Private Pilot Cannot Use Airplane for $0 Dry

http://www.lp.org/platform

It contains such gems as
2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.
Click to expand...

So, no I don't think they support 50 separate countries either.

Absolutely the minimum amount of government necessary to enforce the constitution, is the way I read it. :dunno:
 
Clip4 said:
Yea, the member flying the plane for service should pay the club for the flight time and separately charge the club an equal amount for ground transportation back and waiting time.

Edit: Where there is a not-for-profit club/partnership and the member has an ownership interest, I do not believe a PP violates 61.113 for accepting the free flight. If I am incorrect, a PP with his plane registered in an LLC also is in violation of 61.113 when he ferrys the LLCs plane.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the club pilot normally would have to pay by the hour for a flight, thus getting to fly for free is compensation.

A Private Pilot with their plane in an LLC, however, is still going to be paying for the cost of the flight - And probably doesn't bill themselves an hourly rate to begin with, so they can do it.
 
Ron Levy said:
Dig further. Just because you don't log it doesn't mean it isn't loggable at some future date. If you read Bobertz and the rest, you'll see that simply promising not to log it doesn't fix the problem. IOW, it's "loggable," not "logged", which is considered compensation.
Click to expand...

I'd sure hate to live the rest of my life in fear of the FAA Log Police SWAT team breaking down my door in the middle of the night to check my logbook!
 
JimNtexas said:
I'd sure hate to live the rest of my life in fear of the FAA Log Police SWAT team breaking down my door in the middle of the night to check my logbook!
Click to expand...

They won't need to. NSA already copied it off your PC. ;)
 
livitup said:
http://www.lp.org/platform

It contains such gems as

So, no I don't think they support 50 separate countries either.

Absolutely the minimum amount of government necessary to enforce the constitution, is the way I read it. :dunno:
Click to expand...

And they don't support de-funding everything, either, since there are other taxes besides the income tax. Reducing funding is not the same as de-funding.

By the way, that wildly impractical platform plank is a good example of why I am not a Libertarian, in spite of being a libertarian.
 
Palmpilot said:
And they don't support de-funding everything, either, since there are other taxes besides the income tax. Reducing funding is not the same as de-funding.

By the way, that wildly impractical platform plank is a good example of why I am not a Libertarian, in spite of being a libertarian.
Click to expand...

I agree with your small "l" vs big "L".

The only really ironic part is that the two major winning political Parties have equally stupid unattainable goals in their planks.

Must be why they call them planks. Dumb as a board.
 
Sorry guys. I'm the moron who wrote the letter. I wish I could find the letter I wrote.... This was NOT what I asked. I was equally surprised when I read the response. Took them two years to respond at all...

Give me my lashings.... I was dumb to write them at all.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
You are reading far more into that interpretation than there is in it. Please don't try to make trouble over something that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Welp, I just finished reading the current 131 responses. This one made the most sense to me ;).
 
ajstoner21 said:
Sorry guys. I'm the moron who wrote the letter. I wish I could find the letter I wrote.... This was NOT what I asked. I was equally surprised when I read the response. Took them two years to respond at all...

Give me my lashings.... I was dumb to write them at all.
Click to expand...

Moron? Nah, you were just :popcorn: the thread like me :)
 
mcmanigle said:
I think I agree with you, but there are areas that get more grey*:

Frank runs an FBO and flight school. Charlie is one of his CFIs. Tom is a Two-thousand hour private pilot who rents from the FBO and hangs out at the airport on weekends.

One sunny Saturday, Dave shows up for his pre-scheduled Discovery flight. Unfortunately, Charlie just called in sick. Tom is hanging around the airport as usual, and Frank says "Hey, I think this guy wants to get his license with our flight school, and that would make us a fair amount of money. I don't want him to leave here disappointed today. Would you just take him up in one of our planes and show him how fun flying is? I won't charge either of you for the flight, I just don't want to lose a potential future student."

I'm not intensely against this scenario; a private pilot with thousands of hours under their belt should be able to safely show somebody how much fun flying is. (I've certainly done it with far fewer hours.) But it's not hard to make the argument that Dave has the right to expect a commercial-qualified pilot to take him up that day, and that a free hour of flying probably looks like a pretty good deal to Tom (especially if he was going to drill holes in the sky anyway and now doesn't have to pay for it).

(Forgive me if I've missed some relevant bit of 135 or 91 subpart K** that would make this arrangement against regs without the compensation issue.)

* EDIT: by "think I agree with you," I don't mean I agree that it's not compensation by current interpretations. I mean I agree that in my own non-legal moral principle I don't see anything wrong with letting a multi-thousand hour private pilot fly you around in your own plane without charging him/her for it.

** SECOND EDIT: apparently it's part 119 that I should have been worried about, but I think this scenario would still steer clear of any problems other than free-flight-time-as-compensation...
Click to expand...
If the FBO says he would be willing to sell the airplane for some very high price and to pay a commission to the pilot, then the pilot could demonstrate the aircraft, because he is now an aircraft salesman.
 
Frank said:
If the FBO says he would be willing to sell the airplane for some very high price and to pay a commission to the pilot, then the pilot could demonstrate the aircraft, because he is now an aircraft salesman.
Click to expand...
Quack, quack, quack. The FAA will not be fooled by this if it comes to their attention.
 
Frank said:
If the FBO says he would be willing to sell the airplane for some very high price and to pay a commission to the pilot, then the pilot could demonstrate the aircraft, because he is now an aircraft salesman.
Click to expand...

Just like the monkey business about 'jet demonstration flights' and primary instruction in a Queen Air, this is not going to fly for very long.
 
Another example:

It just occurred to me that I recently did accept some time in a plane for $0 out of pocket. I got my multi on barter and had two paychecks come back to me lightened, but didn't actually write a check for any of the time.

There was no compensation for flying, I was compensated for time spent spinning wrenches in flight time instead of money
 
Neal O'Hara, an attorney in the International Law, Legislation and Regulations Division of the
Office of the Chief Counsel, General Aviation and
Commercial Division of the Flight Standards Service .

Dang now i know where my taxes are going thats a huge door sign there fella:rofl::lol:
 
Comanche flyer said:
Neal O'Hara, an attorney in the International Law, Legislation and Regulations Division of the
Office of the Chief Counsel, General Aviation and
Commercial Division of the Flight Standards Service .

Dang now i know where my taxes are going thats a huge door sign there fella:rofl::lol:
Click to expand...

If he has a name plate for his desk, that thing must be several feet long!
 
Here's a scenario question: The FAA's guidence has seemed to indicate that only mutual benefit scenarios are acceptable when it comes to the value of service/outcome. For example, Two pilots heading to the same place, share the costs 50/50.
Going allllllll the waayyyyyy back to the original topic title, If the owner needed the plane flown to avoid the problems that come froma dormant plane, and the pilot wanted to go up and fly around a bit, could not an arguement be made that there is an exchange of value that the owner and the pilot agreed that the value was equivelent?
 
bjohnsonmn said:
Here's a scenario question: The FAA's guidence has seemed to indicate that only mutual benefit scenarios are acceptable when it comes to the value of service/outcome. For example, Two pilots heading to the same place, share the costs 50/50.
Going allllllll the waayyyyyy back to the original topic title, If the owner needed the plane flown to avoid the problems that come froma dormant plane, and the pilot wanted to go up and fly around a bit, could not an arguement be made that there is an exchange of value that the owner and the pilot agreed that the value was equivelent?
Click to expand...
They certainly could, but that would create a quid pro quo -- the provision of pilot services in exchange for the use of the airplane, and that's a violation of 61.113 for a Private Pilot. The Private Pilot must pay the direct cost of the flight as defined in that regulation. However, that direct cost is still probably a lot less than the cost of renting the same plane from an FBO, but that's OK with the FAA.
 
If you lend someone your car do you notify the registry of motor vehicles? If I'm not logging the time for a rating who's business's is it ?
 
AuntPeggy said:
And why should the FAA care?
Click to expand...
I never said that the FAA would or would not care, only what the law is. As for why the FAA should care, I suppose it's because Congress charged them with writing and enforcing the regulations governing aviation.
 
frfly172 said:
If you lend someone your car do you notify the registry of motor vehicles?
Click to expand...
Different vehicles, different jurisdiction (federal vs state), and different regulations.
If I'm not logging the time for a rating who's business's is it ?
Click to expand...
By Federal law, it's the FAA's business. If you have a problem with that, the place to address that is your elected representatives in Congress.
 
frfly172 said:
If I'm not logging the time for a rating who's business's is it ?
Click to expand...

The February 2013 Chief Counsel Interpretation that started this thread cited a 1997 interpretation letter that was sent to a Mr. Harrington. Among other things, the Harrington letter says this:

"To avoid compensation, these pilots could either not log the flight time or they could log the flight time while bearing the full cost, including fuel and oil, for ferrying the aircraft."​

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../harrington - (1997) legal interpretation.pdf
 
Ron Levy said:
Different vehicles, different jurisdiction (federal vs state), and different regulations.
Click to expand...

True. Although cars and aircraft have the similarity that both require a commercial license or certificate for certain purposes, aircraft operations are much more heavily regulated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top