Just delete the thread

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.
 
JVerb said:
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.
Click to expand...
midlifeflyer said:
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.​
​
Click to expand...
All of this is about the FAA bypassing the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures via creative interpretation, which needs to stop. If an agency is having to do that, that means they suck at rulemaking.

When they proposed the rulemaking that became § 61.113 in 1963, the agency's definition of "compensation" fits closely with a 1966 dictionary definition for compensation: "Something given or received as an equivalent for services, debt, loss, injury, suffering, lack, etc." The Random House Dictionary of the English Language 300 (1966). The agency explained, when it first proposed the language now codified at § 61.113(a), "The ordinary meaning of 'compensation' includes the act of making up for whatever has been suffered or lost through another, and the act of remuneration." Given these definitions, it makes little sense to categorize flight time as "compensation". Flight time is not something "suffered or lost through another" nor "an equivalent for services" rendered as a pilot. Flight time is an official record of the pilot's aeronautical experience. 14 CFR § 61.51.

The best reading of the term "compensation" means payment directly to the pilot for the flight operating costs. "Compensation" does not include a pilot logging flight time when another person directly pays the flight operating costs ("the building up of flight time may be compensatory in nature if the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft." Harrington Interpretation at 2).

But the FAA, rather than go through the rulemaking process like they should have, decided instead to change the rule through creative interpretation of "compensation".
 
Jon Wilder said:
But the FAA, rather than go through the rulemaking process like they should have, decided instead to change the rule through creative interpretation of "compensation"
Click to expand...

THAT is the root cause of all the grief the faa is BEGGING for… systemically.

I’m about certain this is where Jon can find THAT as a textbook definition of an “administrative state”.
 
Jon Wilder said:
All of this is about the FAA bypassing the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures via creative interpretation, which needs to stop. If an agency is having to do that, that means they suck at rulemaking.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you about the problems of bypassing notice and comment and overly-creative interpretations, but I do disagree that later interpretation is a sign of poor rulemaking. Interpretation and application of rules to situations not specifically addressed is standard in pretty much every legal system on the planet.
 
JMHO: The FAA has, once again, shot itself in the foot.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Do Congressional appropriations have to specify each specific item that money will be spent on?
Click to expand...
See 24, 25 and 36.

Apparently one has to read the entire appropriations bill.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Essentially yes. There is some latitude but it gets a bit complex.
Click to expand...
The understatement of the year.

Moving money between appropriations is akin to navigating thru the Everglades at night, blindfolded, naked, walking backward on bare feet with raw meat tied around your neck.
 
X3 Skier said:
The understatement of the year.

Moving money between appropriations is akin to navigating thru the Everglades at night, blindfolded, naked, walking backward on bare feet with raw meat tied around your neck.
Click to expand...

sometimes the complexity is self-inflicted and not necessarily required by congress.
 
Okay...we've got two different topics going on in the same thread. I've already asked once to keep it on topic. But you guys still feel the need to hijack my post.

Please start a new thread if you want to discuss the atrocity of not having your photo on your pilot certificate, as this thread has nothing to do with that.
 
Jon Wilder said:
Okay...we've got two different topics going on in the same thread. I've already asked once to keep it on topic. But you guys still feel the need to hijack my post.

Please start a new thread if you want to discuss the atrocity of not having your photo on your pilot certificate, as this thread has nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...

Didn’t know one can moderate a thread they have started.
 
Jon Wilder said:
Okay...we've got two different topics going on in the same thread. I've already asked once to keep it on topic. But you guys still feel the need to hijack my post.
Click to expand...

welcome to the interweb
 
maybe we should see how many different topics (and completely unrelated) we can jam into one thread
 
X3 Skier said:
The understatement of the year.

Moving money between appropriations is akin to navigating thru the Everglades at night, blindfolded, naked, walking backward on bare feet with raw meat tied around your neck.
Click to expand...
I'm working on a research project with a group that tried to move federal dollars between two federal groups, Administration A and Administration B just after covid. An absolute nightmare even tho the two were in complete agreement, wanted it to happen and tried everything to make it happen. But the red tape and bureaucracy and some egos not in either organization made it impossible. No the FAA was not involved.
 
aterry1067 said:
What kind of oil you running?

Any news on the unleaded fuel thing?


:stirpot:
Click to expand...

I kind of hate it when I figure out how to fix something that is going away anyway
 
Jon Wilder said:
Delete
Click to expand...

It is a shame you renamed your thread and completely edited out your original post. Don’t let the other comments brow beat you away. You had a valid line of thinking, what will be the impacts of recent cases against the administrative state. There is value to exploring the strengths and weaknesses behind the administrative state. Strength, expertise that a legislature simply cannot have. Weakness, bunching legislative, executive, and judicial functions all into one entity that will have more interest in preserving its own power and in not being “wrong,” rather than doing right.


Oh, and now we don’t know were the likes to the original post or to the changed comment in the place of the original post. We don’t know what their thinking was/is.
 
ateamer said:
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.
Click to expand...


Goes to show removing regulations that are no longer necessary or helpful is hard. Adding rules is easy, removing them not so much. Safety clutter and bureaucratic entropy.
 
Fffflats said:
Oh, and now we don’t know were the likes to the original post or to the changed comment in the place of the original post. We don’t know what their thinking was/is.
Click to expand...
There were plenty of likes to the original post. It's a shame it ended with "I'm taking my ball and going home." But it will reappear when there is more activity in the case.
 
how would someone converta taildragger to a floatplane?
 
Bob Noel said:
how would someone converta taildragger to a floatplane?
Click to expand...

You could convert a floatplane to a taildragger by clipping a bridge in Portland. Might also convert a PPL to a drivers license. Back to the OT!
 
Last edited:
UPDATE (Oct 15) from Air Care Alliance (with recap)
'Challenging FAA Restrictions on Volunteer Pilots'

ACA is happy to support one of our member organization’s lawsuit that challenges the conditions the FAA places on fuel reimbursement rules that apply to volunteer pilots and humanitarian flights.

More than a decade ago, ACA helped secure fuel reimbursement reform in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Section 821 of that law requires FAA to permit fuel reimbursement for charitable medical flights. FAA can only impose four conditions above the standard Part 61 or Part 91 minimum: (1) additional training; (2) total flight time; (3) holding an instrument rating; and (4) currency in the particular aircraft being flown. Unfortunately, FAA has gone far beyond these four categories. FAA’s fuel reimbursement exemptions require a second class medical, require operating on IFR flight plans, restrict non-precision approaches (including GPS-based approaches), impose higher approach and runway length minimums, and require detailed record keeping and retention. In effect, these exemptions impose Part 135 standards on volunteer flights. Some ACA members operate under an exemption with these conditions. However, many have foregone an exemption due to these burdensome requirements.

ACA members who do hold an exemption should be aware of a new FAA enforcement policy on charitable flight exemptions. FAA National Policy 8900.786, titled “Surveillance for Charitable Medical Flight Exemptions,” gives guidance to aviation safety inspectors (ASIs) that are investigating exemption holders. Organizations that hold an exemption should be prepared for increased investigative and enforcement activity from ASIs.

This lawsuit seeks to remove many of the burdensome conditions FAA places in exemptions. It also challenges the VPO Surveillance policy to the extent it directs ASIs to enforce conditions that violate section 821. ACA has partnered with Wings of Mercy in this case. FAA granted Wings of Mercy an exemption with many of the conditions described above. Wings of Mercy sought to remove those conditions by offering safety-enhancing alternatives, and also argued section 821 limited FAA’s authority. But FAA was not interested in Wings of Mercy’s safety-enhancing alternatives or legal argument. So Wings of Mercy and ACA are taking FAA to court. Because the lawsuit was filed less than 60 days after FAA’s decision, the case uses a special review procedure that allows it to go directly to a federal court of appeals. Wings of Mercy filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, case number 26-3823.

Additionally, here are some resources shared about the case:
• TPPF Files Two Cases Challenging FAA Restrictions on Volunteer Pilots
• Wings of Mercy v. Federal Aviation Administration
• FAA Bureaucrats Make It Harder For Volunteer Pilots To Help Cancer Patients
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top