Why can't private pilots fly for hire?

[Mafoo]

3. Most importantly -- what caused the government to inflict such restrictions? Were airplanes raining from the sky?

The question is, was it a restriction? Did you need to prove you knew anything more then any other pilot back then, or was it just a way for the government to tax you on your income?

What was required, to get a comercial pilots license back in 1926?

 

[Jay Honeck]

See post #3. Try to keep up.

Sheesh, I missed that attachment entirely. Great PDF file, very informative.

However, it still begs the question: Why? Why did Herbert Hoover decide that an enormous (for its time) new bunch of rules and regulations were required, restricting (or, in their bureaucrat-ese, "promoting") aviation?

Was there some defining moment? A terrible accident? Aluminum, wood and fabric raining from the skies?

I wonder if anyone has written a history of the air commerce act? It would probably read like an insurance policy, but it would sure be interesting to know what precipitated the creation of what would ultimately morph into the FAA.

 

[Jay Honeck]

The question is, was it a restriction? Did you need to prove you knew anything more then any other pilot back then, or was it just a way for the government to tax you on your income?

What was required, to get a comercial pilots license back in 1926?

Great point. I've heard from old-timers even today that getting their commercial ticket back in the '50s was mostly a formality that didn't even require an instrument rating.

Maybe in 1926 it was just a paperwork requirement?

 

[Mafoo]

"They also required all aircraft engaged in interstate or foreign commerce to be licensed and marked with an assigned identification number. Pilots of licensed aircraft were required to hold private or commercial licenses. Commercial pilots were classed as either transport or industrial."

This could imply, that someone with a private license could engage in commerce back in 1926. It might also just mean if more then one person is going to fly that plane, all of them need at least a license, if anyone is going to make money using it.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Can we all line up on your beach and pee against the tide?

Peeing against the tide is a fairly apt description of what aircraft homebuilder George Bogardus and the "Oregon Outlaws" did back in the 1940's when they went up against the CAA when the outlaws tried to roll back homebuilt aircraft regulations.

Sometime after 1926 the regulations were written such that for "homebuilt aircraft, they could not be registered." Enlightening story on the history of homebuilts and how written by Ken Scott titled "The Resistance":

http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/oregon_outlaws.html

I think history is clear on other similar endeavors: when it comes to laws and regulations, nothing is cut in stone. (OK, some literally is cut in stone like the Code of Hammurabi - but though it is still readable thousands of years later, nobody follows it.)

 

[RyanShort1]

My best guess is that the airlines didn't want competition from the small guys, and pulled the right strings to get the laws written.

Ryan

 

[Mafoo]

Looks like we are wrong is assuming pilots with only PPL's can't get paid for anything. Looks like if you're towing your buddy in a glider, and you want to charge for it, you can.

"Furthermore, the preamble to the 2004 final rule more clearly states the intent of § 61.113(g). Accordingly, § 61.113(g) permits a private pilot to act as PIC for compensation or hire of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle."

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...interpretations/data/interps/2010/Umphres.pdf

That PDF was posted in another thread on this forum.

 

[Jim Logajan]

The convoluted FAA rules banning private pilots from receiving compensation of any kind for flying are really quite amazing.

It is important to note that you made a claim that is false: "banning private pilots from receiving compensation of any kind for flying."

The regulation clearly state that they can be compensated if the flight is connected to business or employment and the flight is "incidental" to said business or employment. If you needed to fly somewhere to get bed sheets for your hotel, your hotel business could compensate you for the expenses incurred for that flight. That business expense also helps reduce taxable income.

However, all the exceptions that the FAA has carved out pretty much undercut the claim that the prohibitions are related to safety. Clearly they are not.

I believe an analogous situation to private pilot compensation regulations is that of jitneys (unlicensed taxis): illegal in most places, yet the rationale for the laws limiting access to entering a taxi business appear to be designed to protect municipal revenue sources and to protect a few select businesses.

 

[Tom-D]

I can be compensated for flying. and I am not a CPL.

If you tell me to come pickup your aircraft and take it to my shop for mechanic work I can charge for the time it requires to fly it here and back.

because that flying is incidental to the job.

I can not have any other person in the aircraft, because carrying them is not incidental to the work.

 

[Inverted]

I think its funny that this is continually discussed. If your buddy needs a ride and happens to slip you some cash for it, is it legal? Maybe not. Will anyone know? NO.

 

[Tom-D]

I think its funny that this is continually discussed. If your buddy needs a ride and happens to slip you some cash for it, is it legal? Maybe not. Will anyone know? NO.

There are two rules for doing that. never handle cash on the airport, and never put any thing in writing.

 

[wabower]

Each year's NBAA tax and financial seminar (to be held later this month if anybody wants to attend, cost is roughly $1000) includes numerous discussions on part 91 vs part 135 ops. Moderators and presenters include the top aviation lawyers. Their ongoing theme is that the FAA doesn't like money changing hands in part 91 ops. Some exemptions are included in the regs, but the burden of proof of compliance rests with the pilot.

 

[Mafoo]

There are two rules for doing that. never handle cash on the airport, and never put any thing in writing.

Pilot: Sorry John, I can't take any money for flying you to that job interview. Let's ride to the airport together in my Jeep. By the way, I am worried the transmission in my Jeep is going to go out. That's going to cost me $300 to have someone look at it.

John: Really? Here is $300 to have your transmission looked at.

 

[Tom-D]

Pilot: Sorry John, I can't take any money for flying you to that job interview. Let's ride to the airport together in my Jeep. By the way, I am worried the transmission in my Jeep is going to go out. That's going to cost me $300 to have someone look at it.

John: Really? Here is $300 to have your transmission looked at.

If I'm flying you over there, you are buying lunch.

 

[wabower]

Can you think of any outcomes or circumstances that could cause either party to change their story at a later time?

Pilot: Sorry John, I can't take any money for flying you to that job interview. Let's ride to the airport together in my Jeep. By the way, I am worried the transmission in my Jeep is going to go out. That's going to cost me $300 to have someone look at it.

John: Really? Here is $300 to have your transmission looked at.

 

[Mafoo]

Can you think of any outcomes or circumstances that could cause either party to change their story at a later time?

Yep.

I can think of 10 bad outcomes right off the bat for breaking the speed limit as well. Most people still do it.

I am not saying I am going to do it. But I think the odds of getting caught if you did, is less then the odds I don't ever see my wife again, each time the wheels leave the ground.

Living, requires risk.

 

[wabower]

What are the penalties of speeding vs those for breaking the regs, assuming you have a bad week and get caught for both.

Yep.

I can think of 10 bad outcomes right off the bat for breaking the speed limit as well. Most people still do it.

I am not saying I am going to do it. But I think the odds of getting caught if you did, is less then the odds I don't ever see my wife again, each time the wheels leave the ground.

Living, requires risk.

 

[Mafoo]

What are the penalties of speeding vs those for breaking the regs, assuming you have a bad week and get caught for both.

Depends. Not sure what 130 through a school zone in your state will get you, but I bet it's not something you want to be doing.

 

[douglas393]

Depends. Not sure what 130 through a school zone in your state will get you, but I bet it's not something you want to be doing.

Wedding night with Bubba?

 

[Mafoo]

a better question, is which is worse? Taking your friend somewhere and he pitching in for the gas on the side, or speeding through a school zone?

 

[DrMack]

Now, hear me out -- I'm NOT advocating a change in the law. At least not yet.

But I am. The idea is beginning to gain some traction both in Congress and various interests in the GA community. My goal is to find a sponsor in the US House immediately after the session begins in January. Here is the proposal that I am currently discussing with the legislative coordinator for Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX32):

[FONT=&quot]Restoring the Freedom to Fly for Private Benefit[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Timothy F. McDonough, Ph.D.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]On December 17, 1903 on the windswept Bodie Island peninsula in the North Carolina Outer Banks, powered aviation was born. Over the next one hundred years the world’s most extensive air transportation infrastructure developed in accordance with the will of the people of the United States as expressed through the guidance of the United States Congress. It remains one of the crowning achievements of the most prosperous nation that has ever existed in human history. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]From the earliest days of flight, federal laws have been enacted to ensure the freedom of every citizen to exercise the right to use the airspace of the United States for the pursuit of private benefit. This doctrine is enshrined in the codified federal statutes:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]49 USC § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (as amended) the Federal Aviation Administration was created and given the mandate to promote civil aeronautics and to ensure the safety of air commerce:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]49 USC § 40104 - Promotion of civil aeronautics and safety of air commerce[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) Developing Civil Aeronautics and Safety of Air Commerce.— The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall encourage the development of civil aeronautics and safety of air commerce in and outside the United States.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR) designed to ensure the safety of air commerce have been developed over many decades pursuant to the law that mandates their creation:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]49 USC § 44701 - General requirements[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) Promoting Safety.— The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing—[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](5) regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedure the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Among these regulations are rules that govern the conduct of airmen in both commercial and private aviation operations. There is no statutory language that provides a clear demarcation between commercial and purely private operations and it has been left to the FAA to craft regulations to distinguish between the two and to prescribe privileges and limitations of airmen engaged in these operations. In doing so, a number of proxy characteristics have been defined in the regulations to provide a distinction between commercial and private operations because it is nearly universally agreed that such a distinction is in the public interest.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Among the distinguishing characteristics that are used to test whether an operation is commercial or purely private is the question of “holding out” to the public to provide air transport in a quid pro quo economic transaction in the free market. Other tests are designed to determine if such operations are incidental to a business activity of the airmen or whether it is an aviation related business activity itself. It is clearly in the public interest to ensure that commercial operations are conducted within a strict regulatory framework that is designed to maximize the safety of all involved in them as the public has no other way to acquire the necessary information needed to adequately assess the risk of the operations to their person or property.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Code of Federal Regulations[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Title 14: Aeronautics and Space [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]§ 1.1 General definitions.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Commercial operator means a person who, for compensation or hire, engages in the carriage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or property, other than as an air carrier or foreign air carrier or under the authority of Part 375 of this title. Where it is doubtful that an operation is for “compensation or hire”, the test applied is whether the carriage by air is merely incidental to the person's other business or is, in itself, a major enterprise for profit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Another example of where it is clearly necessary to distinguish between commercial and private operations is in the case of air transport that is a condition of employment (travel on business at the direction of an employer) or when the carriage of persons or property is a condition of doing business.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the current regulations, attempts to develop bright line tests have been devised by first defining commercial operations explicitly and prescribing rules to govern them, and secondly by constructing a perimeter of restrictive regulations around private pilot privileges to prevent excursions of private operations into the realm of commercial activity. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is the perimeter of restrictions on private pilot privileges that the author believes has missed the mark and the result is a Byzantine regulatory regime that unnecessarily infringes upon the citizens’ “public right of transit through the navigable airspace” as guaranteed by public law that is codified in 49 USC 40103 (a)(2). Such regulations are also contrary to the mandate of Congress to the FAA to “encourage the development of civil aeronautics” in accordance with 49 USC § 40104 (a).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the nation that is the birthplace of aviation it is truly an outrage, and clearly not in the public interest, nor certainly not in accordance with the public will as expressed by the intent of Congress in the public laws, to proscribe by regulation the explicit right of citizens to “transit through the navigable airspace” in privately owned conveyance for private benefit. Yet, this is precisely the state that has evolved under the current regulations and the administrative doctrines that have emanated from them in the form of legal opinion from the office of the FAA General Counsel.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The fountainhead of these fetters is the proscription on private pilots enumerated in 14 CFR 61.113(b)(2):[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Code of Federal Regulations[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Title 14: Aeronautics and Space[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]CHAPTER I: FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CONTINUED)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SUBCHAPTER D: AIRMEN[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PART 61: CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Subpart E: Private Pilots[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]61.113 - Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A clue to how logically deficient is this regulation is the fact that it begins in paragraph (a) with an exception to a proscription that is again proscribed in (b)(2). The practical result is that private pilots who wish to use their private property for private benefit in operations that are incidental to their business or employment are denied the right of compensation for such use.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Aside from the logical fallacy of this construction, there is a whole host of situations that can be easily conceived in which this restriction on the liberty of an airman is clearly arbitrary and capricious. A simple example is that a private pilot who uses their own airplane to travel on business cannot be reimbursed for use of their private property in an operation that is incidental to their business or employment if they are accompanied by a member of their own family![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Another absurd and arbitrary aspect of this regulation is that the office of the FAA General Counsel has over the years developed a laundry list of items that constitute “compensation” including the acquisition of “good will” and the mere act of recording pilot in command time in the airman’s log book. Any private pilot who the FAA determines has earned “compensation” while carrying passengers is subject to fines and loss of license. It is a real and tangible example of the enforcement of “thought” crimes.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Imagine if the IRS announced that no reimbursement for the use of a private vehicle would be allowed if the driver carried a passenger or some property on a road trip in which the use of the personally owned vehicle was incidental to the business at hand. And yet we in the general aviation community have accepted this very same absurdity to be imposed on our liberty to use our own private property for private benefit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There are more than 200,000 private pilots in the United States who have no desire whatsoever to operate commercially so why should we arbitrarily deny them the freedom to use their private property for private benefit?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In contrast, imagine a situation where private pilots who own or rent airplanes, would be allowed reimbursement for expenses related to incidental use of their airplanes for private benefit in connection to business, in the same manner as all citizens are allowed reimbursement for the use of their privately owned land vehicles. Employers and small business owners across the nation would immediately and dramatically step up to the use of general aviation for private gain and this vast aviation infrastructure that our forebears have built over a century will finally be given a chance to realize its full economic potential for the benefit of the entire nation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is truly an outrage that the most developed aviation infrastructure in the world, in this, the nation that gave birth to aviation, should be so monumentally squandered on the whim of unelected bureaucrats who have no sense of the history nor vision of the aviation pioneers who sacrificed so much to build it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As the FAA General Counsel has determined that 14 CFR 61.113(b)(2) is compliant with 49 USC 44701 (a)(5) and administrative law courts agree, there is no relief possible through the Notice of Proposed Rule Making process nor through litigation in the courts. Relief therefore must be sought through the legislative process directly.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is therefore proposed to urge Congress to enact the following draft language of an amendment to the FAA Act of 1958:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]One Hundred Thirteenth Congress of the[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]United States of America[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]AT THE FIRST SESSION[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]An Act To amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to restore the right of private pilots to use private property for private benefit, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This Act may be cited as the ‘Freedom to Fly for Private Benefit Act of 2013’. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SEC. 2. Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](a) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment and be reimbursed for expenses directly related to the operation of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees if:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (2) The private pilot shares a common purpose with passengers or property carried on the aircraft; and[/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]
[FONT=&quot] (4) Consent to be carried by an aircraft operated by a private pilot is not a condition of that business or employment for the passengers or owners of property.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SEC. 3. OTHER DEFINITIONS.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For purposes of this Act—[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1) the term 'aircraft' has the meaning given such term in section 101(5) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1301(5));[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF ACT.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (a) EFFECTIVE DATE- This Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.[/FONT]

 

[Captain]

Great. So instead of raising required flight experience post Colgan you folks want to get rid of the commercial ticket all together. That will be a fine day when the airlines can fire all those expensive pilots and replace them with PPL looking to offset 100LL costs.

You guys are on to something here!

[/sarcasm]

 

[Inverted]

a better question, is which is worse? Taking your friend somewhere and he pitching in for the gas on the side, or speeding through a school zone?

He can pitch in for gas legally. Pro rata share and all that jazz. He just has to say it was his idea to go there, and the passenger just happened to need a ride there.

 

[ChrisK]

Great. So instead of raising required flight experience post Colgan you folks want to get rid of the commercial ticket all together. That will be a fine day when the airlines can fire all those expensive pilots and replace them with PPL looking to offset 100LL costs.

You guys are on to something here!

[/sarcasm]

In all seriousness, the commercial ticket would remove the restrictions as stated. Pilots can already do all of these things. They just can't get reimbursed for expenses when the aircraft use is incidental.

 

[RyanShort1]

Great. So instead of raising required flight experience post Colgan you folks want to get rid of the commercial ticket all together. That will be a fine day when the airlines can fire all those expensive pilots and replace them with PPL looking to offset 100LL costs.

You guys are on to something here!

[/sarcasm]

Hmmm. I don't really know for sure that your point is helped or supported by your example. Colgan is actually proof that a commercial ticket doesn't guarantee safety, and neither does being an airline captain. I would venture to guess that there are a good number of 1000+ hour private pilots who could've done a lot better. The increase in regulations don't increase the judgement of the pilots, that's best left to those doing the hiring, despite their best intentions, the government can't really regulate that.

I've flown with airline pilots that might have been good at flying their airliner, but couldn't hold a candle to any number of private pilots I've flown with in their own personal aircraft, so to me, the real issue for which the regulations exist is not safety, but for protection of the big commercial entities, which are more easily regulated and benefit a big government. I just don't buy the idea that some of my good friends couldn't safely take their friends and family from point A to point B on a semi-regular basis with reasonable safety, regardless of whether they are compensated or not.

I personally think that if it's OK to let them ride, then they should have the freedom to compensate their friend, buddy, etc... It's a loss of freedom that the government can tell you that you may not show your appreciation to a friend.

Not to mention that if the flight never crosses state lines, it really should not be viewed as interstate commerce, and the Federal Government shouldn't have a say...

Ryan

 

[Anthony]

Buddy Holly

I thought that pilot had a Commercial cert.

 

[Mafoo]

He can pitch in for gas legally. Pro rata share and all that jazz. He just has to say it was his idea to go there, and the passenger just happened to need a ride there.

Yea, I am sure that's how it's done, but if it was something like a job interview for your buddy, you have to lie about it in order to accept the money.

I am not for making a profit. I think that should still be for commercial pilots. In fact I would even be ok with adding more restrictions to PPLs to make sure that was true (as it seems people with just a PPL can make a profit towing a glider). But I think you should be allowed to take compensation to at least offset your expenses, if you are doing something for someone else.

Think how many more humanitarian flights there would be, if people who have a plane but can't afford the gas, could be compensated for their expenses by those with the means, but don't know how to fly.

 

[ChrisK]

Think how many more humanitarian flights there would be, if people who have a plane but can't afford the gas, could be compensated for their expenses by those with the means, but don't know how to fly.

The only exception I take with this statement is that there is already an exemption for certain nonprofit and humanitarian organizations. Pilots can already get full reimbursement in a number of humanitarian aid circumstances.

 

[DrMack]

The proposed draft bill has five provisions in section two that incorporate all the elements of the firewall doctrines that the FAA has constructed between private and commercial operations:

By restricting the compensation to reimbursement of expenses, paragraph (a) ensures that the flight is not the business, i.e., that it is not conducted by the private pilot for profit as an aviation business.

Sub-paragraph (1) codifies the incidental doctrine that is well established in case law and there is no controversy surrounding its application.

[FONT=&quot](1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and[/FONT]

Sub-paragraph (2) codifies in statute the common purpose doctrine that the FAA has developed on its own to plug the gap between the definition of operations that are quid pro quo transactions and flights in which the private pilot shares a bona fide common interest in the mission.

[FONT=&quot]

(2) The private pilot shares a common purpose with passengers or property carried on the aircraft; and

[/FONT]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=&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]Sub-paragraph (4) extends the same doctrine as (3) to the passengers and property carried by a private pilot.

[FONT=&quot]

(4) Consent to be carried by an aircraft operated by a private pilot is not a condition of that business or employment for the passengers or owners of property.

[/FONT]These five provisions incorporate all the doctrinal elements that are to be found in the regulations, legal opinions of the FAA General Counsel, and administrative law court decisions, that separate commercial operations from private, without all of the mental gymnastics and logical fallacies that have befuddled the entire community as a result of the poorly crafted regulations currently on the books.

It would represent a win for both the commercial and private pilot communities. The commercial operators would be unambiguously protected from intrusion from private pilot operations and the private pilots would have their rights restored to receive just compensation for expenses related to the incidental use of their private property for private benefit.

 

[Mafoo]

The only exception I take with this statement is that there is already an exemption for certain nonprofit and humanitarian organizations. Pilots can already get full reimbursement in a number of humanitarian aid circumstances.

That is cool, but why would one need an organization?

If my friend of 20 years calls me up, and says "My mother was just diagnosed with cancer, and I want to bring her to hospital XYZ for a second opinion. There are no comercial flights that go there, and it's a 6 hour drive. Can you take us? I will pay for the fuel and stuff."

I should be able to say yes. What that conversation just cost me, was a few hundred dollars, because I am going to do it anyway. I just have to be the one to pay for it.

 

[Captain]

Sure, there are PPLs that are more safety conscientious than some CPLs or ATPs. But that's not the problem. The problem comes in with how do you regulate that?

There are some people that would make better doctors than certified doctors...but they can't practice medicine because they haven't proved anything to the regulatory agencies that they know anything about medicine. How do we fix that? Remove the requirement to pass medical exams and have doctor certification? Then ANYBODY could treat ANYTHING and that would be bad for the group as a whole.

So should we remove commercial pilot certification? So PPLs can get paid or share expenses? Remember rules are black and white (or at least try to be). If PPLs were allowed to take pax from A to B without common purpose then what's to stop flight schools from running time building operations on the back of a charter operation? At, btw, great destruction to the business of the local 135 charter operator who has to comply with 135 regulation.

If I offered to take anybody anywhere for cheap and use my time building commercial students to do the flying on their PPL then I could make a killing undercutting the 135 operator who has to pay for pilots and regulatory compliance. Me, I'm just doing my 100 hour inspections and collecting money from the pax AND the pilots.

Does it blow the system we now have where you can offer to take someone in your car but not in your plane? Yes, it does. But you can see how we got here. Aircraft operators pushing the envelopes on what's legal to the point where the regulators have to write super narrow rules to try and carve out safety. Unfortunately there are side effects and one of those is PPLs not being allowed to do much in the way of recouping costs.

 

[Mafoo]

Sure, there are PPLs that are more safety conscientious than some CPLs or ATPs. But that's not the problem. The problem comes in with how do you regulate that?

In all actuality, they regulate it very well. I am sure it's ultra common for people with a PPL to take friends places, and those friends pay for the gas. I am also sure the FAA doesn't really care when it stays between friends. They will say they care because they have to, but I bet they don't (how many resources to the commet to preventing it?)

They keep the laws on the books, so when someone does something that they do care about, they can enforce it.

 

[DrMack]

As mentioned in the treatise that proposes the bill, the prohibitions on reimbursement for private pilots is outrageously Byzantine. There should be no objection by the society to just compensation for the direct expense of the carriage of one's business or social companions in one's privately owned conveyance if the conveyance itself is not the business. Would there be a displacement of some commercial traffic as a result? Of course there would. But there would certainly be more displacement of road traffic than commercial air. Then again, that is the point. We are squandering this magnificent infrastructure with these utterly arbitrary and capricious barriers to access by the public in direct contravention of the will of Congress as expressed in 49 USC § 40103 (a)(2). It is way past time for the private citizen to have their right to use their private property for private benefit restored without interference from the Machiavellian bureaucrats who have twisted themselves into a Gordian knot of irrational decrees that necessarily commands the attention of the people to unravel through the legislative process.

 

[Everskyward]

I thought that pilot had a Commercial cert.

He did, but he didn't have an instrument rating.

 

[Mafoo]

As mentioned in the treatise that proposes the bill, the prohibitions on reimbursement for private pilots is outrageously Byzantine. There should be no objection by the society to just compensation for the direct expense of the carriage of one's business or social companions in one's privately owned conveyance if the conveyance itself is not the business. Would there be a displacement of some commercial traffic as a result? Of course there would. But there would certainly be more displacement of road traffic than commercial air. Then again, that is the point. We are squandering this magnificent infrastructure with these utterly arbitrary and capricious barriers to access by the public in direct contravention of the will of Congress as expressed in 49 USC § 40103 (a)(2). It is way past time for the private citizen to have their right to use their private property for private benefit restored without interference from the Machiavellian bureaucrats who have twisted themselves into a Gordian knot of irrational decrees that necessarily commands the attention of the people to unravel through the legislative process.

I hope you win my friend. Good luck!

 

[Anthony]

He did, but he didn't have an instrument rating.

Yeah, I remembered that too, but the thread is about flying for hire which requires a commercial cert. The cert was there long before Buddy Holly died.

 

[wabower]

On many occasions the costs of a trip are not limited to those associated with a plane. Motel rooms, meals, green fees, rental cars and refreshments can be legally paid for with whichever credit card is presented, no matter whose name is on it.

 

[Mafoo]

On many occasions the costs of a trip are not limited to those associated with a plane. Motel rooms, meals, green fees, rental cars and refreshments can be legally paid for with whichever credit card is presented, no matter whose name is on it.

Yea, but once you get to that point (staying overnight, playing golf), you can easily say with confidence, that this was a trip for everyone, and not just the passenger.

So then the point is moot, because you can now split expenses.

 

[wabower]

If you're not concerned with the truth you can say whatever you want about the trip.

Yea, but once you get to that point (staying overnight, playing golf), you can easily say with confidence, that this was a trip for everyone, and not just the passenger.

So then the point is moot, because you can now split expenses.

 

[DrMack]

If PPLs were allowed to take pax from A to B without common purpose then what's to stop flight schools from running time building operations on the back of a charter operation?

The common purpose doctrine is explicitly preserved in the proposed bill. Nowhere in the proposal does it advocate the abolition of the distinction between commercial and private operations. In fact, it does just the opposite.