Mechanic and check flight

[Tom-D]

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.

It's not legal they way you're doing it, Tom. The fact that your PMI doesn't care doesn't change that. And since you continue to refuse accept legal reality, I'm done responding to you on this.

Your inability to support the question by quoting a violation on this issue is the best statement you never made.

That is proof enough for me that the FAA either thinks it is OK for the mechanic to fly the test flight required or they plane don't give a hoot.
either way I'm good with it.

OBTW FAR 61 has no bearing on incidental to the job.

I'm gone

 

[Skylane81E]

 

[denverpilot]

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.

And just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it'll ever be enforced.

Laws without enforcement abound in our idiotic legal system. They should be automatically sunsetted or marked permanently unenforceable via a time clock system from the date of publication.

 

[Dave Theisen]

Incidental:

1. happening or likely to happen in an unplanned or subordinate conjunction with something else.

2. incurred casually and in addition to the regular or main amount: incidental expenses.

3. likely to happen or naturally appertaining (usually followed by to ).

These definitions seem to be at odds.