Repossession

Clip4 said:
So you really want to climb into an airplane owned by a dead beat with zero knowledge of the planes inspection or maintenance status?
Click to expand...

The dead best wouldnt be my concern, the more nasty complex reasons that might lead to a repo would be the ones concerning me
 
Sac Arrow said:
There is a guy on the Purple Board flying a Cub in Alaska for Fish & Game. He states that technically he doesn’t need a cert for what he does but the agency still requires a valid commercial and 2nd class medical for the job. Which he has.
Click to expand...

Many of the FARs only apply to the operation on a Civil Aircraft. Civil aircraft means aircraft other than public aircraft. State aircraft are not civil.

61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(a) Required pilot certificate for operating a civil aircraft of the United States. No person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person:
 
Clip4 said:
Many of the FARs only apply to the operation on a Civil Aircraft. Civil aircraft means aircraft other than public aircraft. State aircraft are not civil.

61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(a) Required pilot certificate for operating a civil aircraft of the United States. No person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person:
Click to expand...

Right. He is with the fed, not the state.
 
The fact that the FARs specifically carve out the demonstration of aircraft by a salesman as one of the exemptions where a private pilot can receive compensation suggests to me that they would take a dim view of the 'oh its incidental to the repossession' argument. The situation is quite similar. The aircraft salesman gets paid a commission for selling the plane, not for flying it. If the flying in that context would qualify as 'incidental to', there would be no need for the carve-out.

As for the Hurst letter: Flying is a 'forseeable and normal' portion of repossessing an aircraft and would therefore not be 'incidental to'.

And for the love of god, don't write a letter to ask the chief counsel for his blessing.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
The fact that the FARs specifically carve out the demonstration of aircraft by a salesman as one of the exemptions where a private pilot can receive compensation suggests to me that they would take a dim view of the 'oh its incidental to the repossession' argument. The situation is quite similar. The aircraft salesman gets paid a commission for selling the plane, not for flying it. If the flying in that context would qualify as 'incidental to', there would be no need for the carve-out.

As for the Hurst letter: Flying is a 'forseeable and normal' portion of repossessing an aircraft and would therefore not be 'incidental to'.

And for the love of god, don't write a letter to ask the chief counsel for his blessing.
Click to expand...
...and a post maintenance check flight is not?

I agree with you on both points. Just sayin....
 
midlifeflyer said:
...and a post maintenance check flight is not?

I agree with you on both points. Just sayin....
Click to expand...

As I read it, the difference is this: Post maintenance check flights are not the business. Maintenance is.

Whereas, repossession IS the business, so it's not incidental.

If you had a business whose purpose was to provide post-maintenance test flights for A&Ps or aircraft owners, those post-maintenance test flights would no longer be incidental to the business.
 
Rumor has it that FAA interpretation letters are written by human beings, so we can't necessarily depend on their reasoning being consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top