Legal Flight? You decide...

Not legal, if offered and you don't do it, you are a sissy.:lol:
 
RotorAndWing said:
More mental masturbation.:rolleyes2:

While I worked as an Inspector never once did I see or hear "there's a kid down at the flight school that flew an airplane for them over to the avionics shop. We better get an Inspector on this right away!"

If I had gone to my FLM with something like this the response would have been "you obviously don't have enough to do in your work program do you?" :nonod:
Click to expand...

No you wouldn't pursue something like this. However if you would randomly do a ramp check when he got to the avionics shop, and he would have told you that he's doing this flight for free and for the school....a few minutes later he would not be very happy.

Please, tell me that I'm wrong.
 
Fearless Tower said:
It isn't the original question....it is (as R&W) pointed out the mental masturbation that produces two pages of replies in two hours.
Click to expand...

Meh, that's what pilots do. Either in person over a beer or at the hangar. Some even start online forums so lots and lots of pilots can join in the discussion.

The OP is, in my view, 'interesting' so I posted it. Others agreed so they replied. It's all good.
 
I don't understand why a CPL is needed for any flight that doesn't involve carrying passengers. What's the harm with a private pilot ferrying a plane or doing banner towing or aerial photography, even if they're getting paid? I understand holding pilots to a higher standard when they're carrying passengers for hire, but I don't get why all paid flying needs to be held to this standard.
 
So bottom line is that while it is technically illegal, chances are real slim of ever getting caught and if caught the chances of anything more serious than a friendly counseling session is even more remote.
 
MassPilot said:
I don't understand why a CPL is needed for any flight that doesn't involve carrying passengers. What's the harm with a private pilot ferrying a plane or doing banner towing or aerial photography, even if they're getting paid? I understand holding pilots to a higher standard when they're carrying passengers for hire, but I don't get why all paid flying needs to be held to this standard.
Click to expand...

As a CPL (SEL, ATP MEL) I can tell you there are precious few enough paying gigs now without opening the gates to PPLs willing to fly for free.
 
Captain said:
As a CPL (SEL, ATP MEL) I can tell you there are precious few enough paying gigs now without opening the gates to PPLs willing to fly for free.
Click to expand...
CPL is not a huge barrier. Not even CPL + IR. Still lots of folk willing to fly for free I bet.
 
Last edited:
Captain said:
That's not what it said.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it says...twice in that paragraph it talks about "logging flight time" and does not talk a about "free flight time".

And, besides, Bobertz addresses flying people for hire, not making a ferry flight.
 
Ron Levy said:
Legal nonsense. The fact that an offense is never discovered by the authorities does not provide grounds for overturning an enforcement action against someone else for doing the same thing. Doubt me? Just tell the judge that you want your speeding ticket dismissed because another car passed you going even faster 10 miles before you reached the speed trap.
Click to expand...

Twisting my words to fitting your argument. Try again.
 
MachFly said:
No you wouldn't pursue something like this. However if you would randomly do a ramp check when he got to the avionics shop, and he would have told you that he's doing this flight for free and for the school....a few minutes later he would not be very happy.

Please, tell me that I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

If anything a friendly reminder of why one should consider such issues and how it corresponds with the regulations.

There's no need to escalate something like this beyond a friendly discussion.
 
RotorAndWing said:
You are wrong.

If anything a friendly reminder of why one should consider such issues and how it corresponds with the regulations.

There's no need to escalate something like this beyond a friendly discussion.
Click to expand...

I really really really hope that every other inspector will see it your way.
 
MachFly said:
I really really really hope that every other inspector will see it your way.
Click to expand...

Inspectors already have a heavy workload in their work program. Going out and chasing minor and frivolous violations is not worth the time. Everything the inspector does has to be documented. An EIR (Enforcement Investigation Report) is a long and arduous process and is not something that will happen in an instance such as this.

A friendly discussion and a PTRS entry closed as informal counseling is all that is needed.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Inspectors already have a heavy workload in their work program. Going out and chasing minor and frivolous violations is not worth the time. Everything the inspector does has to be documented. An EIR (Enforcement Investigation Report) is a long and arduous process and is not something that will happen in an instance such as this.

A friendly discussion and a PTRS entry closed as informal counseling is all that is needed.
Click to expand...

Got you.

Do you have to do an EIR for a regular ramp check if nothing is found?
 
MachFly said:
Got you.

Do you have to do an EIR for a regular ramp check if nothing is found?
Click to expand...

EIR's are only done in enforcement cases.

A ramp check only requires a PTRS ( Program Tracking and Reporting Subsystem) entry which is usually the airport, registration number and comment section.
 
RotorAndWing said:
EIR's are only done in enforcement cases.

A ramp check only requires a PTRS ( Program Tracking and Reporting Subsystem) entry which is usually the airport, registration number and comment section.
Click to expand...

That's good to know.
 
Captain said:
Guy has a PPSEL. Got his training part 61 from mom & pop shop. After getting his PPL the owner of the shop asks him to take one of the planes to another airport to be looked at by the avionics shop there. No money is given to the pilot but he isn't charged for any portion of the flight either.

Why or why not legal?
Click to expand...

Did the pilot do some favor that had montary value for the mom/pop operation that could be used in exchange for the flight time? Like wait on the avoinics shop to look at the plane? With some documentation, its a wash.
 
Yeah he did them a favor. He paid them $6.5K'ish for his private.
 
MassPilot said:
I don't understand why a CPL is needed for any flight that doesn't involve carrying passengers. What's the harm with a private pilot ferrying a plane or doing banner towing or aerial photography, even if they're getting paid? I understand holding pilots to a higher standard when they're carrying passengers for hire, but I don't get why all paid flying needs to be held to this standard.
Click to expand...
That's a question of philosophy, not law. But the answer is rooted in the FAA's charter from Congress which requires them to set higher standards when money is involved than when it isn't. And, FWIW, the requirements when paying passengers are involved are higher than when only cargo or aerial work are involved. See Parts 119 and 135 for details -- even 91.409, which requires 100-hour inspectors when carrying passengers for hire but not just cargo.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
So bottom line is that while it is technically illegal, chances are real slim of ever getting caught and if caught the chances of anything more serious than a friendly counseling session is even more remote.
Click to expand...
I think that's absolutely correct. And the fact that R&W and I agree on that should tell you something.
 
Last edited:
Log before the FAA opened this "write us a letter so we can restrict GA without that silly due process stuff" shop I was a newly minted private pilot.

An A&P who owned a tiny Cessna dealership was a friend, and he also bought wrecked airplanes, fixed them up, and resold them. I cut my college classes to deliver a bunch of airplanes for him. I got to fly all over the country! I didn't get paid, but he covered the fuel and return airline fare.

I even picked up a brand new Cessna. I had to stand in line at the delivery center waiting my turn to pick up that 172.

Horrifying? Yes, of course. One of the best things that ever happened to me? Youbetcha.
 
drotto said:
I think legally it would be fine, the new pilot is basically doing the flight school a favor on his time voluntarily. No money changes hands, so no violation. I would even think logging it would be OK. Again no money is changing hands. If a private individual allows a friend to fly their plane, there is no reason that flight would not be log-able. This would seem like a similar situation, but I am not a lawyer. Can you cite were this is not a log-able flight for a licensed pilot?
Click to expand...
This is why asking for legal advise from non-lawyers (or even from lawyers when it's not billable time) is a stupid thing to do. While money changing hands may make sense as the line between a commercial operation and not, that's not how the FAA views it.
 
I guess I better lay low. Once during training there was a safety of flight issue determined in the run-up area. I taxied back and was not charged.
 
danhagan said:
I guess I better lay low. Once during training there was a safety of flight issue determined in the run-up area. I taxied back and was not charged.
Click to expand...
Since there was no flight, there was no loggable time, and the FAA doesn't care at all whether you were charged or not. Mechanics without pilot certificates get paid to taxi planes around all the time -- legally.
 
Ron Levy said:
It's not legal unless the pilot involved pays the operating expenses of the flight, defined in 61.113 as "fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees". 61.113(a) is being violated because "no person who holds a private pilot certificate may ... for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft," and in this case, the PP is providing pilot services in exchange for loggable flight time. The fact that the flight is loggable is enough to nail you. See the Bobertz memo, page 3, first paragraph -- the fact that one chooses not to log the flight isn't sufficient to keep you out of trouble.
Click to expand...

That paragraph says that "accrual of flight time is compensation," but I'd be interested in hearing an attorney's opinion on whether that is enough to overrule the previous CC interpretation which says that not logging the time gets around that problem.
 
Palmpilot said:
That paragraph says that "accrual of flight time is compensation," but I'd be interested in hearing an attorney's opinion on whether that is enough to overrule the previous CC interpretation which says that not logging the time gets around that problem.
Click to expand...
When the Chief Counsel puts out a later interpretation that is different from the earlier one, I'll go with the latest one (until they put out a newer one). I also recommend that when dealing with the FAA, if there's a question about whether or not something is legal, don't do it until you're sure it's legal -- better safe than sorry, and all that. The FAA has never been an agency where the adage about "better to ask forgiveness than permission" applies.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since there was no flight, there was no loggable time, and the FAA doesn't care at all whether you were charged or not. Mechanics without pilot certificates get paid to taxi planes around all the time -- legally.
Click to expand...

Oh, good grief Ron he was kidding. You know...humor. A little jocularity. Being facetious. If you give it a try sometime you might actually enjoy letting your girdle out a notch. :wink2:

Dan...now you see what happens when you forget to put a ":D" at the end of your post.

Mike
 
Ron Levy said:
When the Chief Counsel puts out a later interpretation that is different from the earlier one, I'll go with the latest one (until they put out a newer one).
Click to expand...

In this case, they actually cited the earlier interpretation letter in support of this one. That raises the question of whether they were really intending to change anything. From the definition of "accrual," it's not clear that it necessarily includes time that is not logged, so this would be a pretty thin basis on which to argue that they meant to make a change in policy. Hopefully, an attorney will weigh in on this point.

I also recommend that when dealing with the FAA, if there's a question about whether or not something is legal, don't do it until you're sure it's legal -- better safe than sorry, and all that. The FAA has never been an agency where the adage about "better to ask forgiveness than permission" applies.
Click to expand...

That's probably true, but it doesn't answer the OP's question.
 
Captain said:
As a CPL (SEL, ATP MEL) I can tell you there are precious few enough paying gigs now without opening the gates to PPLs willing to fly for free.
Click to expand...

Does this mean you're thinking about dropping a dime on the guy?
 
Captain said:
As a CPL (SEL, ATP MEL) I can tell you there are precious few enough paying gigs now without opening the gates to PPLs willing to fly for free.
Click to expand...

And yet folks encourage new people to go pro.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since there was no flight, there was no loggable time, and the FAA doesn't care at all whether you were charged or not. Mechanics without pilot certificates get paid to taxi planes around all the time -- legally.
Click to expand...

Actually, since he taxied for the purpose of flight the time IS log'able. I have a couple such entries.
 
FAR 1.1 Flight Time. ..bla bla bla after landing. Where's the landing?
 
WHAT IF the school owner is your best buddy from back in the day? Would that chagne the legality of the situation? What if I offer my friend to fly my plane to the mechanic and I bear all the costs?
 
I am curious... since the general premise here is that the situation is illegal because it's compensation by flight time...

What if a school ran a promotion... every 10 hours of rental you get one hour free. Would that also be illegal? In theory you can say the first 10 were partial payment towards the free hour. So could the school in this case take the student's previous charges as partial payments towards a courtesy flight... or whatever you want to call it?

I mean we all know the reason for the law is to prevent private pilots from running a charter service and the FAA most likely doesn't care about these sorts of things unless you shove it in their face and make them care. Maybe they ought to change their rules around to allow compensation for material costs... fuel/rental/oil/etc only and no compensation allowed for the pilot's time. Basically just let people do what they want as long as they're not making a profit. No profit, no charter service. Much simpler.
 
cowman said:
I am curious... since the general premise here is that the situation is illegal because it's compensation by flight time...

What if a school ran a promotion... every 10 hours of rental you get one hour free. Would that also be illegal? In theory you can say the first 10 were partial payment towards the free hour. So could the school in this case take the student's previous charges as partial payments towards a courtesy flight... or whatever you want to call it?

I mean we all know the reason for the law is to prevent private pilots from running a charter service and the FAA most likely doesn't care about these sorts of things unless you shove it in their face and make them care. Maybe they ought to change their rules around to allow compensation for material costs... fuel/rental/oil/etc only and no compensation allowed for the pilot's time. Basically just let people do what they want as long as they're not making a profit. No profit, no charter service. Much simpler.
Click to expand...

So Bobby's shack of flying does flight time building with private pilots and hauls cargo on the side at a loss. Has his PPLs doing cross countries between HPN and BED always with a box or two in the back. The cargo is sold at cost of flight minus $10 and the PPLs pay cost of flight minus $10 too. Win/win except the 135 outfit with commercial pilots goes out of business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top