordance with the law. Rivers’s case seeks to vacate the three unlawful interpretations and to overturn Auer deference. Overturning Auer will restore the principle that agencies must follow the best reading of their own regulations—not the interpretation most convenient or most beneficial to the agency.
 
The lawsuit you cite argues Chevron, which had to do with vague laws written by Congress and executive branch interpretation that changed with changes in presidential administrations. The big misinterpretation has been what some thing the Supreme Court ruled in Chevron.
The lawsuit argues the rule written by the FAA, not Congress, is being wrongly interpreted and applied by the agency authorized by law to adopted it. The agency will simply change the rule if the courts rule the interpretation is wrong. And no, the courts are not going to find the FAA doesn’t have the authority to adopt and enforce rules. Tge law passed by Congress is clear and not vague.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
The lawsuit you cite argues Chevron, which had to do with vague laws written by Congress and executive branch interpretation that changed with changes in presidential administrations. The big misinterpretation has been what some thing the Supreme Court ruled in Chevron.
The lawsuit argues the rule written by the FAA, not Congress, is being wrongly interpreted and applied by the agency authorized by law to adopted it. The agency will simply change the rule if the courts rule the interpretation is wrong. And no, the courts are not going to find the FAA doesn’t have the authority to adopt and enforce rules. Tge law passed by Congress is clear and not vague.
Click to expand...
The lawsuit cites Chevron as precedent to overturn Aeur deference. The agency can rewrite the rule, sure, and they probably should. All this really does is force the agency to be less ambiguous in their rulemaking. It almost seems they write the rules vague and ambiguous intentionally.

The first lawsuit, however, is targeting the fact that the agency is ignoring (or essentially requiring the same conditions and limitations that a commercial operation would, which is essentially ignoring) section 821 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2012.
 
Last edited:
Doc Holliday said:
Only if congress will provide the funding.
Click to expand...
Curious.

Does Congress specify what each $ appropriated is to be spent, for example down to the purchase of printer cartridges or Airman Certificates? Or are the printer cartridges and Certificates part of a bigger pot like General and Administration Expenditure and the FAA allowed to spend as necessary thus claim not enough money so we will buy cartridges and ignore the picture mandated by law?
 
X3 Skier said:
Curious.

Does Congress specify what each $ appropriated is to be spent, for example down to the purchase of printer cartridges or Airman Certificates? Or are the printer cartridges and Certificates part of a bigger pot like General and Administration Expenditure and the FAA allowed to spend as necessary thus claim not enough money so we will buy cartridges and ignore the picture mandated by law?
Click to expand...

The way it was explained to me was for the equipment to be set up to make such certificates, plus the process.

Think about it, could one just upload a picture in IACRA? What changes would have to be made (which has a cost) plus the equipment to produce.
 
Sam’s Club puts your picture on a ID.

I’m not surprised the faa can’t figure it out… THAT makes sense.
 
1. Don't need or want my ugly mug on my pilot's license. Who am I going to show it to anyway?
2. I think I've been replaced, I actually agree with the FAA. Maybe I have some cognitive disease. I know these guys are contributing to a worthy cause, but if they really want to get paid to do this stuff (pro rata on a flight you aren't doing for your own purposes is pay) they can get commercial certs. Ain't even as hard as the IFR, and you need that to do these kinds of flight hereabouts.

When I had a capable airplane I'd have happily done these flights for nothing. What a great excuse to go flying, and doing Mitzvahs at the same time!
 
Doc Holliday said:
I wasn’t aware that a Sam’s Club ID met federal and ICAO standards.
Click to expand...

And those are? Something like… look like the picture? I dunno…

STC procedure for adding glasses or a beard? Lip injections can be a minor alteration.
 
steingar said:
2. I think I've been replaced, I actually agree with the FAA. Maybe I have some cognitive disease. I know these guys are contributing to a worthy cause, but if they really want to get paid to do this stuff (pro rata on a flight you aren't doing for your own purposes is pay) they can get commercial certs. Ain't even as hard as the IFR, and you need that to do these kinds of flight hereabouts.
Click to expand...
Except you're missing that part where Congress passed the exception that allowed for fuel reimbursement from the medical charity, so long as the aircraft owner or operator as (1) volunteered to provide such transportation; and (2) notified any individual that will be on the flight, at the time of inquiry about the flight, that the flight operation is for charitable purposes and is not subject to the same requirements as a commercial flight, and the agency is choosing to ignore it (FAA Reauthorization Act of 2012, Sec. 821).
 
Jon Wilder said:
Except you're missing that part where Congress passed the exception that allowed for fuel reimbursement from the medical charity, so long as the aircraft owner or operator as (1) volunteered to provide such transportation; and (2) notified any individual that will be on the flight, at the time of inquiry about the flight, that the flight operation is for charitable purposes and is not subject to the same requirements as a commercial flight, and the agency is choosing to ignore it (FAA Reauthorization Act of 2012, Sec. 821).
Click to expand...
Good point, though I actually disagree with Congress on this one, since the Charitable organization does hold out. That said the lawsuit to change any of this is going to be wampum expensive and will likely have to run the whole court system, since the FAA has an unlimited budget to fight this thing (they have lawyers on staff who have to do something). The expense of the lawsuit will likely be more than all the avgas anyone ever spends on any of these charity flights. I must be weird, had I the qualifications I'd have happily done it for free, like most of the pilots hereabouts. I have a pal who's done hundreds of these flights, he was always happy to do it for the experience and the joy of helping others.
 
As someone that flies Angel Flights every so often, it would be very nice to be able to have the fuel reimbursed. Especially since the latest tax bill made charity donations of anything other than cash not tax deductible. You have to do a LOT of these free trips before you can see any taxable benefit to them, now, which I'm sure decreases how many people are flying them unfortunately.

I hope the FAA loses on these, but I'm also a little leery of what their next interpretation of the law will be after they lose. We could end up with something even worse, ultimately.
 
steingar said:
but if they really want to get paid to do this stuff (pro rata on a flight you aren't doing for your own purposes is pay) they can get commercial certs
Click to expand...
Just an FYI. A commercial pilot certificate is not enough to “get paid to do this stuff.” It requires a Part 135 operating certificate.
 
JVerb said:
but I'm also a little leery of what their next interpretation of the law will be after they lose. We could end up with something even worse, ultimately
Click to expand...
I’m not sure about the practical reality, but in theory, it doesn’t require a new interpretation. 61.113(a) states a general rule. (b)-(h) states a series of limited exceptions to it. Leaving out the issue of the legislation on volunteer pilots, all it takes is rulemaking deleting (b)-(h) and we’re left with.

61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.​

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.​
​
 
Jon Wilder said:
The lawsuit cites Chevron as precedent to overturn Aeur deference. The agency can rewrite the rule, sure, and they probably should. All this really does is force the agency to be less ambiguous in their rulemaking. It almost seems they write the rules vague and ambiguous intentionally.

The first lawsuit, however, is targeting the fact that the agency is ignoring (or essentially requiring the same conditions and limitations that a commercial operation would, which is essentially ignoring) section 821 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2012.
Click to expand...
I know the argument and this case really isn’t about this FAR and what GA will get as a result of someone using this reg interpretation may be very upsetting.
 
Last edited:
Doc Holliday said:
The way it was explained to me was for the equipment to be set up to make such certificates, plus the process.

Think about it, could one just upload a picture in IACRA? What changes would have to be made (which has a cost) plus the equipment to produce.
Click to expand...
Agree and since they already print certificates with the existing equipment, there's miniscule cost to reformat the certificate for the picture. You're charged for a lost certificate and you get a new one for free if you get a new rating IIRC. So again the "No Money No pic" is bogus IMNSHO.
 
X3 Skier said:
So again the "No Money No pic" is bogus IMNSHO.
Click to expand...
Personally, while it would be nice to flash your photo certificate while letting everyone who doesn't care know, "I'm a pilot!," I think the photo on our pilot certificates is a big nothingburger.

If you really want one, these are $4.49 on Esty
1791117090359.png
 
Last edited:
Agree. And since it proves nothing, why have to carry it?
 
Tools said:
Agree. And since it proves nothing, why have to carry it?
Click to expand...
Same reason we have to carry our vehicle registration. Yes, states are beginning to forego that (NC's change went into effect October 1). No photo on that, but the point is, pretty much any enforcer has the ability to look you up, so ultimately, the argument is we need nothing other than out face to verify our identities.
 
It actually would make sense to have the regulation require that if you have a government-issued photo ID, then you don’t need to carry your pilot certificate. An FAA inspector can look it up, and your identity is proven by your ID. Just one less thing to stuff into your wallet.

As a patrol deputy, I never cared if someone didn’t have their registration in the car, because dispatch had that info available instantaneously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top