I'm going with incidental to his main job as a mechanic.
Jim
There is no rule prohibiting the mechanic from being paid to ride along and evaluate the aircraft's operation while you fly the plane. However, a PPL mechanic cannot legally be paid or otherwise compensated for doing the flying.If a mechanic works on my plane,, his /her ass in the right seat during the test flight....
Me too.....
If a mechanic works on my plane,, his /her ass in the right seat during the test flight....
When he suggests hiding the piloting services in the total for the bill, Tom is suggesting the commission of fraud. Don't get involved in that.
Trying to get the same answer to a question out of a PMI or POI or PAI is hopeless. Unless one is out to violate you then they circle their wagons. Best advice i have found here get it in writing from your PMI on FAA staitionary signed.
Let me know when your Regional Counsel says the same thing in writing. Until then, I'm as sure as I can be that your PMI either misunderstood what you said or is wrong, because there is no special dispensation for mechanics in 61.113.
No, it is not. It is part of the job, not incidental to it. I suggest you and Tom review some of the Chief Counsel letters of interpretation on the concept of "incidental to that business or employment". Test-flying a plane after maintenance is not "secondary to his professional role" as a mechanic, it would be part of that job. While 61.113(b) permits a private pilot to "transport himself or herself to conduct business," it does not permit flying a plane as a "'foreseeable and normal' part of the business". Test-flying a plane after maintenance is not "an activity completely unrelated to aviation activities".
No murkiness at all. See the above interpretations, especially Hurst.
Post #6.
Exactly. Hurst's company's business is power generation, not aircraft maintenance. See the highlighted portion above. OTOH, Tom's business is maintenance, so the "incidental" does not apply to Tom's situation.
He certainly could, and that pilot would need Commercial privileges. But if Tom does the flights himself as part of the job for which the customer is paying, then he has put himself in the test-flying business, and that requires Commercial privileges.
The Counsel's words were "not directly related," not "not a core activity". It is absurd to argue that post-maintenance test flights are not "directly related" to the maintenance business Tom conducts even if they are not a "core activity" of that business.
Me too.....
If a mechanic works on my plane,, his /her ass is in the right seat during the test flight....
Tom's continued insistence that post-maintenance test flights and diagnostic flight are "incidental" to his work as an aircraft mechanic makes it impossible to continue this discussion. He refuses to accept that test-flying an airplane as part of a maintenance activity is in fact directly related to that maintenance activity and thus not incidental to it. As long as he believes that, he will not understand that what he is doing is illegal.
You're speaking of Jack Poage. Jack had a CP or better (maybe even an ATP). That made it legal for him to do all that. Tom has only a Private ticket, and that's the problem with what he's doing.
...and, as with Jack Poage, therein lies the difference -- Commercial pilot privileges which Tom lacks.
...but he did have a CP, and that is enough for this purpose. And for the record, it's "Poage" (like the airport named for him -- KDMW), not "pogue".
No, this doesn't prove your point since Jack had a CP and you don't. In any event, the fact that people do something without being caught doesn't prove that something is legal.
You can agree with Tom all you want, but it's still illegal for Tom to do as a Private Pilot it even if it was legal for Jack as a Commercial Pilot.
Since you said you don't break out the time, then you're charging the customer for the piloting as part service, and that violates 61.113. Also, you're not paying the operating expenses of the flight, and that also violates 61.113. You just can't do it legally, Tom, unless you pay the cost of the flight and record your time sheet and break out the charges so it's clear you're not getting paid for your time during the flight.
That statement suggests that the fact that nobody has been violated for something makes that act legal, and that isn't true.
Irrelevant to the FAA, although that could have criminal implications if you didn't have that permission.
Good luck with that argument. And you still haven't paid the direct expenses.