Rules...

MauleSkinner said:
basically, yes. As long as the FBO doesn’t coordinate the process, it’s legal.
Click to expand...
Pinecone said:
Or the pilot is a checked out pilot at that FBO, but not associated with it.
Click to expand...
Are you aware of any FBOs that rent airplanes to non-pilots and let them find their own pilot?

What you're describing is aircraft leasing which puts more responsibility on the lessee than what is being proposed here. The lessee takes operational control of the airplane and must ensure compliance with all regulatory requirements, including crew qualifications and maintenance standards.
 
Larry in TN said:
Are you aware of any FBOs that rent airplanes to non-pilots and let them find their own pilot?

What you're describing is aircraft leasing which puts more responsibility on the lessee than what is being proposed here. The lessee takes operational control of the airplane and must ensure compliance with all regulatory requirements, including crew qualifications and maintenance standards.
Click to expand...
It was more along the lines of the person who wanted to fly found a pilot and the FBO agreed to do the rental that way.

Much like a corporate flight department, the lessee then relies on the pilot for the rest of it.
 
MauleSkinner said:
It was more along the lines of the person who wanted to fly found a pilot and the FBO agreed to do the rental that way.
Click to expand...
So, if I, a CPL whose checked out in the C-182 at the local FBO, was asked by someone to fly him somewhere, I can charge him for doing so as long as I have him pay the FBO directly for the airplane?
 
Larry in TN said:
So, if I, a CPL whose checked out in the C-182 at the local FBO, was asked by someone to fly him somewhere, I can charge him for doing so as long as I have him pay the FBO directly for the airplane?
Click to expand...
technically he needs to make the airplane arrangements as well.
 
Larry in TN said:
So, if I, a CPL whose checked out in the C-182 at the local FBO, was asked by someone to fly him somewhere, I can charge him for doing so as long as I have him pay the FBO directly for the airplane?
Click to expand...
In general, you can do anything that isn't prohibited.
 
MauleSkinner said:
technically he needs to make the airplane arrangements as well.
Click to expand...
Have you ever known of an FBO that will rent an airplane to a non-pilot who intends to find his own pilot to fly it?

Lindberg said:
In general, you can do anything that isn't prohibited.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to figure out how such a plan could be made to work in the real world.

This seems to be a theoretical situation that can't actually be done because nobody will rent the airplane to a non-pilot and there's no way to find a pilot, who had authorization from the FBO to fly it, without it being arranged through the FBO or by the pilot "holding out".

Is this just a theoretical mind exercise or something that could actually be done?
 
Larry in TN said:
Have you ever known of an FBO that will rent an airplane to a non-pilot who intends to find his own pilot to fly it?
Click to expand...
Yes. A guy came to me for lessons, but I'm not associated with an FBO. He found an FBO that would allow him to rent from them, and allow me to instruct without being paid by them. He could pay me directly fpr my services. He ended up buying a plane before we ever got around to using them. So yes, it happens.
 
EdFred said:
Yes. A guy came to me for lessons, but I'm not associated with an FBO. He found an FBO that would allow him to rent from them, and allow me to instruct without being paid by them. He could pay me directly fpr my services. He ended up buying a plane before we ever got around to using them. So yes, it happens.
Click to expand...
And you think that would work if someone just wanted transportation and not instruction?
 
It would depend on the FBO. And how good business is. :)
 
Pinecone said:
It would depend on the FBO. And how good business is. :)
Click to expand...
Wouldn't even need to be an fbo. If non pilot knows an aircraft owner willing to rent the plane
 
People!
You can do anything you want as long as you don't write about it, talk about it, or get caught.
And have your alibi/story worked out in advance.

:popcorn::stirpot::cheers:
 
Salty said:
It’s tough to have a solid Alibi when you don’t know what the regulations are.
Click to expand...
I've said this often enough that it probably should be in my signature block:

Since ignorance is not a defense anyway, it's probably best to try to understand a rule before deciding it's ok to break it.
 
Lindberg said:
In general, you can do anything that isn't prohibited.
Click to expand...
TRUE!!! I had a friend that was very high in the FAA years ago. He used to tell us to never "interpret" the Regs, that was for the legal department to do. If it did not say you "can not" do something, you're fine to do it until someone decides to change the Regs or put out a Legal Interpretation.
 
M20K said:
TRUE!!! I had a friend that was very high in the FAA years ago. He used to tell us to never "interpret" the Regs, that was for the legal department to do. If it did not say you "can not" do something, you're fine to do it until someone decides to change the Regs or put out a Legal Interpretation.
Click to expand...
Don't forget ...or violate you, saying that's what the reg means.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Don't forget ...or violate you, saying that's what the reg means.
Click to expand...
If you mean the Reg says something obvious and you do the opposite, I agree, you could get violated.

I wish I could remember some of the ones he used to quote that people would say you couldn't do, and he'd say to show him where it says you can't do that... Which it didn't, they just *assumed* you couldn't.

Don't remember if this was one of his or not, but back in the day (Regs have since changed) you could have 4 people logging PIC. You had the pilot flying (sole manipulator), Safety PIC in the Right Seat, CFI in the back seat giving instruction and an ATP... But I don't remember why the ATP could log it, but it was a valid reason. Also don't know if they still could. And the CFI can't anymore since they clarified you can't give instruction from a non control seat (or whatever the exact wording is now), so the back seat is out.
 
M20K said:
If you mean the Reg says something obvious and you do the opposite, I agree, you could get violated.

I wish I could remember some of the ones he used to quote that people would say you couldn't do, and he'd say to show him where it says you can't do that... Which it didn't, they just *assumed* you couldn't.

Don't remember if this was one of his or not, but back in the day (Regs have since changed) you could have 4 people logging PIC. You had the pilot flying (sole manipulator), Safety PIC in the Right Seat, CFI in the back seat giving instruction and an ATP... But I don't remember why the ATP could log it, but it was a valid reason. Also don't know if they still could. And the CFI can't anymore since they clarified you can't give instruction from a non control seat (or whatever the exact wording is now), so the back seat is out.
Click to expand...
It was:
Pilot
Safety Pilot
CFI giving instruction to the PIlot/Safety PIlot
CFII Giving instruction to the CFI

Two CFI's gave give and receive instruction simultaneously to each other. Which would include flight reviews.
 
EdFred said:
Two CFI's gave give and receive instruction simultaneously to each other. Which would include flight reviews.
Click to expand...
No, the one I know had an ATP in the mix. (Prob. from the late 80s.)
 
M20K said:
If you mean the Reg says something obvious and you do the opposite, I agree, you could get violated.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t necessarily mean something obvious. There is case law that the FAA can argue an interpretation for the very first time in an enforcement action. Aside from that, in addition to the formal legal interpretations, there is the whole body of FAA guidance that is “not regulatory” but tells us what the FAA’s expects and manages to find its way into the enforcement cases as the basis for a regulatory violation.
 
midlifeflyer said:
No, I don’t necessarily mean something obvious. There is case law that the FAA can argue an interpretation for the very first time in an enforcement action. Aside from that, in addition to the formal legal interpretations, there is the whole body of FAA guidance that is “not regulatory” but tells us what the FAA’s expects and manages to find its way into the enforcement cases as the basis for a regulatory violation.
Click to expand...
Gottcha.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Somehow, it was a flight that required an ATP in command.
Click to expand...
That or an ATP could always log while in an aircraft in flight??? I just remember it was something that everyone agreed was really dumb, but allowed.

Along those lines... I remember Barry Schiff used to comment on how he would give his credentials to some FAA friend of his when he went in a plane that he didn't really know the pilot. He never wanted to be put in the position as an ATP to be responsible for the flight. Again, many decades ago and I don't remember the specifics, but it may have had to do with the Regs at the time and why the ATP could log the flight.

Doesn't matter now, but it was one of those interesting down in the dirt can or can't you do this? Those were always fun discussions and I learned a lot.
 
M20K said:
That or an ATP could always log while in an aircraft in flight??? I just remember it was something that everyone agreed was really dumb, but allowed.

Along those lines... I remember Barry Schiff used to comment on how he would give his credentials to some FAA friend of his when he went in a plane that he didn't really know the pilot. He never wanted to be put in the position as an ATP to be responsible for the flight. Again, many decades ago and I don't remember the specifics, but it may have had to do with the Regs at the time and why the ATP could log the flight.

Doesn't matter now, but it was one of those interesting down in the dirt can or can't you do this? Those were always fun discussions and I learned a lot.
Click to expand...
Logging will require the ATP to take advantage of something in 61.51. For a non-flying ATP, the base is acting as PIC on a flight that requires an ATP. But there might be others. For example, if the ATP is giving instruction within the context of a 121 training program, the ATP is an authorized instructor even if not a CFI.

I don’t know what Schiff was thinking, unless it’s the myth of the highest certificate always being responsible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top