Why can't private pilots fly for hire?

[Tom-D]

Jackpot. I am totally with you on that thought. The problem is, the FAA is not. They even take the position that earning "good will" is "compensation" under 61.113! So if we don't want to jeopardize our tickets we all need to become mean, nasty, cantankerous, old men who wouldn't bother to cross the street to save the life of a child. Oh wait...

If I read you right:
It would be illegal for me to fly a friend to Seattle to see his sick kids simply because it isn't my kid.

I see no reason for this condition of the rule, if the pilot is not bettering them selves.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Wouldnt some of those strict readings put the kabosh on young eagle flights?

 

[LDJones]

If I read you right:
It would be illegal for me to fly a friend to Seattle to see his sick kids simply because it isn't my kid.

I see no reason for this condition of the rule, if the pilot is not bettering them selves.

If you knew his kids or wanted to get to know them, seems like a common enough purpose.

 

[DrMack]

If I read you right:
It would be illegal for me to fly a friend to Seattle to see his sick kids simply because it isn't my kid.

I see no reason for this condition of the rule, if the pilot is not bettering them selves.

"Goodwill is a form of prohibited compensation." Administrator v. Blackburn, 4 NTSB 409 (1982).

 

[Tom-D]

"Goodwill is a form of prohibited compensation." Administrator v. Blackburn, 4 NTSB 409 (1982).

So, now doing a friend a favor, is bettering one's self?

that is what is wrong with the ruling as it stands now.

 

[wabower]

Among those advocating this legislation has any thought been given as to whether the recent passage of the "Pilot's Bill of Rights" will be deemed as a plus or minus to its acceptance for consideration?

 

[bbchien]

For Mr. McDonough's proposal to go anyplace, it needs NBAA support. Is it even known to them?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Wouldnt some of those strict readings put the kabosh on young eagle flights?

Yes it would. But I believe they operate on some sort of waiver.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

So, now doing a friend a favor, is bettering one's self?

that is what is wrong with the ruling as it stands now.

Egg ZACT lee.

 

[denverpilot]

Here's my Crazy Thought of the Day(TM).

- Drop the Commercial Rating. Make all pilots fly to today's Commercial standards from Day One to carry pax. Today's Private standards, you can fly yourself.

- Drop the retract requirement from the Commercial at the same time and make retract an endorsement.

- Flight time requirements still apply for those flying Part 135 or 121.

- Clearly define the difference between personal aircraft business use (stays Part 91) and where the break point is for Part 135.

Win/Win. FAA says to public "there is no difference anymore, same standard". And pilots have to master their aircraft before taking pax up.

One year to "upgrade".

The thought came up thinking through how to make it a positive for all parties involved. FAA created the distinctions, FAA could abolish them and hold everyone to a higher standard. Most pilots can easily be taught to fly to today's "Commercial" standard.

It's just a back of the napkin engineering sketch. Discuss.

 

[wabower]

Dear Sir:

Your first sentence aptly described your proposal.

Your friend,

The FAA

Here's my Crazy Thought of the Day(TM).

- Drop the Commercial Rating. Make all pilots fly to today's Commercial standards from Day One to carry pax. Today's Private standards, you can fly yourself.

- Drop the retract requirement from the Commercial at the same time and make retract an endorsement.

- Flight time requirements still apply for those flying Part 135 or 121.

- Clearly define the difference between personal aircraft business use (stays Part 91) and where the break point is for Part 135.

Win/Win. FAA says to public "there is no difference anymore, same standard". And pilots have to master their aircraft before taking pax up.

One year to "upgrade".

The thought came up thinking through how to make it a positive for all parties involved. FAA created the distinctions, FAA could abolish them and hold everyone to a higher standard. Most pilots can easily be taught to fly to today's "Commercial" standard.

It's just a back of the napkin engineering sketch. Discuss.

 

[N801BH]

Here's my Crazy Thought of the Day(TM).

- Drop the Commercial Rating. Make all pilots fly to today's Commercial standards from Day One to carry pax. Today's Private standards, you can fly yourself.

- Drop the retract requirement from the Commercial at the same time and make retract an endorsement.

- Flight time requirements still apply for those flying Part 135 or 121.

- Clearly define the difference between personal aircraft business use (stays Part 91) and where the break point is for Part 135.

Win/Win. FAA says to public "there is no difference anymore, same standard". And pilots have to master their aircraft before taking pax up.

One year to "upgrade".

The thought came up thinking through how to make it a positive for all parties involved. FAA created the distinctions, FAA could abolish them and hold everyone to a higher standard. Most pilots can easily be taught to fly to today's "Commercial" standard.

It's just a back of the napkin engineering sketch. Discuss.

Ok Nate... Quit making sense..

 

[ronnieh]

Let me throw something out for thought. First I think what Dr. Mack is doing is a good thing. As I see it all he is asking is that he be allowed to take passengers on incidental flights in which he is getting compensation. He also wants to keep the common purpose rule. I don't think there is a snowball's chance... of it getting through but, hopefully I am wrong.

I have always been in the camp that PP's should not get compensation but certainly would not oppose what Dr. Mack proposes. Some here do not like the common purpose rule. This brings me to part of the purpose of my 2 cents worth.

The common purpose rule keeps the system a little more honest. If you throw this out then how much compensation is OK? How much is not? Only DOC, what about insurance, or annual inspections? The list goes on. Without the common purpose rule I can easily get around the law and just hold out at a reduced rate. I know they are times we all would like to do a favor but, the line has to be somewhere. The accident rate is so bad the FAA may feel a duty, perhaps wrongly, to try to protect the unsuspecting passenger from assuming since he paid for the ride that it is safe. I do wish there was someway for PP's to do favors for friends. I certainly do not have the answer but, unlike some here I do not think it simple and there could be unintended consequences.

Back to Dr. Mack, I see his point. Let me make one observation, assuming the law is changed. Lets say Dr. Mack works for a large corporation. The boss wants Dr. Mack and two employees to attend a meeting in another state. The boss tells Dr. Mack he can use his personal plane and will be reimbursed. And since I am paying for the plane anyway I want the two other employees to go along. The two additional employees are put in a difficult position. Under the old laws if you have a passenger you can't be compensated. Problem solved. I know if I were put in that situation I would probably quit first.

As you see there are unintended consequences. Even if Dr. Mack succeeds I believe it to have little impact on GA. Very few companies are ever going to allow private aircraft to be used in their business. The risk/reward ratio is just too great. If you want to use your plane to haul paying passengers, it might be better to just get a single pilot 135, get the insurance, training, experience then you can haul anybody you want, again problem solved.

No flaming needed here, just throwing out some ideas for thought. I don't have a dog in the hunt and could not care less either way.

 

[DrMack]

Back to Dr. Mack, I see his point. Let me make one observation, assuming the law is changed. Lets say Dr. Mack works for a large corporation. The boss wants Dr. Mack and two employees to attend a meeting in another state. The boss tells Dr. Mack he can use his personal plane and will be reimbursed. And since I am paying for the plane anyway I want the two other employees to go along. The two additional employees are put in a difficult position. Under the old laws if you have a passenger you can't be compensated. Problem solved. I know if I were put in that situation I would probably quit first.

It is this scenario for which paragraph (4) is included in the bill:

[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]

 

[wabower]

Is it correct that this bill only affects ~1/3 of the pilot population? The most-recent numbers I've seen indicated roughly 200k PPLs of the total 600k+ on the books.

 

[DrMack]

Here's my Crazy Thought of the Day(TM).

- Drop the Commercial Rating. Make all pilots fly to today's Commercial standards from Day One to carry pax. Today's Private standards, you can fly yourself.

- Drop the retract requirement from the Commercial at the same time and make retract an endorsement.

- Flight time requirements still apply for those flying Part 135 or 121.

- Clearly define the difference between personal aircraft business use (stays Part 91) and where the break point is for Part 135.

Win/Win. FAA says to public "there is no difference anymore, same standard". And pilots have to master their aircraft before taking pax up.

One year to "upgrade".

The thought came up thinking through how to make it a positive for all parties involved. FAA created the distinctions, FAA could abolish them and hold everyone to a higher standard. Most pilots can easily be taught to fly to today's "Commercial" standard.

It's just a back of the napkin engineering sketch. Discuss.

To carry passengers or property for hire the pilot must possess a commercial license AND the operation must be certified per 14 CFR 119. So just having a qualified airman in the picture is not enough. And in my opinion that's a good thing.

 

[denverpilot]

Dear Sir:

Your first sentence aptly described your proposal.

Your friend,

The FAA

Is this your impression of what they'd say, or your assessment if the idea? I'm just curious.

The biggest problem I see with it is it would enlighten the public on how EASY a "Commercial" rating is.

FAA could take a PR black eye on that part.

Lets get real. Power off 180s and smooth reference maneuvers aren't a criteria beyond the bare utter minimum for flying passengers safely for a living.

The written isn't that hard either. The written would probably trip up more of today's Private-rated folks than the flying. But it isn't that hard.

How many hours does a typical Commercial upgrade take? Not many.

Finding a retract you trust the maintenance of, these days, is harder than the flying or knowledge requirements for the rating.

Is the Chief Counsel saying the current Commercial PTS and a written are the only difference between a "safe" pilot carrying pax for money, and an "amateur" pilot who shouldn't fly business associates?

Those of you who fly for a living, were you really ready and safe to operate for hire with pax in all-weather the day after your Commercial checkride? Be honest.

Which ride prepared you more? Commercial or Instrument?

Or was the real learning done in the right seat under an experienced Captain?

I think this is the real elephant in the room in Mangiamelle (spelling)... And in Colgan. And AF 447.

FAA Chief Counsel wants the public to think a Commercial certificate holder is significantly safer than a private pilot in the same light aircraft, non-FIKI, non-turbine -- barring the additional 135 requirements.

It isn't just the pilot, it's the whole system. Mentoring included. Two pilot aircraft included.

The awesome equipment, compared to the typical light aircraft, flown wrong, didn't help the Colgan inexperienced crew. FAA required that crew to know how to recognize a stall. They didn't. Same with AF 447. Both aircraft had advanced stall recognition and stick pusher type tech too. Overridden by the pilots. Commercial pilots.

 

[DrMack]

Is it correct that this bill only affects ~1/3 of the pilot population? The most-recent numbers I've seen indicated roughly 200k PPLs of the total 600k+ on the books.

You are correct. That is why I quote the number 200K in the treatise as the number of pilots who have no interest in conducting commercial operations. But those 200K pilots have an enormous economic impact on the nation if any of the myriad government sponsored aviation impact studies are to be believed. The premise of the legislation is that they would have an even greater economic impact if they could simply be fairly reimbursed for expenses incurred as a result of the use of their private property in connection with their employment or business. Even the government would be providing the reimbursement for their employees if it was allowed. We know this for a fact because the GSA publishes a reimbursement rate in the Federal Register for the use of a private aircraft by federal government employees. The University that employs me has a reimbursement policy for the use of my airplane as do many others. Of course at present I cannot carry any passengers or property if I would like to be reimbursed. The result is that many trips with colleagues are either by commercial air or on the road where the economics of a 3-4 seat bug smasher would be very competitive, both in terms of direct costs and opportunity costs due to reduced time in transit and convenience.

 

[DrMack]

Both aircraft had advanced stall recognition and stick pusher type tech too. Overridden by the pilots. Commercial pilots.

Air Transport Pilots, actually. Don't want to give the CPLs a bad rap.

 

[denverpilot]

Air Transport Pilots, actually. Don't want to give the CPLs a bad rap.

ROFL. Good point. You see what I'm saying.

 

[DrMack]

For Mr. McDonough's proposal to go anyplace, it needs NBAA support. Is it even known to them?

Yes, it is known to them as I have been corresponding with them. At present they reserve their opinion but eventually they recognize that they will have to weigh in.

Most of the lettered organizations are prudently playing the wait and see game until after the elections. After all, they are primarily special interest lobby groups so until they see the lay of the land that will unfold in January I expect them to keep their opinions to themselves.

I have no illusions about how long this might take to either succeed or fail, and of course neither outcome is assured. My hope is that we will at least have a fair shot at consideration within the first session of the 113th which would be some time in 2013.

 

[ClimbnSink]

40 hours or 250? Upping pilot requirements for nonpro pilots to carry passengers is shooting off the other foot. Try selling that one, when the wife would prefer a boat.

Here's my Crazy Thought of the Day(TM).

- Drop the Commercial Rating. Make all pilots fly to today's Commercial standards from Day One to carry pax. Today's Private standards, you can fly yourself.

- Drop the retract requirement from the Commercial at the same time and make retract an endorsement.

- Flight time requirements still apply for those flying Part 135 or 121.

- Clearly define the difference between personal aircraft business use (stays Part 91) and where the break point is for Part 135.

Win/Win. FAA says to public "there is no difference anymore, same standard". And pilots have to master their aircraft before taking pax up.

One year to "upgrade".

The thought came up thinking through how to make it a positive for all parties involved. FAA created the distinctions, FAA could abolish them and hold everyone to a higher standard. Most pilots can easily be taught to fly to today's "Commercial" standard.

It's just a back of the napkin engineering sketch. Discuss.

 

[wabower]

Is this your impression of what they'd say, or your assessment if the idea? I'm just curious.

Based on their record to date, I think it would be considered as unsolicited advice and treated the way such input is normally treated by the man. I think the written response would be a "bed-bug" letter.

The biggest problem I see with it is it would enlighten the public on how EASY a "Commercial" rating is.

I discount the notion that the public will ever know or care about pilot ratings. They think we're all nuts anyway.

FAA could take a PR black eye on that part.

If they wanted to make it happen, they could say it's another step in Shumer's grand plan to have all ATP's by 2016.

Lets get real. Power off 180s and smooth reference maneuvers aren't a criteria beyond the bare utter minimum for flying passengers safely for a living.

Ya think? How many pilots do you think really understand them after they've completed the training? I sure as hell didn't, primarily because none of the CFI's and DPE's agreed on how 8's should be performed.

The written isn't that hard either. The written would probably trip up more of today's Private-rated folks than the flying. But it isn't that hard.

Anybody who can't make 70 on an 8th grade-level written after being provided with all the questions shouldn't be allowed out of the house unsupervised, let alone be given the keys to an airplane.

How many hours does a typical Commercial upgrade take? Not many.

A few days at most, unless it's a lot harder now. If your private training was decent, it's even easier.

Finding a retract you trust the maintenance of, these days, is harder than the flying or knowledge requirements for the rating.

Retracs are quickly being replaced by fixed-gears that will perform as well or better and in which pilots can be insured. I don't have an answer for the best method to train pilots to fly them.

Is the Chief Counsel saying the current Commercial PTS and a written are the only difference between a "safe" pilot carrying pax for money, and an "amateur" pilot who shouldn't fly business associates?

At the pilot level, assuming he doesn't furnish the plane, that's a big piece of the differences. I've been away from that area too long to know all the wrinkles.

Those of you who fly for a living, were you really ready and safe to operate for hire with pax in all-weather the day after your Commercial checkride? Be honest.

I had been doing it as a PPL for quite a while, so there were no discernable differences. The stuff on the commercial ride didn't address any real-life trips, since I did very few chandelles (purposely, anyway) during IFR trips.

Which ride prepared you more? Commercial or Instrument?

Instrument, hands-down. Commercial curriculum and ride was a joke. I did it instead of a BFR. And it solved my who pays for what problems, which hadn't ever been an issue anyway. Cash is fungible.

Or was the real learning done in the right seat under an experienced Captain?

Fundamentals were learned during individual training. SOP's and watching somebody with more experience do it, learning the ways of the big-boy world, especially international ops, were from the left-seaters. I think some right-seat experience should be required for all pilots, for many reasons beyond the scope of this thread.

I think this is the real elephant in the room in Mangiamelle (spelling)... And in Colgan. And AF 447.

I think their recalcitrant approach to Mm is the biggest sticking point in the PPL outcry. Count me among those who will never understand how the FAA got here from there.

FAA Chief Counsel wants the public to think a Commercial certificate holder is significantly safer than a private pilot in the same light aircraft, non-FIKI, non-turbine -- barring the additional 135 requirements.

If you say so. I don't think his position would fare well under cross-examination.

It isn't just the pilot, it's the whole system. Mentoring included. Two pilot aircraft included.

The awesome equipment, compared to the typical light aircraft, flown wrong, didn't help the Colgan inexperienced crew. FAA required that crew to know how to recognize a stall. They didn't. Same with AF 447. Both aircraft had advanced stall recognition and stick pusher type tech too. Overridden by the pilots. Commercial pilots.

[/QUOTE]

I don't think we'll ever escape an occasional screwup of epic proportions, so all those accidents will always be the "yeah but" of these discussions.

 

[ronnieh]

Dr. Mack, your intent is nobel. I hope you succeed. Your paragraph 4 sounds good on paper. I think in the real world the unspoken pressure would be there. You might not be fired for refusing to go but, there is always a way. I can envision a CEO or just upper management who is a private pilot being quite upset if his employees refused to go with him for safety reasons. I just think the unintended consequences COULD out weigh any benefit derived in the big picture.

I suspect there is much more interest in the "common purpose" with the average PP than reimbursement with passengers. I still believe that the vast majority of the few that might benefit from this law will face much more opposition from the company/insurance companies than the flying with passengers situation. Might just be a slippery slope. I still wish you the best of luck in this pursuit.

 

[Tom-D]

Most of the posts I read the belief is that the pilot must have the same reason to go as the pax, Suppose, the Pilot has the reason to go and the pax simply wants to ride along?


should they pay.

What if, the pax is a CFI? should they log it? if they do shouldn't they pay?

 

[wabower]

I've seen it happen the other way too. The president of a local insurance company sold his B-200 that was used by senior staff and bought a Citation III mostly for his trips to FL and USVI to expand the business. He also bought a really nice A-36 with a/c and glass for staff use. After a couple of bumpy trips in the Bo, the staff said no mas and started riding SWA.

Dr. Mack, your intent is nobel. I hope you succeed. Your paragraph 4 sounds good on paper. I think in the real world the unspoken pressure would be there. You might not be fired for refusing to go but, there is always a way. I can envision a CEO or just upper management who is a private pilot being quite upset if his employees refused to go with him for safety reasons. I just think the unintended consequences COULD out weigh any benefit derived in the big picture.

I suspect there is much more interest in the "common purpose" with the average PP than reimbursement with passengers. I still believe that the vast majority of the few that might benefit from this law will face much more opposition from the company/insurance companies than the flying with passengers situation. Might just be a slippery slope. I still wish you the best of luck in this pursuit.

 

[ronnieh]

Tom, pilots have been doing creative things to get around the law as long as I can remember. There is a name for illegal air taxi, we call it 134-1/2. You can always come up with off the wall what ifs.

Simply put the intent is to forbid PP from being compensated for flying. It is that simple. There are a couple of exceptions that are spelled out, like glider towing, sharing expenses for common purpose and you can be compensated for incidental use if you do not have passengers or cargo.

Do pilots break the law, absolutely and the vast majority of the time get away with it. If your intent is to get around the law and IF sheet metal gets bent or somebody complains the pilot WILL lose. It is not rocket surgery (appologies to Dr. Mack)

 

[Tom-D]

Tom, pilots have been doing creative things to get around the law as long as I can remember. There is a name for illegal air taxi, we call it 134-1/2. You can always come up with off the wall what ifs.

Simply put the intent is to forbid PP from being compensated for flying. It is that simple. There are a couple of exceptions that are spelled out, like glider towing, sharing expenses for common purpose and you can be compensated for incidental use if you do not have passengers or cargo.

Do pilots break the law, absolutely and the vast majority of the time get away with it. If your intent is to get around the law and IF sheet metal gets bent or somebody complains the pilot WILL lose. It is not rocket surgery (appologies to Dr. Mack)

And that is exactly why we need the rule changed.

 

[Mafoo]

40 hours or 250? Upping pilot requirements for nonpro pilots to carry passengers is shooting off the other foot. Try selling that one, when the wife would prefer a boat.

Exactly my thought.

If you did what Nate proposed, the only people who would get a license, are those looking to make a living flying.

You would effectively kill GA.

 

[denverpilot]

Exactly my thought.

If you did what Nate proposed, the only people who would get a license, are those looking to make a living flying.

You would effectively kill GA.

I said the hour limits stay where they are. Must have the 250 to fly for 135, but not to carry your own pax part 91.

Raise (some of the) standards on those wanting to carry pax privately and share costs, in some reasonable way, instead of banning it.

Something in-between the current Private and the Commercial PLUS 135 Certificate. Call it "Private Business Pilot".

 

[Everskyward]

I said the hour limits stay where they are. Must have the 250 to fly for 135, but not to carry your own pax part 91.

You need more than 250 hours to be a PIC under Part 135 now. Under VFR you need 500 hours and under IFR you need 1200 hours.

From 135.243

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, no certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person serve, as pilot in command of an aircraft under VFR unless that person—

(1) Holds at least a commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and, if required, an appropriate type rating for that aircraft; and

(2) Has had at least 500 hours time as a pilot, including at least 100 hours of cross-country flight time, at least 25 hours of which were at night; and

(3) For an airplane, holds an instrument rating or an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category rating; or

(4) For helicopter operations conducted VFR over-the-top, holds a helicopter instrument rating, or an airline transport pilot certificate with a category and class rating for that aircraft, not limited to VFR.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, no certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person serve, as pilot in command of an aircraft under IFR unless that person—

(1) Holds at least a commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and, if required, an appropriate type rating for that aircraft; and

(2) Has had at least 1,200 hours of flight time as a pilot, including 500 hours of cross country flight time, 100 hours of night flight time, and 75 hours of actual or simulated instrument time at least 50 hours of which were in actual flight; and

(3) For an airplane, holds an instrument rating or an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category rating; or

(4) For a helicopter, holds a helicopter instrument rating, or an airline transport pilot certificate with a category and class rating for that aircraft, not limited to VFR.

 

[bflynn]

To carry passengers or property for hire the pilot must possess a commercial license AND the operation must be certified per 14 CFR 119. So just having a qualified airman in the picture is not enough. And in my opinion that's a good thing.

The intent of what you're saying is good. But the implementation is greatly flawed.

The FAA's problem here is with their defintions, in particular how "for hire" and "compensation" combine. If you recieve compensation, you are for hire. Yet compensation can be something incredibly subtle, possibly something that you don't even know is happening.

The example given to me when I was first a student 20 years ago was "you fly us to dinner and I'll buy the bottle of wine". This is an exchange of services, you're getting wine for flying. And hopefully not flying back.

But what's next? Fly us to dinner and I'll make you dinner tomorrow night? Fly us to dinner and I'll like you, so someday I might hire you for a job? Fly us to dinner and I'll be good company?

Aren't you getting something in exchange in each case? So doesn't that mean that you're flying for hire?

This is where the FAA's implementation of the simple principle that you stated goes wrong...

 

[jrollf]

The intent of what you're saying is good. But the implementation is greatly flawed.

The FAA's problem here is with their defintions, in particular how "for hire" and "compensation" combine. If you recieve compensation, you are for hire. Yet compensation can be something incredibly subtle, possibly something that you don't even know is happening.

The example given to me when I was first a student 20 years ago was "you fly us to dinner and I'll buy the bottle of wine". This is an exchange of services, you're getting wine for flying. And hopefully not flying back.

But what's next? Fly us to dinner and I'll make you dinner tomorrow night? Fly us to dinner and I'll like you, so someday I might hire you for a job? Fly us to dinner and I'll be good company?

Aren't you getting something in exchange in each case? So doesn't that mean that you're flying for hire?

This is where the FAA's implementation of the simple principle that you stated goes wrong...

Replace the word 'flying' with 'driving' in your comments above and it all magically is considered perfectly acceptable. This is the irritation we have with these rules. Driving in many Metro areas is more dangerous than flying, but for some reason that's OK..... It fails the common sense test big time. If the government were to restrict every activity because someone may abuse the privilege or take advantage of the situation we would quickly be living in a totalitarian country with no rights.

 

[ronnieh]

Both Brian and Jrollf make good points. I do understand the thinking on the part of the FAA, do not necessarily agree but, I do understand. I don't think driving and flying can be treated the same. A huge part of the general population drive and have at least a cursory knowledge of operating a motor vehicle. Flying is the exact opposite. The FAA has always taken the position that the public at large needs protecting from these crazy flying machines and their pilots. Again not justifying it just explaining some of the thought process.

I doubt any airman has ever faced prosecution over accepting dinner for flying someone to dinner. That most likely falls under the common purpose clause. All parties enjoyed a meal. The common purpose clause does not bother most uses of a private plane. A ball game, trip to the beach, the $100 hamburger all fit nicely under the common usage clause. Mostly it is just the pilots wanting to build free time and the occasional favor for a friend that get caught by this.

While on this subject I wonder about the 200K number Dr. Mack threw out. How many on POA would benefit. In fact I am going to start a new thread just to ask that question

 

[ClimbnSink]

There are two angles to freedom. The freedom to do something legally and the freedom to do something where you are unlikely to be caught/punished. Just about every flight a PP does with a passenger these days falls into the latter. Forget safety, you'll lose every time if you play that card. I've said this before the only defense of GA is generic freedom, give that up and you got nothing.

Both Brian and Jrollf make good points. I do understand the thinking on the part of the FAA, do not necessarily agree but, I do understand. I don't think driving and flying can be treated the same. A huge part of the general population drive and have at least a cursory knowledge of operating a motor vehicle. Flying is the exact opposite. The FAA has always taken the position that the public at large needs protecting from these crazy flying machines and their pilots. Again not justifying it just explaining some of the thought process.

I doubt any airman has ever faced prosecution over accepting dinner for flying someone to dinner. That most likely falls under the common purpose clause. All parties enjoyed a meal. The common purpose clause does not bother most uses of a private plane. A ball game, trip to the beach, the $100 hamburger all fit nicely under the common usage clause. Mostly it is just the pilots wanting to build free time and the occasional favor for a friend that get caught by this.

While on this subject I wonder about the 200K number Dr. Mack threw out. How many on POA would benefit. In fact I am going to start a new thread just to ask that question

 

[Mafoo]

I said the hour limits stay where they are. Must have the 250 to fly for 135, but not to carry your own pax part 91.

Raise (some of the) standards on those wanting to carry pax privately and share costs, in some reasonable way, instead of banning it.

Something in-between the current Private and the Commercial PLUS 135 Certificate. Call it "Private Business Pilot".

For a lot of people, the cost of getting a PPL, is the cost of taking someone somewhere.

If all I could do with a license, is fly myself alone somewhere, I would never get one. So the one where you can have a pax, is the only one that matters.

That just got a lot more expensive, and time consuming.

And like many have already said.... just stupid.

If someone with a PPL is already deemed safe to carry a pax, then they are safe to carry a pax. The reasons for these additional restrictions are not safety issues.

 

[ronnieh]

A little off topic. The PP is deemed legal to fly certain aircraft in certain conditions, not safe. Safe is subjective. They are not much to deem PP's in small aircraft as safe.

 

[Mafoo]

A little off topic. The PP is deemed legal to fly certain aircraft in certain conditions, not safe. Safe is subjective. They are not much to deem PP's in small aircraft as safe.

Well, if it's safe enough for me to take a 10 year old kid up for a discovery flight, at an event, then it should be safe enough for me to take anyone up.

Again, I am not for making profit. But if I want to donate my time for a cause, and have them pay some of my expenses, I still see absolutely no reason that should be against the law.

I have yet in these pages, heard anyone make a good argument why it should.

 

[wabower]

To the contrary, its not stupid and those who are saying so clearly have a dog in the fight.

By any measure, GA is anything but safe. The fact that a pilot has passed a somewhat simplistic test after only 40 hours of preparation and training has nothing to do with safety, only that he performed as required under a system that has evolved over a number of years.

In contrast, the coursework for an aircraft appraiser's certification requires more training than that required for a PPL. How many innocent passengers can I take out with a typo on a valuation report?

If I were in charge of this issue at FAA, my question would center on GA's horse**** safety record and why I should do anything to allow more people to fly around with pilots who clearly aren't up to the task. I'd point out that most statistics indicate that flying and motorcycle-riding are neck-and-neck at ~7:1 the fatality rate of autos, that I need to see some improvement in this record before we talk further about your idea, and would offer the following proposal.

I'd further point out that the FAA recognizes your inherent right to kill yourself doing whatever you choose, including flying airplanes, but that we reserve the right to limit the number of others that you can take with you.

I'd tell you to go back and do what you need to do in order to drop the GA death rate vs cars to 2:1 rather than 7:1, recognizing that flying will always have more risk than driving but I'm willing to be reasonable about the spread.

How would you do it?

For a lot of people, the cost of getting a PPL, is the cost of taking someone somewhere.

If all I could do with a license, is fly myself alone somewhere, I would never get one. So the one where you can have a pax, is the only one that matters.

That just got a lot more expensive, and time consuming.

And like many have already said.... just stupid.

If someone with a PPL is already deemed safe to carry a pax, then they are safe to carry a pax. The reasons for these additional restrictions are not safety issues.

 

[ronnieh]

Mafoo, it may be "safe enough" but still not be safe. My wife and I both ride motorcycles. I never try to convince anyone it is safe. It is NOT safe. I enjoy it so I am willing to take the risk. I do not take people for rides on my bike. No law is needed because nobody in anywhere close to their right mind is going to get on the back of a motorcycle with me or anyone else.
I feel the same way about small planes with private pilots. The difference is the general public may not see the danger in the same way as they see motorcycles.

Sever thread drift. I still think Wayne has it summed up pretty good.