Private Pilot Reimbursement

Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by DrMack, Feb 13, 2012.

  1. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    It's a lot easier for the pilot to say no and give good reasons with which the employer will not argue (weather, maintenance, proficiency, etc) as opposed to "I don't want to get in a little airplane."
     
  2. Clip4

    Clip4 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,640
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    I suppose an employer could direct a private pilot to fly in connection with the business, but when the employer stuffs the plane with cargo or other employees the pilot can refuse based on the operation is prohibited by regulation.

    Your proposed regulation in fact would allow the PP to be terminated for insubordination or inability to meet a condition of employment.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2013
  3. DrMack

    DrMack Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    N704PA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DrMack
    Actually it explicitly prohibits an employer from doing that:


    [FONT=&quot]Sub-paragraph (3) ensures that the private pilot is not compelled to operate the flight as a condition of their employment or some other business compulsion. This is in stark contrast to a pilot employed in a commercial operation. It ultimately grants the private pilot the discretion to choose the mode of transportation, thus reinforcing the incidental doctrine.[/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot] (3) The possession and exercise of the privileges of a private pilot license is not a condition of that business or employment for the private pilot; and[/FONT]
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2013
  4. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    In this modern world of "employment at will," an employer can discharge you for just about anything including the color of your tie. Suggesting that this new rule would be enforceable in that regard is disingenuous. OTOH, not many employers will ask an employee to do something prohibited by Federal law, and there are a lot of channels available for recourse if you are fired after you refuse under that circumstance.
     
  5. JimNtexas

    JimNtexas Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,200
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jim - In Texas!
    Ron is exactly correct. This business of conjuring up silly hypothetical cases is really getting out of hand.

    If you think the existing non-regulation on reimbursement needs to stay in the chief counsel's notebook, then say so and give a reality based reason.

    Don't conjure up these demons.
     
  6. Palmpilot

    Palmpilot Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    14,687
    Location:
    PUDBY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Richard Palm
    Yeah, in a world where most employers wopuldn't let you fly a private plane, let alone ride in one, in furtherance of the business even if you wanted to, the scenario of being forced to do so is pretty far fetched.
     
  7. DrMack

    DrMack Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    N704PA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DrMack
    Then there shouldn't be any fuss over permitting the microscopically small percentage of businesses that would allow it from doing so. There are enough, including the federal government, that are willing that it merits consideration. If it fails in the ultimate forum for public discourse, the federal legislature, so be it. Our position is that it at least deserves a hearing and recorded public discussion.
     
  8. ronnieh

    ronnieh Cleared for Takeoff

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,074
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Ronnie
    Yes it does Dr. Mack. Keep us posted.
     
  9. flyingcheesehead

    flyingcheesehead Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    20,054
    Location:
    UQACY, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iMooniac
    If you're thinking of what I'm thinking of - The Hawker and the Mustang - Well, they still don't qualify under 119.1(a)(2).

    The Mustang can take two total/1 passenger and has a useful load of 4,465 pounds so payload must be lower than that and much lower than 6,000.

    The Hawker can have a max of 13 pax, and has a max zero fuel weight of 18,000 pounds and an empty weight in the mid to upper 15,000's, also under 6,000 payload.
     
  10. gprellwitz

    gprellwitz Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    12,944
    Location:
    Romeoville, IL
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Grant Prellwitz
    Yeah, you're right. I was thinking gross weight, not payload. I read it too quickly. And yes, those were the two I was thinking of!
     
  11. flyingcheesehead

    flyingcheesehead Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    20,054
    Location:
    UQACY, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iMooniac
    Note: It's 119.23, not 119.3 - There is no 119.3.

    I can understand that there needs to be a higher standard of care when potentially unwitting passengers are involved.

    I can understand that they don't want Part 134.5 operations.

    I can understand the current ability of a private pilot flying themselves to get fully reimbursed for a flight that is incidental to their business.

    I can understand that I'd be allowed to fly any airplane my employer owns that I'm properly rated for on this trip.

    What I can't understand is that, even with a commercial pilot certificate to alleviate the higher standard of care concerns, even though I'm not being paid to fly except for the reimbursement that even a Private pilot can get (meaning that "paid to fly" is a stretch here), even though the exact same operation would be legal if either the company's name was on the registration certificate *OR* the coworker wasn't present, the operation I described is allegedly illegal.

    For that matter - Who would be the one to obtain the 135 certificate in this case? Me, or my employer?

    What is the process for requesting a rule change from the FAA? It seems the chief counsel has their opinion, but I think there has got to be a middle ground between a private pilot and a commercial pilot + Part 135 air carrier certificate when the business has nothing to do with aviation. This is an example of a law that fails because the faucet is so tightly closed that the pipe bursts - The cost of compliance in time, money and effort is so ridiculous that many people are likely breaking the law here.
     
  12. Clip4

    Clip4 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,640
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    Right now I a picturing a 80 hour non-instrument rated private pilot scud running with fellow employees onboard to make a meeting and wondering why my family member, who has no clue as to the risks of that flight, is doing onboard.
     
  13. Palmpilot

    Palmpilot Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    14,687
    Location:
    PUDBY
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Richard Palm
    Makes sense to me.
     
  14. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    47,782
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    Huh. Interesting response.

    All those things existed prior to 2009 when a lawyer changed the FAA's stance on the topic at hand, in a single letter. Not by due process of law, not by NPRM, not by any of the voter/Congress approved ways to change FAA law. Just poof. The vast majority of folks both in and out of FAA were surprised at the letter, and there's never been any reviewable data nor studies done that back up the claim that it changed the safety record of aviation in any significant numerical measurable way.

    I call BS on that, and you think I have the problem? I'm supposed to have respect for a system with that big of a loophole that can't be closed?

    When a majority of pilots now say, "NEVER contact the Chief Counsel's office, the risk that your inquiry into any particularly (poorly written law) won't result in a better law, it stands a huge chance of the Chief Counsel changing aviation law for the worse?"

    Saying I'm "anti-Constitution" is quite a stretch, even for you, a known apologist for the overbearing legal system that is choking private ownership of aircraft by the working class, to the point where it barely has a pulse.

    I know you make your living teaching this information, but pull your head out for just a minute and look around. Simplification of law, and common sense are being eroded by this broken process. More laws is not the answer to better safety.

    More FLYING is. More MENTORING is. Look at this community. Did pilots suddenly decide they wanted to have 20 page discussions about arbitrary and badly written regulations, or are the laws just overwhelming the ability for most folk to keep up? I'd rather see twenty threads on technique than 20 threads on law, liability, and shoddy approach plates, wouldn't you?

    Shouldn't a highly qualified and experienced CFII as yourself be beating students away with a stick, if the aviation industry were healthy?

    Would you prefer we shut the industry down again with another liability lawsuit driven by some lawyer arguing that a pilot broke some nit-pick law while flying some folks somewhere, because they were caught thinking their airplane could be used like their privately owned house, car, boat, motor coach, or travel trailer?

    Keep rooting for additional regulations and laws if you enjoy such things. I respect the law. I follow the law. What I don't respect is the Chief Counsel legislating via FAA letterhead, with no review process, nor evidence they did any good.

    You enjoy the minutiae, I know. The fact that the minutiae are a significant deterrent to anyone interested in joining the ranks of aviators, is mostly lost on you.

    The gang that flies Commercially, always pipes up that Private regs are fine, while flying under their Company-created regs. That always cracks me up. They know best, of course... and yet they haven't flown under Part 91 in decades other than to Gaston's for a weekend. They get a sense of, "Well there's lots of rules and they're tailored to the scenario", and in their world... They're right.

    As a lifetime Part 91 person who only sees bad changes that serve no purpose coming from the Chief Counsel's office and only one set of regs to fly by... The perspective is completely different.

    Try getting someone my age interested in flying. The conversation will start with, "That's cool!" and end with, "Why would I pay that much money for an airplane and have to memorize all that arcane crap about when I can use it to fly for business vs pleasure? And there's more silly stuff to memorize a bunch of laws where I can be cited by the Feds? And how old is your airplane? Do they make newer ones? How much? See ya. I have a nice race car in the garage that's far less headache and a really nice deck I can throw parties on."

    Your zeal for the regs is understandable. You live in the world of instruction where forgetting to impart or check that someone knows all of the silly things, carries a high liability for you. But you're completely missing the overbearing squeezing suffocating death of the middle-class private aircraft owner completely, and even helping it along.

    From another thread...if the public is either saying no to $50K for a pickup truck, or financing it for SEVEN years, the smart ones are certainly already saying no to $500K light aircraft. What did the industry as a whole sell last year? A couple hundred?

    Anything that makes ownership and private use of such an expensive toy more onerous, is just another nail in the almost-nailed-shut coffin.

    Mangiamele is just one example of bad behavior. It's been five+ years and the industry hasn't slammed the door on such surprises. The industry hasn't gone for the jugular and slammed the door on user fees by pointing loudly at Europe and saying "you will kill individual GA", the industry hasn't pounded desks for larger liability reform and a return to sanity there. And the fleet keeps getting older... and less interesting... to anyone in the middle class.

    The continued operation and sustainment of government loan backed bankrupt airlines competing for routes that move thousands of people and cargo a day and Net them a few hundred bucks profit per flight, isn't helping any either. "Airline service everywhere!" at $99/pax means no one even needs a light aircraft anymore.

    I know you'll think all these things are unrelated, but you take them as a whole, a decision like Mangiamele is huge.

    It's part of the "death of a thousand cuts" that may or may not be irreversible. It's a guarantee that it certainly can't be reversed with individuals championing each little slice as good things. Championing the process that produces things like Mangiamele isn't going to get us where we need to go.

    Feel free not to reply. The above is so "anti-Constitution". Love the process. Kill the people. Douse the dream. It's your right. Personally, I'll happily take an FAA that says private flights are none of their business who pays for them and higher standards for currency to have the privilege over an FAA that outright bans private carriage paid for by a business.

    An example: How long did it take most of the charitable organizations to get waivers to "compensate" pilots with free flight time? Was that good for aviation? Was the publicity of grounding those ultralight guys leading the geese around during migration because kids sent their piggy banks good for aviation?

    Or does the above just make us look like a bunch of twits willing to put up with non-sensical crap in order to barely remain aloft?

    Is that the image we want? Or want to encourage from an FAA lawyer's office?

    "Welcome to aviation, here's a 2000 page rulebook! Start reading! We won't make you read all of the maintenance stuff, we've got mechanics who still know all that. They charge $95/hr. We've pushed the cost of a GPS in our little world up to $10K. Isn't that impressive? Yeah, I know it's free on your $500 phone. Get over it. You should see the cost of our special fuel! Don't tell your kids it has lead in it still, they've probably been indoctrinated at school about lead in the environment and they'll think you're an evil person for even thinking about burning it. We can put a diesel in your Skylane for $350K if you're worried about it. What? I know that's more than your underwater house cost. Get over it. Ron will call you an anti-Constitutionalist if you keep this up! Hush!"
     
  15. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    47,782
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    Seen FAA debunk any of that paranoia or issue any reports that banning private business use of aircraft significantly lowered the risk?

    Seen any large aviation industry Corporations attempt to debunk it or work hard to allow their employees to utilize their own products in the course of their business? Company flying clubs that include the use of the aircraft for business travel?

    The industry wants to fail, I swear. If it can't even "eat its own dog food", what credibility does it have.
     
  16. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    47,782
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    What's the difference between that and them getting in for a $100 hamburger run on the pilot's dime? Happens every weekend somewhere.
     
  17. DrMack

    DrMack Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    N704PA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DrMack
    Denverpilot articulates many of the issues that have motivated our effort and are the reason that we seek statutory relief from this dysfunctional regulation and associated case law. It has devolved into circular logic and is by definition now arbitrary and contrary to the intention of Congress when it passed the FAA Act of 1958.
     
  18. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    Sorry -- sometimes my keyboard skips a beat.

    Roger Peterson had a CP certificate. That alone does not satisfy the FAA's higher standard of care requirements.

    You don't get your regular pay while you're traveling? I'll bet you do. You can say you're getting paid just for doing your regular job, not to fly, but the fact is you're flying a plane on the job and getting paid by your employer while you do it.

    You -- your plane, you are the pilot. You are providing air transportation for hire/compensation to your employer.

    See Part 11 of the FAR's.

    There is -- corporate aviation. The employer provides the airplane, while the employee with a CP ticket provides pilot services.

    I do not doubt that people are doing what the Mangiamele letter says isn't legal. And as discussed above, there are plenty of people running illegal 134-1/2 charter operations. However, I do not accept that the fact that some people are breaking the law is a reason to change the law so what they are doing becomes legal.

    Of course, I personally disagree with the Mangiamele interpretation. I think it ignores the plain language of 61.113. However, I do know that the intent of AFS-800 (which is responsible for that section of the rules) was to put a stop to that activity. I think they should have rewritten the regulation to reflect their intent rather than get the Chief Counsel to write an interpretation which stretches the language of the regulation beyond recognition. But that's the way it is. Just be aware of AFS-800's intent, and realize that they will resist any effort to make legal what they do not want to be legal. If pushed, I would expect them to rewrite that regulation more strictly rather than loosening the restrictions on this sort of activity.
     
  19. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    You're now seeing it from AFS-800's perspective. When it involves business and employment, where the passenger may have no real clue as to the capabilities of the pilot/aircraft, the FAA wants a higher standard of care than when you're just getting in with someone you know for a free ride to get lunch somewhere.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2013
  20. DrMack

    DrMack Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    N704PA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DrMack
    I think this is a brilliant point. Of the corporate and university policies that I am familiar with that allow reimbursement for the use of a privately owned aircraft flown by a private pilot, they all have a minimum total time requirement. Even Angel Flight South Central for which I fly, the minimum is 250 hours. Some Angel Flight wings also require an instrument rating. Perhaps some sort of minimum standards should also be specified, things like time in type and recency, actual IMC, etc. We have to be careful though. We are proposing an amendment to the FA Act of 1958 so the language has to be broad enough to allow the NPRM process that necessarily follows any change in the statute to receive and accommodate any worthwhile public comments that come into the docket.
     
  21. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    That's not an unreasonable idea. The rules would also have to include a bona fide employer-employee relationship where the employee is primarily employed in some other capacity, e.g., some maximum percentage of work hours are performed as a pilot -- maybe 5%, maybe less. I can also see the pilot standards being set about the Part 135 mins (e.g., min 500 TT for day VFR, min 1200 TT for IFR, etc). Annual flight reviews, too, and IPC's at least annually for IFR. The airplane would be maintained according to the manufacturer's instructions (e.g., all SB's, etc) or FSDO-approved alternative maintenance program, and having 100-hour inspections. No "preventive maintenance" by the pilot alone, too -- everything at least supervised and signed by an A&P. I can see that being sold to AFS-800.

    But that's not something you do in Congress -- that's something you do by petitioning for a regulation IAW Part 11. What you'd want in Congress would be a law passed requiring the FAA to set reasonable standards for such operations -- you don't try to put the exact standards in that law or you end up with a real mess. Then you petition the FAA for the standards you want.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2013
  22. DrMack

    DrMack Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    N704PA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DrMack
    Exactly. We just need to craft that poetry for the bill, because that is what statutory language is, legal poetry.
     
  23. DrMack

    DrMack Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    N704PA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DrMack
    I like where this is going. It is logical that there is some set of conditions for pilot, aircraft and operation limits that exist somewhere between non-compensated private operations and CPL/Part 119 that will be a reasonable compromise for all parties with an interest in the matter, including the public. At present, employers and non-profits have been setting those limits themselves.
     
  24. JimNtexas

    JimNtexas Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,200
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jim - In Texas!
    That's the way it should be. There is no need for some new 'level' of regulation. There is no problem to be solved, in the decades prior to the stupid 'letter' there isn't any evidence that a problem existed at all.

    Before we add a new 'level of regulation', thus giving the Chief Counsel more rope with which to hang us with these non-regulations then someone needs to show real data that points to a real problem. And then the FAA needs to begin a formal rule making process.

    This stupid 'letter' just needs to be trashed. If it takes Congress to do that, then so be it.

    The last thing General Aviation needs is another regulation on darn near anything!
     
  25. JeffDG

    JeffDG Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    17,510
    Location:
    Oak Ridge, TN
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    JeffDG
    Hear! Hear!
     
  26. tmyers

    tmyers En-Route

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    4,052
    Location:
    Kettering, OH
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Tim Myers
    All the instructors I talked to pre "The Letter" said the same thing. Flying incidental to business and reimbursement only pax or not was legal. I remember the day I read that letter my jaw dropped.

    I agree with Jim, leave the decision on experience levels up to the company and their legal staff. The insurance companies rule this all anyway.
     
  27. DrMack

    DrMack Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    N704PA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DrMack
    Even for the single pilot situation that we have today I think you are right about that. I'm sure that the Angel Flight requirements for their volunteer pilots are liability insurance driven.
     
  28. flyingcheesehead

    flyingcheesehead Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    20,054
    Location:
    UQACY, WI
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    iMooniac
    Roger Peterson also had no instrument rating and was transporting total strangers. That's a part 135 op no matter how you slice it.

    I am salaried, so you could say I get my regular pay no matter what I'm doing. Taken to the extreme, that would mean I'm a male prostitute. ;)

    However, I assert that since I am not being paid extra to fly - I would get the same even if I was driving or flying on the airlines - that I am not being paid *to fly*. That the FAA allows private pilots to do this on their own underscores this fact.

    Well, that makes it a little easier (I thought that the concept of a consulting company having to hire a director of maintenance, a director of operations, and a chief pilot pretty amusing - Of our 2 dozen or so employees, four are pilots). But I find it a bit odd that if I jumped through all the hoops to do this as the FAA currently wants, that I would not need to do anything extra to hold out to the public and fly paying passengers as a charter operation!

    Thanks - I'll check that out.

    Well, that's one way to get the plane sold.

    Any reasonable person's reading of the black-and-white letter of the FARs here would conclude that flying incidental to work is legal. No reasonable person would think that holding out to the public and flying charters without a 135 certificate is legal. The fact that we're all expected to become pseudo-lawyers and read all of the FAA's legal interpretations means that there is a problem with the system.
     
  29. dans2992

    dans2992 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,094
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dans2992
    Don't read the letter then..... :)
     
  30. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    47,782
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    FAA staff, too. The usual counter for this argument is that, "Not everyone at FAA is truly qualified to give opinions on regulations!" But appointing the Lawyers to answer questions instead of the people who wrote the law and knew its intent, and then allowing the lawyers to change law via a letter, is the broken part of the system.

    It should go like this:

    - Someone sends a question about the intent of the law to FAA, with examples.

    - Group responsible for writing the reg reviews and writes up a memo describing what they intended to accomplish, perhaps backing with hard numbers and studies if it's not a popular rule, showing why they did so.

    - Group forwards to Chief Counsel for an opinion as to whether they wrote the law correctly to match their intent. Chief Counsel sticks to that scope in their letter, replying.

    - If intent doesn't match law, per Chief Counsel, rule making group issues changes through standard NPRM process for public approval.

    - Change is made to match intent and cycle repeats as needed.
     
  31. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    If you read Mangiamele, you'll see AFS-800 was consulted and concurred with the lawyers' conclusions. IOW, the people who wrote the rule told the lawyers that's what they wanted it to say.

    That has not always carried the day, and sometimes (like with the Keller letter regarding the requirement to have an instructor present to log time/events for instrument currency on a sim) the lawyers tell AFS-800 "Sorry, folks -- that's just not what the reg says -- either change the reg or stop telling folks they can violate it." The same thing happened when John Lynch in AFS-810 told people that "rated" included having any applicable 61.31 additional training endorsements in order to log PIC time as sole manipulator under 61.51(e)(1)(i). The result of that "rated" business included both the removal of the AFS-810-generated Part 61 FAQ file from public view, and an agreement that AGC-200 and AFS-800 would consult with each other before either one put anything out on Part 61.

    However, in the Mangiamele case, AFS-800's intent and the lawyers' reading of the reg were in agreement, and they said so in the letter.
     
  32. Clip4

    Clip4 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,640
    Location:
    A Rubber Room
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Cli4ord
    Looking at the big picture and two Part 91 operations:

    A company owned aircraft and a employee/commercial pilot.

    A non company owned aircraft and a employee/ private pilot.

    The company owned and non company owned aircraft have identical regulatory maintenance requirements. So broadening the regulations to allow a commercial pilot to accept reimbursement for his plane would not deminish safety. Allowing the PP to act as a commercial pilot would lower safety.
     
  33. denverpilot

    denverpilot Taxi to Parking

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    47,782
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    DenverPilot
    Fascinating. I did not know this. Was that reg written prior to the mandatory NPRM process?

    It's amazing to me how the entire population of pilots had it wrong for decades, and AFS-800 never got around to making it clearer.

    Talk about lazy.

    Or... The NPRM process came along and they decided to not **** off the world, just wait for someone to ask and let the lawyers do it?

    Something's still smells fishy even considering this new-to-me information.

    Too bad it was before the era of e-mail. An FOIA request for communications back and forth might have shed a different light on it. Pressure to comply from anywhere else in the organization when AFS-800 was "asked"? We will never know.

    But it obviously wasn't a priority for them to fix the misunderstanding everyone in the industry and most importantly, flight instructors and FAA personnel had, including enforcement personnel, for a long long long time.

    I'm hesitant to call it malicious but I'm also hesitant to call it gross incompetence mixed with apathy.

    But it logically does have to be one scenario or the other. Neither of which is the expected level of service.
     
  34. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    I guess you didn't read the Mangiamele letter. Note the last sentence.
    No.
     
  35. dans2992

    dans2992 En-Route

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    3,094
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Dans2992
    Has there ever been an enforcement action based on this?

    I know several pilots who are likely operating under blissful ignorance of this letter..... Maybe I shouldn't mention it.

    :)
     
  36. Cmercado

    Cmercado Pre-takeoff checklist

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    San Juan, Puerto Rico
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Charlie M
    Don't ask.... Don't tell......:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
     
  37. jbarrass

    jbarrass Line Up and Wait

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    646
    Location:
    Vienna, VA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    jbarrass
    Consider the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) that apply to the Government, and by extension Government contractors. It is specifically allowed with clear restitution including amounts and procedures for reimbursement. Given the clear language of the properly published regulation and the Government's clear application for itself, I think the "Government's" position is clear even is if a the FAA's counsel is not. I'd be interested in seeing the FAA go after DOD on this issue. It would be fun to watch.
     
  38. poadeleted20

    poadeleted20 Deleted

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    31,266
    The fact that the JTR's allow reimbursement of Federal government employees is totally irrelevant to an FAA enforcement action for violating 61.113. Totally. And the FAA will not be going after the DoD on this, they will be going after the individual pilot involved, and the DoD does not provide legal defenses for its employees under such circumstances.
     
  39. RotorAndWing

    RotorAndWing Final Approach

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2008
    Messages:
    8,496
    Location:
    Other side of the world
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Rotor&Wing
    This is all Don Quixote tilting at the windmills.............

    :popcorn:
     
  40. JimNtexas

    JimNtexas Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,200
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Jim - In Texas!
    Right now I'm picturing a world where one needs 1500 hours of dual and a part 135 certificate to carry a passenger in a Cessna 150. That's where the Chief Counsel seems to be headed.

    In the actual world that I actually live in both the pilots and business managers who employ them are not idiots with death wishes. They are adults who are fully capable of making sound judgements related to business travel.

    If you are not capable of using good judgement than by all means, do not fly a private airplane on business.

    Please don't project your lack of judgement on the rest of us!