Volunteer pilot regulations

[bkspero]

Today's Avweb Flash had a letter from the Air Care Alliance over the signature of Rick Durden. The letter described the regulations that control volunteer piloting and the rationale behind them. It makes the point that the objective of the regulations is to protect passengers unfamiliar with the less stringent part 91 regulations that govern volunteer flight compared to the stricter regulations that govern parts 121 and 135 flight for hire.

The primary regulation is that a volunteer pilot cannot receive compensation for the flight. No gas money, no free rental, no use of an airplane borrowed from the Volunteer Pilot Organization.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong and if I am, please correct me. But I don't see how requiring that a pilot not receive any help with the costs provides any protection to a passenger. Now a requirement to tell passengers that they are flying under less stringent regulations would go some way towards doing that. But not the absence of compensation.

As I was thinking about it, I was wondering if the absence of compensation would have the opposite effect. I was thinking about a pilot bringing a patient to a big city (ready $8/gallon 100LL) airport and then back again later in the day. Is that pilot ever tempted to return home with less fuel than they could safely carry because they would rather pay $4/gal at home. I'm not saying that the pilot would take a high risk, but flying with less fuel rather than more fuel means the chances of something going wrong and running out are a little higher than they would have been if more fuel were carried.

Similarly with weather. Has anyone been tempted to fly home in deteriorating weather because they wanted to avoid an overnight in a big city $400/night hotel room. Whereas if they were able to receive compensation for expenses, it would be an easier decision to postpone until the next day.

I am not complaining about the FAA. I can see that they would be under tremendous political pressure from part 121 and 135 operators if they liberalized volunteer pilot flying. They can't do it. Protestations from the FAA to the contrary, that is reality. My question is why would the Air Care Alliance spread this story, though. Wouldn't it be simpler and more honest to just say what the regulations are and instruct pilots to violate them at their own peril.

I guess one possible explanation for the ACA trying to justify the regulations is that the alternative would be to expect them to be fighting to get the regulations changed. And they don't want to do that extra work.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

.... My question is why would the Air Care Alliance spread this story, though. Wouldn't it be simpler and more honest to just say what the regulations are and instruct pilots to violate them at their own peril.

Is this the letter you're referring to? http://www.aircarealliance.org/reimbursements-fuel-and-use-groups-aircraft

If so, they basically are saying what the regulations are and telling people to violate them at their own peril. Well, actually they go further and urge people to actually follow the regulations.

I think the intent was to inform pilots and organisations of legal issues they may not be aware of. I don't know much about the Air Care Alliance. Their site claims their mission statement is: “The Air Care Alliance promotes, supports, and represents public benefit flying through communication and cooperation among organizations facilitating flights for health, compassion, and community service."
A letter highlighting legal issues that apply to public benefit flying seems in line with that mission.

 

[denverpilot]

These rules have been in place for some time now. I read the ACA letter as a reminder to organizations that aren't being as detail-oriented as most of the big name ones are, to understand the regs.

I've seen another one they don't mention that's a solid "bending" of the rules. Fuel *discounts* for folks participating in a particular event.

Whether FAA will ever stick their noses into that particular legal mess, I can't say -- but it could be argued that it's a form of compensation that any other pilot wouldn't receive at the same vendor.

Obviously the part they leave out is that there's quite a few Exemptions for various volunteer organizations out there and they're published on a website the FAA maintains. You can (and should) look those up if you fly for any of those organizations, and know the limitations of their exemptions. Both for pilot qualifications and the things they're allowed to do with compensation and the form of the compensation allowed.

Whenever you hear about an event that says "any pilot can fly" or "we're offering a $1/gallon discount on fuel for pilots who participate" be a little wary and ask if they have the appropriate exemptions for that.

I like volunteering time and airplane, but there's some gotchas when dealing with small, disorganized, well-meaning charity groups. Be careful.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I guess one possible explanation for the ACA trying to justify the regulations is that the alternative would be to expect them to be fighting to get the regulations changed. And they don't want to do that extra work.

Explanation does not equal justification.

ACA is sort of an umbrella organization supporting volunteer charitable flying groups. This kind of informational article is right up it's alley.

These groups have battled with the FAA since Day One. Not that many recall this any more, but the FAA Chief Counsel's original answer about Angel Flight was that it needed a Part 135 or 121 operating certificate if the pilots were receiving compensation in the form of a charitable tax deduction. Fortunately, the question was asked by Sen Phil Gramm and permitting it came soon after. and permitting it was specifically stated to be a matter of policy, despite the regs.

The exemptions given to some groups to permit some reimbursement, arduous as they can be, are part if the continuing efforts of these groups.

Don't look for any relaxing of the underlying regs any time soon. They apply to far more than charitable flights. FlyteNow is a good example. The FAA has historically shown very little inclination to incentivize the carriage of passengers for any exchange of value, even if only partial, outside the tiny window afforded by 61.113 as it has been interpreted for decades, the limited charitable public policy "non-regulatory" exception, and a bit of "don't ask, don't tell" in the case of FBO fuel discounts and waivers of fees by FBOs.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

But I don't see how requiring that a pilot not receive any help with the costs provides any protection to a passenger.

The idea is to prevent you from undercutting some totally underfunded, poorly maintained charter operation with underpaid pilots. Not to mention the risk of pilots using the so called "charity" flights to build hours and thus making it harder for the banner tow guys to find pilots who will fly for free in some POS rattle trap.

And, finally, there is the issue of paperwork to review. If pilots were allowed to just go and do things without sufficient paperwork for the FAA to review, then low level FAA jobs would be in jeopardy. Then, a reduction in low level FAA employees could result in a reduced need for middle management and so on up the line - the so called domino effect.

Priorities, man! Priorities!

 

[murphey]

Let me point out that Rick Durden is a well known aviation attorney, living in Colorado. I've attended a number of meetings where he's spoken, (including the annual ACA meeting last year in Denver) often on this and related topics. When he mentions the FAA process to get an exemption for fuel reimbursement as being onerous, that's the lawyer being polite. The rules aint onerous, they're almost impossible to comply with. I don't know of any EAA chapter in Colorado going that direction. Our chapter looked at the rules and said "f-kkit, not worth the time or effort".

Half the battle when dealing with the FAA (and the state) is using then correct words. A few years ago I was involved in a project to raise money for a neighbor's son going thru serious medical procedures. I offered two rides in my cherokee. Actually the FAA was the easiest part. I drew a big circle on the map around KAPA and told people this would be where we flew. Start and stop at KAPA. Talked to the FSDO, discussed details, all good.

It was the State of Colorado that turned out to be the problem. Not being an lomg-time, established 501(c)x there were words we couldn't use. Not raffle. Not a sweepstakes. Not many other things. I don't remember whT the sign eventually said, but the state approved it. You may wonder why? Because the event was on local tv.

BTW, the two winners never contacted me to take their flights.

 

[\__[Ô]__/]

Let me point out that Rick Durden is a well known aviation attorney, living in Colorado. I've attended a number of meetings where he's spoken, (including the annual ACA meeting last year in Denver) often on this and related topics. When he mentions the FAA process to get an exemption for fuel reimbursement as being onerous, that's the lawyer being polite. The rules aint onerous, they're almost impossible to comply with. I don't know of any EAA chapter in Colorado going that direction. Our chapter looked at the rules and said "f-kkit, not worth the time or effort".

I feel like that is vastly overstating the difficulty.

Here's an example exemption policy that google found for me: http://www.angelflightne.org/images/pdfs/exemption_faa.pdf

Is it "onerous"? That's a matter of perspective. Compared to just hopping in and going, sure you could say it's onerous. Compared to obtaining and using a 135 certificate, maybe it's not so onerous.

As for damn near impossible... It requires the organisation to develop and implement some procedures which will take some time.. It also has record keeping and preflight actions that will require some of the pilot's time for each flight and will require the organisation to track. It looks like this could be an automated web form. Would take some initial time investment to set up but I don't see anything that even comes close to impossible. Am I missing something?

The only thing I see that might be a challenge is #15, getting the FAA to approve the training and risk assessment. I have no idea how hard that would be. They give examples and state exactly what needs to be in it, so even this might be straightforward but just take some patience waiting for approval to work through the system.

 

[murphey]

I feel like that is vastly overstating the difficulty.

Here's an example exemption policy that google found for me: http://www.angelflightne.org/images/pdfs/exemption_faa.pdf

Is it "onerous"? That's a matter of perspective. Compared to just hopping in and going, sure you could say it's onerous. Compared to obtaining and using a 135 certificate, maybe it's not so onerous.

As for damn near impossible... It requires the organisation to develop and implement some procedures which will take some time.. It also has record keeping and preflight actions that will require some of the pilot's time for each flight and will require the organisation to track. It looks like this could be an automated web form. Would take some initial time investment to set up but I don't see anything that even comes close to impossible. Am I missing something?

The only thing I see that might be a challenge is #15, getting the FAA to approve the training and risk assessment. I have no idea how hard that would be. They give examples and state exactly what needs to be in it, so even this might be straightforward but just take some patience waiting for approval to work through the system.

If the EAA Mother Ship is willing to put the time & effort into making this happen for the Young Eagle program, great. But I can tell you right now, few chapters are going to find volunteers willing to spend the time & effort, and keep track of everything to make it happen. Like I said, our chapter looked at it and said no way.