Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

david(at)mcgirt.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:20 am Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

This is a message from the T-28 forum, but applies to our group as well.

The Red Thunder Airshow team was performing at this same event, and

witnessed this event.  The T-28 group is up in arms, and working to get NATA

& EAA Warbirds involved.



DM

------ Forwarded Message

From: Becky Luther <blutherva(at)yahoo.com>

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:41:17 -0400

To: <t-28-flyers(at)yahoogroups.com>

Subject: [t-28-flyers] Passenger carrying flights for compensation at

airshows - another blow to general aviation



Guys and Gals,

 

I wanted to share an encounter I had with the FAA this past weekend.  I know

there has been discussion on this topic previously.

 

I flew the T-28 to an airshow in North Carolina this past weekend.   The

airshow was providing fuel for our flight down and back and for some flybys

czech6(at)mesanetworks.ne
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:35 am Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

I forwarded your post to our Aviation Attorney guy. Member of Red Star and CJAA just for an opinion.  

         

  

From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McGirt

 Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:20 AM

 To: yak-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - another blow to general aviation  

  

   

This is a message from the T-28 forum, but applies to our group as well.   The Red Thunder Airshow team was performing at this same event, and witnessed this event.  The T-28 group is up in arms, and working to get NATA & EAA Warbirds involved.

 

 DM

 

 

 ------ Forwarded Message

 From: Becky Luther <[url=blutherva(at)yahoo.com]blutherva(at)yahoo.com[/url]>

 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:41:17 -0400

 To: <[url=t-28-flyers(at)yahoogroups.com]t-28-flyers(at)yahoogroups.com[/url]>

 Subject: [t-28-flyers] Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - another blow to general aviation

 

 Guys and Gals,

  

 I wanted to share an encounter I had with the FAA this past weekend.  I know there has been discussion on this topic previously.

  

 I flew the T-28 to an airshow in North   Carolina this past weekend.   The airshow was providing fuel for our flight down and back and for some flybys. I had agreed to give some sponsor or VIP rides.

  

 After my first VIP ride, I was approached by the Greensboro FAA inspector for the airshow.  He asked to see my credentials and then my LOA.  I told him I no longer needed an LOA but had an authorization on my certificate to fly the T-28.  

  

 He then proceeded to inform me that I needed an LOA (Letter of Authorization) to carry any passenger for compensation and that the pilot (s) operating the aircraft needed to be on a drug and alcohol program.  He asked if the airshow was providing me any fuel.  I told him indeed they were as that was common practice when a pilot agreed to bring an aircraft to an airshow for static or flybys.

  

 He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was receiving compensation.  Since I did not have an LOA or an approved drug and alcohol program approved by the FAA , I was in violation of 91.417.  Being on a drug and alcohol program for a Part 135 operation that did not include the T-28 did not cover me.  I needed a specific program for this operation.

  

 He told me he had mentioned this requirement to the airshow director prior to the show.

  

 I then told him that probably most airshow aircraft across the country and at this airshow were probably in violation of this regulation. He told me was checking everyone’s paperwork at the airshow. Needless to say there were some disappointed VIPS.

  

 I asked him if I was in trouble.  He told me he had not seen me give any rides so therefore was not in violation of the regs.  I assured him I had no intention of giving any rides.

  

 Of course this created havoc with all the other pilots in the same situation. Not many of us have the LOA’S or approved drug program to give rides on our planes when we are receiving any type of compensation.

  

 Gordon asked if there was any problem giving a friend a ride during the airshow at our expense.  The inspector was not amused.  I guess we would have to prove we did not receive fuel for the flight.

  

 Slowly, they are legislating us out of the sky.  

 

  

  

 Sec. 91.147

 

 [Passenger carrying flights for compensation or hire.]

 

 

 [Each Operator conducting passenger-carrying flights for compensation or hire must meet the following requirements unless all flights are conducted under Sec. 91.146.

 (a) For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing, Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance with Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute mile radius of that airport.

 (b) An Operator must comply with the safety provisions of part 136, subpart A of this chapter, and apply for and receive a Letter of Authorization from the Flight Standards District Office nearest to its principal place of business by September 11, 2007.

 (c) Each application for a Letter of Authorization must include the following information:

 (1) Name of Operator, agent, and any d/b/a (doing-business-as) under which that Operator does business;

 (2) Principal business address and mailing address;

 (3) Principal place of business (if different from business address);

 (4) Name of person responsible for management of the business;

 (5) Name of person responsible for aircraft maintenance;

 (6) Type of aircraft, registration number(s), and make/model/series; and

 (7) An Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program registration.

 (d) The Operator must register and implement its drug and alcohol testing programs in accordance with part 121, appendices I and J, of this chapter.

 (e) The Operator must comply with the provisions of the Letter of Authorization received.]

 

 

 

 Amdt. 91-295, Effective 3/15/07 

 

 

 

 

 Becky Luther

 [url=blutherva(at)yahoo.com]blutherva(at)yahoo.com[/url]

 

 __._,_.___ 

 ------ End of Forwarded Message   	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

        [quote][b]

dsavarese0812(at)bellsout
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:15 am Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

Let's look at the possibility of the operation being conducted  (ie: VIP flights) under 91.146 instead of 91.147.  91.146  says:

  § 91.146   Passenger-carrying  flights for the benefit of a charitable, nonprofit, or community  event.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"  />  

The definition of "community event" I  think is the key to possibly getting around this.   Quote - "   

Community event  means an event that raises funds for the  benefit of any local or community cause that is not a charitable event or  non-profit event. 

As long as the local FAA Inspector  THINKS we are carrying passengers for compensation or hire ie: 91.147, they can  violate the operator and the burden of proof then falls on the operator to prove  he was operating under 91.146.  Guilty until proven innocent.  Event  coordinators could help the operators if 1-they understood the meaning of FARs  91.147 and 91.146 and 2- they could document the event was raising funds for a  local or community cause as defined in 91.146. 

Makes for an interesting  discussion anyway. 

Dennis   



 [quote]   ---

bill.mills(at)totaltec.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

For those of us in the experimental category, part 146 still won’t apply, as the FAR’s clearly state that the experimental category can not take on passengers for hire or compensation.  I believe the argument is really around the definition of “compensation”.  Seems to me that you would have to leave with something (some profit?) in order to be compensated for whatever…….in this case, it is not compensation….but rather consumption.  We are not leaving these events with anything as a result of taking a passenger for a ride……..  

   

I guess this is where the battle truly begins between the lawyers and the FAA…….. the definition of compensation and coupling that with us “giving” rides to VIP’s.  

   

So, if I arrived at an air show with “my” fuel onboard, gave a few rides, played static display for a few days…….. and then for that static display, they filled my tank.  Who dictates “when” I received the compensation and for what purpose?  

     

[i]Bill Mills[/i]  

        

  

From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese

 Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:14 PM

 To: yak-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - another blow to general aviation  

  

     

Let's look at the possibility of the operation being conducted (ie: VIP flights) under 91.146 instead of 91.147.  91.146 says:  

    § 91.146   Passenger-carrying flights for the benefit of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event.    

The definition of "community event" I think is the key to possibly getting around this.   Quote - "   

Community event means an event that raises funds for the benefit of any local or community cause that is not a charitable event or non-profit event.  

As long as the local FAA Inspector THINKS we are carrying passengers for compensation or hire ie: 91.147, they can violate the operator and the burden of proof then falls on the operator to prove he was operating under 91.146.  Guilty until proven innocent.  Event coordinators could help the operators if 1-they understood the meaning of FARs 91.147 and 91.146 and 2- they could document the event was raising funds for a local or community cause as defined in 91.146.  

Makes for an interesting discussion anyway.  

Dennis     

  

  [quote]    

---

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:10 pm Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

This kind of makes the RPA rule that you must hold a Commercial Pilots

license kind of overcome by events does it not?  Point being, if flying

at an air show can be considered a commercial operation, there are a lot

of other rules that come into play, which this incident emphasizes.

Thus, the Commercial Ticket can only used as a means of demonstrated

proficiency, which very little to any pertains to formation flying IMHO.

   Sorry, just my personal opinion.   



But... This remains a very interesting situation.  And having dealt with

Greensboro myself, I can believe every word told in the story here.   



Well, I am no legal expert,  but..... Let's look at the way this rule is

written: 



"For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,

Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights

in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance with

Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that

begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute

mile radius of that airport."



Now let's look at what the FAA is claiming:  



"He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for

compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was

receiving compensation."



It seems to me that instead of challenging the FAA, it would be better

to beat them at their own game, using their own rules.  How?  They

contend that receiving fuel is in fact a method of "compensation" for

carrying passengers at the Air Show. If you stop and think about it,

there are MANY ways they could twist the rules to make everyone's life

miserable over an issue like this.  Examples on that later.  



Possible Solution: There is a POSSIBLE answer to this that to me appears

to be quite simple.  One needs to completely eliminate the matter of

fuel being used as proof of "compensation" for carrying passengers.

Make it to where the FAA can not make the claim that they are making.



Two ways to do this: 



1. Accept no fuel or special favor of any kind what-so-ever.  That

pretty much solves the problem completely.  



2. Accept every special favor that you can get, BUT... And this is the

tricky part.... Have the person providing you this fuel or special favor

sign a legal document to wit:

As an example for myself getting fuel at an air show:  



"The fuel being provided by; airport fuel official or authority, or air

show person, etc. etc to Mr. Bitterlich is not in any way meant or

designed to act as compensation or as method to hire Mr. Bitterlich in

any way for any passenger carrying flights made by Mr. Bitterlich's

aircraft at this airport  The fuel being provided to Mr. Bitterlich is a

courtesy and is a gesture of our good will for him agreeing to allow

people to come see and photograph his aircraft at our event and was

never a pre-requisite for his arrival or participation in this air show

or any flights he made during it."   



Let me explain why I suggest this.  Any lawyer in the world would agree

that the hardest thing to prove is "intent".  The FAA is ASSUMING

"intent" as to the reason you were given the free fuel.  If you can

remove the factor of INTENT, by having a clear and legal document,

signed by all parties present, that the INTENT of the free fuel was not

an INCENTIVE, but was instead a "gesture of good will", then the FAA

could still violate you (something they can always do, no matter what

you say!) but when you go to court they will have to claim and then

PROVE that you received the fuel as an incentive, and/or for

compensation, when you have a signed document by all parties involved

clearly specifying that this was NOT the case!  The fact that such a

letter was drafted and signed by all parties shows direct and clear

legal intent to provide clear and positive proof contrary to that very

thought!    



Further, if you carefully document every person who received free fuel

and did NOT carry a passenger at ALL at ANY TIME during the event, you

now have legal proof that THESE people got the exact same thing (or

things) that you got, and obviously did not get that fuel to carry

passengers since they never flew any and still received the exact same

amount of fuel as you did or LESS.  



Take it one step further, with a form letter that you sign and give to

the event manager that says:  "I was given free fuel at this event as a

gesture of good will and assume no obligation to perform any service

what-so-ever, now or in the future for said free fuel".  



So.....



1.  You have a letter saying the fuel was a gesture of good will and not

for compensation or hire in ANY way. 

2.  He has a letter from you saying the same thing.  

3.  You have a list of other aircraft that got fuel and never carried

anyone anywhere during the event.  

The FAA can STILL claim anything they want, but stop and consider...

They could claim that you received not only fuel, but things like:  "A

better tie down location... For compensation.... Better security on your

aircraft... For compensation.... A free tea shirt... For

compensation....a FREE LUNCH OR FREE COFFEE... For compensation.  The

list is endless.  The trick is to prove that they are being trivial,

biased, and are showing prejudicial behavior.  So another suggestion,

always carry a personal digital recorder with you when you do stuff like

this.  Be ready and waiting to record every single word said to you and

your reply.  Folks, I work for the U.S. Govt., and I carry one with me

EVERYWHERE.  It has saved my rear end at work, and at Highway Patrol

Traffic Stops, you name it.  



I do not know whether the above will cover your ass completely or not,

but it sure will go a LONG ways towards doing so as compared to having

nothing other than your personal opinion to offer when you get violated.

It would be interesting to have an FAA official claim that you received

free fuel as compensation for giving rides in your aircraft, and you

replying: "Really Sir?  Can you prove that?"    And he will probably

reply with: "Can you prove that you didn't?"   Looking him directly in

the eye and saying: "Actually Sir, yes I can" ....   You have to

treasure moments like that..... 

Mark Bitterlich



P.s.  Curious what a lawyer will say.  



--

dsavarese0812(at)bellsout
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:55 pm Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

Mark,

 I like your approach.  Interestingly enough, when  researching Sec. 119.1(e)(2), as referenced in 91.147, it clearly states "having  a standard airworthiness certificate", that immediately eliminates Sec.  119.1 (e)(2).  Next is Sec 135.1(a)(5) which says "Nonstop Commercial Air  Tour flights conducted for compensation or hire in accordance with  §119.1(e)(2).  Since 119.1 (e)(2) is not applicable, that makes 135.1  (a)(5) not applicable as well.  Finally, 121.1 (d) says, "(d) Nonstop  Commercial Air Tours conducted for compensation or hire in accordance with  §119.1(e)(2) of this chapter must comply with drug and alcohol  requirements".  Again, not applicable.

  

 Since 91.147 refers to 119.1 (e)(2) which has been determine  as not applicable (the standard airworthiness certificate requirement) that  would make 91.147 also not applicable to the situation.

  

 The situation then defaults to commercial operation of an  experimental aircraft.

  

 Dennis

  

  

  

  

 ---

viperdoc(at)mindspring.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:21 pm Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

Screw this BS..take a single seater and accept no fuel. Then what's the FSDO

to do. 

Doc



--

cjpilot710(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:53 pm Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

In a message dated 9/10/2008 4:56:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  dsavarese0812(at)bellsouth.net writes:

  

 I saw this happen some years ago at TICO.  A private pilot who was  flying a S-51 in the show, was approached by the FAA about receiving any  compensation and was going to write him up.  The pilot pointed out that he  didn't receive any fuel, but the FAA guy pointed to the sandwiches and drinks in  the pilot briefing tent and said that was "compensation".  I forget who  stepped forward but this fellow was quick to point out to the Fed, that  'everybody" was eating in the tent, ground crews, re-enactors, secretaries,  airboss, EVEN the FAA!  At that point the Fed dropped it.

  

 On another note.  A big CB rumbled though an hour or so ago.  I  was working in the hangar and it immediately cooled off  everything.  When it cleared, I soon hear the F-18 high over  head.  I live under a MOA and at times things get pretty busy around  here.  As I stood in front of my hangar watching them high over head,  a Blackhawk came bust'n over the trees at less than 200' - balls to the  wall.  This has been going on for several days now.  Our airpark  is a check point of a low altitude training route.  So this  happens often - sometimes late at night.  We even had an Apache land here  once when he got a chip light in his tail rotor.  If I happen to  be out in front of the hangar, I wave like crazy and often get the flash of  a landing light or a wave from the door man.   

  

 God! I do love it so!

  

 Jim "Pappy" Goolsby

  

 [quote]   Mark,

   I like your approach.  Interestingly enough, when    researching Sec. 119.1(e)(2), as referenced in 91.147, it clearly states    "having a standard airworthiness certificate", that immediately    eliminates Sec. 119.1 (e)(2).  Next is Sec 135.1(a)(5) which says    "Nonstop Commercial Air Tour flights conducted for compensation or hire in    accordance with §119.1(e)(2).  Since 119.1 (e)(2) is not applicable,    that makes 135.1 (a)(5) not applicable as well.  Finally, 121.1 (d) says,    "(d) Nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted for compensation or hire in    accordance with §119.1(e)(2) of this chapter must comply with drug and    alcohol requirements".  Again, not applicable.

    

   Since 91.147 refers to 119.1 (e)(2) which has been determine    as not applicable (the standard airworthiness certificate requirement) that    would make 91.147 also not applicable to the situation.

    

   The situation then defaults to commercial operation of    an experimental aircraft.

    

   Dennis

    

    

    

    

   ---

jblake207(at)COMCAST.NET
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

Go Army!  Beat Navy!!

  

 [quote]-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: cjpilot710(at)aol.com 

   In a message dated 9/10/2008 4:56:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dsavarese0812(at)bellsouth.net writes:

  

 I saw this happen some years ago at TICO.  A private pilot who was flying a S-51 in the show, was approached by the FAA about receiving any compensation and was going to write him up.  The pilot pointed out that he didn't receive any fuel, but the FAA guy pointed to the sandwiches and drinks in the pilot briefing tent and said that was "compensation".  I forget who stepped forward but this fellow was quick to point out to the Fed, that 'everybody" was eating in the tent, ground crews, re-enactors, secretaries, airboss, EVEN the FAA!  At that point the Fed dropped it.

  

 On another note.  A big CB rumbled though an hour or so ago.  I was working in the hangar and it immediately cooled off everything.  When it cleared, I soon hear the F-18 high over head.  I live under a MOA and at times things get pretty busy around here.  As I stood in front of my hangar watching them high over head, a Blackhawk came bust'n over the trees at less than 200' - balls to the wall.  This has been going on for several days now.  Our airpark is a check point of a low altitude training route.  So this happens often - sometimes late at night.  We even had an Apache land here once when he got a chip light in his tail rotor.  If I happen to be out in front of the hangar, I wave like crazy and often get the flash of a landing light or a wave from the door man.   

  

 God! I do love it so!

  

 Jim "Pappy" Goolsby

  

 [quote] Mark,

 I like your approach.  Interestingly enough, when researching Sec. 119.1(e)(2), as referenced in 91.147, it clearly states "having a standard airworthiness certificate", that immediately eliminates Sec. 119.1 (e)(2).  Next is Sec 135.1(a)(5) which says "Nonstop Commercial Air Tour flights conducted for compensation or hire in accordance with §119.1(e)(2).  Since 119.1 (e)(2) is not applicable, that makes 135.1 (a)(5) not applicable as well.  Finally, 121.1 (d) says, "(d) Nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted for compensation or hire in accordance with §119.1(e)(2) of this chapter must comply with drug and alcohol requirements".  Again, not applicable.

  

 Since 91.147 refers to 119.1 (e)(2) which has been determine as not applicable (the standard airworthiness certificate requirement) that would make 91.147 also not applicable to the situation.

  

 The situation then defaults to commercial operation of an experimental aircraft.

  

 Dennis

  

  

  

  

 ---

randmyak52(at)bellsouth.n
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

Hey Pappy:

   Sounds as if you are still alive. I also love it so,  spent the entire day replacing a Cyl on my YAK. Not comlpaining mind you.  Actually I needed something to do. Are we the luckiest SOB's in this world,  or what ? i appreciated the Info you sent out on 08/05/08, Hey we did our  best under the conditions handed us, we should not dwell on it.

 Hope your family is doing well Jim, really how long do yu  think we can continue doing this?

  

                                                                                                                                             Lefty

 [quote]   ---

czech6(at)mesanetworks.ne
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:19 am Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

From: dgilliss(at)earthlink.net [mailto:dgilliss(at)earthlink.net] 

 Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 4:36 PM

 To: Bill Geipel

 Subject: RE: FW: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - another blow to general aviation  

91.147 is a continuation of 91.146-Charitable flights, except it addresses fee-based flights, a reg aimed at flights in light aircraft.The Feds have made charitable flights (money raising by giving rides) a nightmare, essentially eliminating it as a possibility due to the onerous requirements (drug testing, advanced notice, approval, etc.) For airshows, it is generally not applicable. Giving a VIP a flight is not a charitable flight and should not be a fee-based flight. Experimental Exhibition aircraft may receive compensation or fuel or both when flying or static at an airshow. The pilot must have a commercial license and class 2 medical to receive it.  

What becomes a problem is VIP rides. Sponsors often expect flights in military aircraft because their company gave money to the event. If the total fuel/compensation is contracted for in advance and there are no extra-fuel-for-more-rides agreements at the show there should be no problem. It is the flights for hire/fee that cause a problem. The FSDO inspector citing 91.147 is unknowledgeable. If he knew what he was doing he would cite 91.319, which has a blanket exclusion for flights for compensation in Experimental Exhibition aircraft, except for the exclusions in section (h) of that reg. The only way to fly VIPs legally, though marginally so, is to have a fixed amount of fuel/compensation for the appearance, whether flying or static, and then elect to take a passenger on a flight the pilot flies, effectively without compensation. If there is waivered airspace during the flight, virtually all FSDOs will prohibit passengers (the only exception in their handbooks is for required crew or safety of flight--a pilot rated in the plane on a formation flight, for example).  

On page 9 of the March 2006 issue of the FAA Aviation News (attached) is the Flying For Dollars article that discusses these issues. FAA inspectors have generally followed it, since it appeared in their magazine.  

DG  

Douglas Gilliss  

249 South Pacific   Coast Highway  

Solana Beach, CA  92075  

(619) 888-6510  

FAX (619) 330-1870   

dgilliss(at)earthlink.net (dgilliss(at)earthlink.net)  

  [quote] 	  Quote: 	

[b]

dsavarese0812(at)bellsout
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:04 am Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

The article link:

 http://www.faa.gov/news/aviation_news/2006/media/marapr2006.pdf

  

 Dennis

  

 [quote]   ---

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

Not to be argumentative, but you said: 



"Experimental Exhibition aircraft may receive compensation or fuel or

both when flying or static at an air show. The pilot must have a

commercial license and class 2 medical to receive it."



Excuse me... You say this based on what?  Personal experience?  Personal

opinion?  Conversation with an FAA Official?  



Point being, I would really like to see what you commented on in writing

with an FAA sig. at the bottom of it.  My problem is the amount of

"differences in opinion" that seem to be legally allowable between FAA

FISDO's.



Mark Bitterlich

--

czech6(at)mesanetworks.ne
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

Mark,

I tried to send the entire file but Matronics said it was to big. I will try

again. It is a lengthy article but I'll work on it.

--

ChangDriver

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 266

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:28 pm Post subject: Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows

Mark:



"Experimental Exhibition aircraft may receive compensation or fuel or 

both when flying or static at an air show. The pilot must have a 

commercial license and class 2 medical to receive it." 



The intent of the above is correct, the semantic are not - it is the pilot receiving compensation, not the aircraft (owner).  Part 61.133 allows a Commercial Pilot to receive compensation for flying "persons or property" as long as the pilot meets the other requirements of Part 61.  This is where the Class 2 Medical is required.  As a commercial rated pilot, if you do not renew your Second Class Medical , it becomes a Third Class Medical and you are now a Private Pilot.



So, in essence, if you are a properly rated commercial pilot, you can accept fuel, oil, money and/or anything else the FAA considers compensation for flying a plane (experimental or not) to/from/in an airshow.



Part 91.319 prohibits carrying persons or property for compensation or hire in an aircraft with an experimental certificate.  This applies no matter what pilot rating the pilot flying the experimental aircraft holds.



So, just don't do any VIP/media rides and you are OK.  Or you can do them at your own expense.  However, the FAA will place the burden of truth on you to prove that the fuel and oil you got for flying to/from the airshow is different from the fuel you burned, on your own dime, to fly a VIP.



Cheers!



Craig

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:16 am Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

Craig, my question was:  What FAA regulations says this?  I would like

to read it myself.  



"Experimental Exhibition aircraft may receive compensation or fuel or

both when flying or static at an air show. The pilot must have a

commercial license and class 2 medical to receive it." 



Fact is that the above quote is not contained in ANY Federal Aviation

Regulation.  However, there is an FAA "Interpretation" of the rules that

allows it.  In that brief, the FAA specifically says: 



"No rides for passengers, no conflict

with the federal aviation regulations.

However, there are some areas

for concern. For example, receiving

fuel for an appearance or demonstration

flight, or cash for that matter, is

fine. However, accepting an offer like:

"We'll add a few hundred gallons of

fuel to your allocation, if you take

Bobby Joe, one of our big sponsors,

for a local flight." Now you are accepting

fuel for a passenger-carrying

flight-receiving compensation for

transporting a passenger, this is essentially

back to the "selling rides"

scenario."



Notice carefully (Dennis, it looks like I was right) the part that says

"We'll add a few hundred gallons of

fuel to your allocation, if you take Bobby Joe, one of our big sponsors,

for a local flight".  This is a case where it is clear that additional

compensation has been given for a specific type of operation that meets

the definition of "Commercial Operation".  In the case of Greensboro,

the FAA did not have that specific.  Meaning, they did not have proof

that ANYTHING ADDITIONAL was added to conduct flights where giving rides

was involved.  Thus, as I said before, if you can prove to the FAA that

any fuel you receive or other types of compensation you receive were

ONLY given as gratis... And not as a prerequisite for say AIRCRAFT

RIDES, you pretty much have an airtight case.  The smart move would be

to also carry a full copy of that FAA News Letter with you, to show the

local FAA dude, and then ask him: "Are you now telling me this FAA News

Letter is inaccurate? Fine, I will now need to know YOUR full name, who

you work for, your superior, etc."  There is no question in my mind that

the Greensboro FAA Representatives were in fact abusing their authority

when they made their comments to the original gentleman.  However, the

truth of the matter is that people in authority do that all the time,

which again is why I carry a recorder with me constantly.  The trick is

to catch THEM speeding... As in, catch them making a mistake.  



That said: 



If you have a letter from the provider explaining the reasons why you

were given free "anything" and it does not mention carrying passengers

and in fact specifically mentions that it was NEVER MEANT for that

purpose, and the person giving the item and the person RECEIVING the

item has these letters in hand, plus a copy of that FAA News Letter, I

would say that you are pretty well covered.  If the FAA person threatens

you and you are polite and explain it all to him.... And he gets even

more nasty (they usually will) and you have it recorded... You're

covered!  



The very same FAA Letter mentions the issue of Private versus Commercial

Pilots accepting free "anything" for showing up at an air show or

exhibition.  Their comment was that this matter is unclear, but that as

long as you had a Commercial ticket you should be OK.  In this case, if

you could prove that you were going to the Air show anyway, and someone

just came up and "gave you something" and you did not contract for it in

advance, you could probably beat the FAA at that one too.  



Interesting comment about the Commercial Pilot License.  I looked at

mine the last time I went over one year on my Medical and it did not

change to Private Pilot.  Either did the records at the FAA!  Somehow I

still retained my Commercial Ticket!  Sorry, just messing with you over

your wording.  If you have a Commercial Ticket, you retain that License

even with NO medical.  EXERCISING the PRIVILEGES of that license is

another matter, and is what you MEANT to say.    



You said: "Part 91.319 prohibits carrying persons or property for

compensation or hire in an aircraft with an experimental certificate."



True, unless one has a a letter of deviation under 91.319 (h).  This

letter of deviation typically is used only for being allowed to charge a

person for training in an Experimental Exhibition aircraft. All

training.  Any kind of training.  Which brings up the question:  "Does

getting a FAST card require training?"  Well... Yes it does.  Does the

RPA usually put an experienced FAST qualified pilot in an Experimental

Exhibition Aircraft in order to train a new applicant?  Well, yes...

They usually do!  Does the RPA charge for this training?  Umm...

Well.... Not sure of that!  Ok well then, does money change hands in

order to have this training?  Well.. Yes it does.  So would it be a

reach to say that the RPA is conducting training in an Experimental

Exhibition aircraft and is charging to do so, and these said same

aircraft do NOT have letters of deviation under 91.319 (h) ???  Ummm....

Well some might see it that way yes.  I'd say the same kind of person

who said getting some free fuel also meant that carrying passengers was

totally illegal.  Something to think about Craig..... 



So... Fly all the people you like, and get free fuel too.. Best to be a

Commercial pilot who is current in every way and also with letters and

paperwork covering your ass that specifically addresses any "free stuff"

you received.  



Now as for the RPA charging for flight instruction given in Experimental

Exhibition aircraft.....  Good question.   I guess the answer is: "The

money is a donation to our organization", etc., etc., but it still gets

tricky if someone refuses to pay you and then you refuse to train them.

It also gets tricky if you insist that you put an RPA FAST member in

THEIR aircraft and charge them for the training.  Hmmm.  Some questions

are best left unasked aren't they?



Mark Bitterlich





--

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:17 am Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

Thanks for sending that Bill.  It was VERY informative and I learned a

lot.  Some good, some not so good. 



Mark

 



--

ChangDriver

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 266

Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:57 am Post subject: Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows

Mark:



As this is not an RPA forum, I'll not get into any RPA stuff.



As for Experimental Aircraft, there are many deviations authorized by "The Administrator" that allow for training and charging for flights - that was not the intent of this thread.



As for the FAA, they will look at anything as compensation - free water, food, oil, gas, smoke oil, tie-down spots, prostitutes, what have you.  If you are issued a violation for flying a person in an aircraft for compensation, it had better not be a Experimental Aircraft, and you had better be a Commercial Pilot (with a Second Class medical so you can exercise the privileges of said license   )  You will be guilty until you can prove that the fuel in your tank that you used to fly the VIP is different than the fuel you got for being in or at the airshow.  All the letter you reference will be is an exhibit that your lawyer can use to try and defend your case.



If the FAA can use the logic for CAP that I posted in another thread, where the simple matter of logging flight time was compensation, they can use anything.



Oh, and for the Commercial ticket, there are scenarios the examiner I took my checkride with that would seem to be valid operations with a Commercial License but were not as they moved you into a Part 135 operation (eg. providing the pilot services AND the airplane for a flight for which you were compensated).



And for another thing, it would be best if you were an AOPA member and took advantage of their legal protection program or you may have a large legal bill to prove your point with the FAA.



Regards,



Craig

viperdoc(at)mindspring.co
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:56 am Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

Hmm...all the more reason to simply avoid the Air Show circus and fly with

friends. Then I can fly who I want when I want on my dime and have to prove

crap to the FAA. Sure there are plenty of scenarios in which the sky Gestapo

can question in the non waivered airspace scenario.

Doc



--

yakplt(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - an

Craig, you said: 

  

 "As this is not an RPA forum, I'll not get into any RPA stuff." 

  

 Does this mean just for this topic, or for every RPA topic... because this is a first.  Fact is, there are all kinds of training given in YAK-52's.... so whether people can charge for doing it legally remains a topic which you might not want to discuss, but it clearly is relevant.  

  

 As to the FAA, even though they are a bunch of jerks from time to time, the overall legal system remains the same and the burden of proof is upon them.  It is not up to you to prove your innocence, even though it is a nice thing to have in hand should the time come!  What would be nice to know is just how many cases of cases such as the one under discussion have actually been carried out?  In this particular story, the FAA made noise, but did nothing.  

  

 As to what you better have, should have, will have, "or else"... I generally do not think that way.  Power begets power, and individual FISDO's crossing the line into areas where they should not go is pretty much legend.  As far as the letter goes, of course it is for your lawyer or yourself to defend your case.  So is a voice recorder, which goes a LONG LONG way.  Maybe you think that if you do all the things that you are suggesting, the FAA will just leave you alone.  Wrong answer.  When these guys get on a roll, they roll OVER everything in their path.  If the FAA accuses you of taking free fuel and then "paying it back" by flying around passengers, then forewarned is forearmed.  There are TONS of things you can do in this regard, some of which I have mentioned, some of which I have not.  For example, who says the person giving you the fuel has to record what N number aircraft it went into?  Yes,  I know... they are pretty much required to but.... ... mistakes can happen as well.  Just rolling over and giving up is against my nature... but to each his own.  Since I now know more about this subject than I ever did before, I will use every trick in the book to keep the FAA from being able to use it against me.  

  

 As to your CAP example, I did not see it, but can imagine.  You're absolutely right, the FAA can take any darn thing in the world to make it look like you are a criminal.  But they can go too far and we all know that too.  In the cases we have talked about, they are simply "making shit up".  When that happens it is time to work together to come up with a good plan and not to run away our tail stuck between our legs.  Again, just my point of view.  

  

 I already have the AOPA legal plan, but thanks for the suggestion.  I have already talked to them  and others... many times.  

  

 Mark Bitterlich

 

 

 

 ---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum