Well, this seems likely illegal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bonchie

Bonchie

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 23, 2014
Messages
1,505
Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
(Apparently, they have a waiver)

Delete
 
Last edited:
As much as I find this repulsive on a moral level, I don't see how it's legally any different than the public benefit flying we're all familiar with and many of us do. It sounds as though they're modeled after the angel flight organizations, some of which actually do have a waiver to allow reimbursement for fuel.

For those not wanting to bother reading the story, an organization has apparently been set up to fly people to abortion and transgender surgery providers from states in which such practices have been banned or otherwise restricted.
 
link to the article itself https://news.stlpublicradio.org/hea...ople-to-kansas-and-other-states-for-abortions

This seems to be overkill for the situation. It has the feel of a group of people finding the most complicated solution to a basic problem.

If the state is next door, it will be easier, quicker, less risky, cheaper to just drive than to fly GA.

If the state is not next door, it will be easier, quicker, less risky, cheaper to fly them commercial.

Abortions are not time sensitive where we need the speed of flying vs car (in short distances) and there is no way GA can be cheaper or faster than commercial over longer distances. Plus, as we all know, getting to/from the airport at the destination can be its own headache.

So yeah, not a fan.

OTOH, nobody would write an article about a bunch of renegade state-defying drivers shuttling people out of state, or booking people on southwest flights. So there is that, I guess.
 
Jim K said:
As much as I find this repulsive on a moral level, I don't see how it's legally any different than the public benefit flying we're all familiar with and many of us do. It sounds as though they're modeled after the angel flight organizations, some of which actually do have a waiver to allow reimbursement for fuel.

For those not wanting to bother reading the story, an organization has apparently been set up to fly people to abortion and transgender surgery providers from states in which such practices have been banned or otherwise restricted.
Click to expand...

The article says these are PPLs and some aren’t paying for fuel. And who knows if that’s an understatement too. No telling what they are actually charging. But even not paying for fuel is illegal unless there’s some serious gymnastics, and I’m not sure what that’d be.
 
Last edited:
Why don’t you go to the Elevated Access website?
They spell it out there. “We have received an exemption from the FAA to be able to reimburse fuel costs, but we are still creating the policy and process for providing those reimbursements”.
Just like other charity flight organizations.
 
guest user said:
link to the article itself https://news.stlpublicradio.org/hea...ople-to-kansas-and-other-states-for-abortions

This seems to be overkill for the situation. It has the feel of a group of people finding the most complicated solution to a basic problem.

If the state is next door, it will be easier, quicker, less risky, cheaper to just drive than to fly GA.

If the state is not next door, it will be easier, quicker, less risky, cheaper to fly them commercial.

Abortions are not time sensitive where we need the speed of flying vs car (in short distances) and there is no way GA can be cheaper or faster than commercial over longer distances. Plus, as we all know, getting to/from the airport at the destination can be its own headache.

So yeah, not a fan.

OTOH, nobody would write an article about a bunch of renegade state-defying drivers shuttling people out of state, or booking people on southwest flights. So there is that, I guess.
Click to expand...
Bonchie said:
The article says these are PPLs and some aren’t paying for fuel. And who knows if that’s an understatement too. No telling what they are actually charging. But even not paying for fuel is illegal unless there’s some serious gymnastics, and I’m not sure what that’d be.
Click to expand...
You can say the exact same things about every public benefit mission, from Angel Flight to Pilots n Paws. Sorry you don't like charitable flights.

BTW, the gymnastics are the same as all the other public benefit organizations. A waiver from the FAA with very stringent qualification requirements many refer to as "Part 135 Light". EAA rejected one of those for it Young Eagles program (another thing you don't like?) because they were so heavy.
 
guest user said:
link to the article itself https://news.stlpublicradio.org/hea...ople-to-kansas-and-other-states-for-abortions

This seems to be overkill for the situation. It has the feel of a group of people finding the most complicated solution to a basic problem.

If the state is next door, it will be easier, quicker, less risky, cheaper to just drive than to fly GA.

If the state is not next door, it will be easier, quicker, less risky, cheaper to fly them commercial.

Abortions are not time sensitive where we need the speed of flying vs car (in short distances) and there is no way GA can be cheaper or faster than commercial over longer distances. Plus, as we all know, getting to/from the airport at the destination can be its own headache.

So yeah, not a fan.

OTOH, nobody would write an article about a bunch of renegade state-defying drivers shuttling people out of state, or booking people on southwest flights. So there is that, I guess.
Click to expand...
The article does list some supposed benefits, but IMO it likely comes down to pilots wanting to donate their time and skills rather than money. And get hours while doing something good.
 
BTW, if someone want to read Elevated Access' exemption permitting fuel reimbursement, it's here.
https://aes.faa.gov/AES/Exemption?ExemptionNumber=26581#

Pilot qualifications include an instrument rating or ATP certificate, 2nd class medical, current FR in category and class, IPC within the past year, and 500 hours total time including 400 as PIC, 50 hours make and model, 50 hours as PIC within the preceding 12 calendar months, and 12 hours within the preceding 3 calendar months.

And that's just the pilot qualification part.

Pretty standard from what I've seen with others. You can see the reason for referring to it as "135 Light."
 
Makes a lot more sense to me than flying dogs around; and I have flown plenty of PnP flights. I find it repulsive on a moral level that vulnerable people are being forced into things like this at such difficult times in their lives.
 
Katamarino said:
Makes a lot more sense to me than flying dogs around; and I have flown plenty of PnP flights. I find it repulsive on a moral level that vulnerable people are being forced into things like this at such difficult times in their lives.
Click to expand...

On a moral level I am more outraged about the 10 preachers who have business jets and the charity tax deductions that support it.
 
Katamarino said:
Makes a lot more sense to me than flying dogs around; and I have flown plenty of PnP flights. I find it repulsive on a moral level that vulnerable people are being forced into things like this at such difficult times in their lives.
Click to expand...
Agreed but I do love PnP for getting vulnerable dogs to new forever homes. Often they would be otherwise killed. Every dog deserves a good home.
 
Katamarino said:
I find it repulsive on a moral level that vulnerable people are being forced into things like this at such difficult times in their lives.
Click to expand...
Yup…I find it repulsive that people are being forced into abortions, too.
 
I thought a PPL holder was permitted to be reimbursed for operating expense, but not for his or her time as a pilot. Not actually being a pilot, maybe I heard wrong. Can't you be helped with expenses on your airplane if you are PPL?
 
As a PPL you can't be reimbursed for all the expenses, you have to pay your pro-rata share of it
 
Lawson_Stone said:
I thought a PPL holder was permitted to be reimbursed for operating expense, but not for his or her time as a pilot. Not actually being a pilot, maybe I heard wrong. Can't you be helped with expenses on your airplane if you are PPL?
Click to expand...

MacFlier said:
As a PPL you can't be reimbursed for all the expenses, you have to pay your pro-rata share of it
Click to expand...

Charitable benefit flights are not 61.113 pro rata shared expense flights. Shared expense flights require that the pilot and the passenger have a joint purpose. At the very least, that means the pilot has an independent reason for going to the destination ("I want to bring the passenger there" is not a joint purpose.

If you go back a few years, you'll find that the FAA originally considered taking the charitable deduction for an Angel Flight to be unlawful compensation.

Private pilots making volunteer air flights involving the carriage of persons or property are in violation of Section 61.118 [the predecessor to 61.113] if they receive any reimbursement of expenses or take any tax deductions for those flights. 1993 Gramm Interpretation​

That is still the controlling analysis. The charitable deduction is OK because the FAA decides, as a matter of policy, not regulation, that it would be acceptable - and it took the efforts of then-Senator Phil Gramm to get that much.
 
MauleSkinner said:
So what are they being forced to do?
Click to expand...

Travel hundreds or thousands of miles, spending hundreds of dollars, potentially while very ill, for basic healthcare. As you well know. But that's how people like you like it, isn't it.
 
Katamarino said:
Travel hundreds or thousands of miles, spending hundreds of dollars, potentially while very ill, for basic healthcare. As you well know. But that's how people like you like it, isn't it.
Click to expand...
If “you people” is forced to pay for it, “you people” should have a say in it.
 
Certainly the reason I left any construct of organized religion behind decades ago. Charity, with a sticker on the side of it that reads "terms and conditions apply, void where prohibited, see local dealer for details" never stuck me as particularly...charitable. :D
 
Clip4 said:
On a moral level I am more outraged about the 10 preachers who have business jets and the charity tax deductions that support it.
Click to expand...
What did the famous mega-church pastor Joel Osteen say about his mansion, ferrari(s), and myriad other big dollar toys? Oh that's right, that wealth is evidence of God's favor :eek:.
Then you have people like K.Copeland who had what, like 5 business jets for his ministry? Real stand-up people, all of them.

EDIT: Does anyone remember this guy? The whole 'I fly in private jets because commercial travel is full of demons' excuse? And the "don't pay for my plane, PRAY for my plane" :eek:
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
Certainly the reason I left any construct of organized religion behind decades ago. Charity, with a sticker on the side of it that reads "terms and conditions apply, void where prohibited, see local dealer for details" never stuck me as particularly...charitable. :D
Click to expand...

I think a vast majority of organised religion does selfless deeds with no strings attached. It's a shame that those who don't often wield such influence.
 
Katamarino said:
I think a vast majority of organised religion does selfless deeds with no strings attached. It's a shame that those who don't often wield such influence.
Click to expand...
Glad you think that, but I don’t. Most organized religion is the followers self serving with very little benefitting anyone else. Lavish Mega churches costing millions of dollars are proof of that.
 
What does religion have to do with any of this? Midlifeflyer posted the relevant info.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top