Helo Ride Pimp Daddy

[Spike]

Spike, what if the passengers didn't pay a single dime. Would that be allowed?

 

In my opinion,

 

Then the "sharing" rule wouldn't apply, although the "common purpose" may, that is "MAY", apply....

Edited August 16, 2012 by Spike

[johnnyb]

You want to risk losing your private rating for the price of a flight?

I don't know how or why it could happen, but frankly I don't care.

If you want to accept any more than your share, get a commercial rating, simple really.

[nightsta1ker]

This is one of those rules that has always seemed a double edged sword to me. Granted, I know why it was designed, to keep private pilots from becoming under the table commercial pilots ferrying people around for money. But say you are broke, and your friend has lots of money, and he wants you to take him flying. You gonna pass up an opportunity to go fly because you can't meet them half-way? Common sense applies here.

 

On the record, I agree with you. Follow the rules. Off the record. I say: CYA. Make sure the exchange of money is not traceable to the other party and make sure that whoever is paying you knows that, if asked, they only gave you half. Consider the rest a "donation". Who is the FAA to control who gives me money and what for? Maybe they gave me money because they know I need it. As a gift. I took my Father in law up last year and afterward he handed me a wad of cash that covered more than half the cost of the flight. I tried to give some of it back but he insisted. Do I feel guilty about that? Hell no! If he wants to give me money that's his prerogative.

 

Now, if people want to pay you to fly them somewhere for purposes other than joyriding... that I disagree with. You need a commercial license for that.

[Spike]

You gonna pass up an opportunity to go fly because you can't meet them half-way?

 

On the record, I agree with you. Follow the rules. Off the record. I say: CYA. Make sure the exchange of money is not traceable to the other party and make sure that whoever is paying you knows that, if asked, they only gave you half. Consider the rest a "donation". Who is the FAA to control who gives me money and what for? Maybe they gave me money because they know I need it. As a gift. I took my Father in law up last year and afterward he handed me a wad of cash that covered more than half the cost of the flight. I tried to give some of it back but he insisted. Do I feel guilty about that? Hell no! If he wants to give me money that's his prerogative.

 

You bring up an interesting topic.

 

Is making a statement here on VR considered "on the record"?

 

If so, can a Fed Inspector initiate legal action against a pilot for admitting to a violation?

 

You better hope not.

 

[nightsta1ker]

You bring up an interesting topic.

 

Is making a statement here on VR considered "on the record"?

 

If so, can a Fed Inspector initiate legal action against a pilot for admitting to a violation?

 

You better hope not.

 

You are correct. I do hope not. However, I think the FAA would be hard pressed to prove that the cash exchanged was even related to the flight, considering the exchange happened afterwards and was not negotiated. Like I said, its a personal transaction.

 

Now, if I had admitted that I had been flying passengers from point A to point B for money, I think that would be another story.

[jimbo2181]

Then they will just get the IRS involved and get you for not claiming the "donation" on your taxes.

[eagle5]

When the flight is over and you're at the register, the cashier says it'll be $250, your friend hands her his credit card. He's not paying you to fly, he's paying the rental company. Don't see why the FAA would have a problem with that?

[Spike]

When the flight is over and you're at the register, the cashier says it'll be $250, your friend hands her his credit card. He's not paying you to fly, he's paying the rental company. Don't see why the FAA would have a problem with that?

 

I'm pretty sure the FAA has a problem with anyone who violates the regs and, they usually deal with them appropriately....

 

Think of it this way. When a great white shark mistakes you for a seal and bites you, you may not be eaten to death but you'll be in pain, bleeding, drowning, all the same. Was the dip in the shark infested waters worth it? Do you think just because you're not a seal a shark won't bite you?

 

Plus, regarding your scenario, it's the PILOT who should have a problem with the method of payment because it's clearly a VIOLATION of the FARs.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Spike

[eagle5]

I'm pretty sure the FAA has a problem with anyone who violates the regs and, they usually deal with them appropriately....

 

Think of it this way. When a great white shark mistakes you for a seal and bites you, you may not be eaten to death but you'll be in pain, bleeding, drowning, all the same. Was the dip in the shark infested waters worth it? Do you think just because you're not a seal a shark won't bite you?

 

Plus, regarding your scenario, it's the PILOT who should have a problem with the method of payment because it's clearly a VIOLATION of the FARs.

 

Again, you don't seem to get what I'm saying, so I'll try it again.

 

Why would the FAA even make a reg that states that this scenario is not allowed? A friend asks me to take him for a ride, then offers to pay for it,...that's just common courtesy! No one is trying to make money off of it!

 

"A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil,...rental fees."

 

Why do they care?

[johnnyb]

Why do they care?

 

Because different pilot ratings have different requirements and therefor different privileges, which can be taken away.

 

Specifically for GA, flying is and should be regulated - that's a good thing imo.

Personally I'd like to see more regulations e.g. the FAA enforce radio comms requirement for all aircraft for all airspace - nothing scares me more than the fact that there are muppets out there flying without radios

But that's another thread altogether...

[nightsta1ker]

Well the rules are the rules. I teach them by the book. For the purposes of friendly discussion on a forum, I am simply stating my opinion. I don't think the FAA has any right to get involved in private transactions like that. Jimbo's reference to the IRS is absurd, though humorous. Do you honestly report to the IRS every time Grandma sends you a hundred bucks in the mail for your birthday? There is the black and white of the regs, and there is reality. They don't often meet and when they do, it's usually because something bad happened. At that point, you are probably going to get screwed no matter what happened. The regs are designed, and interpreted by the lawyers, to serve the FAA in blaming and punishing pilots that make mistakes.

 

I see pilots doing things that violate the regs just about every time I'm at the airport, and most of it is the unsafe kind of violations. They rarely get caught unless they crash. Friends or family giving cash to the poor Ramen-eating low time pilot because they know they need it is small potatoes, even for the FAA.

[aeroscout]

You want to risk losing your private rating for the price of a flight?

I don't know how or why it could happen, but frankly I don't care.

If you want to accept any more than your share, get a commercial rating, simple really.

 

I disagree. Now you open another whole can of worms. Part 135. 133, 121, 125, any or all possibly. At my current home base the airport commission past a regulation that any CFI operating at the field be taxed 15 percent of their earnings. If anything, the commercial ops are infinitely more complex. P.S. make sure that on your commercial flight your airplane is within 100 hours of it's annual, or another 100 hour inspection is required.

[nightsta1ker]

I disagree. Now you open another whole can of worms. Part 135. 133, 121, 125, any or all possibly. At my current home base the airport commission past a regulation that any CFI operating at the field be taxed 15 percent of their earnings. If anything, the commercial ops are infinitely more complex. P.S. make sure that on your commercial flight your airplane is within 100 hours of it's annual, or another 100 hour inspection is required.

 

A hundred hours of it's annual? The annual inspection is due on a certain date. Hourly inspections are due at certain flight hours. Your statement makes absolutely no sense at all. Either you are not explaining something well or you are confused about something you have been told.

[Spike]

Again, you don't seem to get what I'm saying, so I'll try it again.

 

Exsqueezeme? If anyone isn't getting it, its you....

 

The Feds care because they know; if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. That is, YOU as a private pilot want to build time and experience and what a better way to do it then have *others* pay for it. IF *others* pay for it, you are being compensated with additional fight time and experience. Making money has little to do with it. It's about compensation...

 

Contrary to popular belief, the Fed's aren't dumb.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Spike

[eagle5]

A while back my uncle was in town on vacation. He asked me if I would take him uo for a ride. I said, sure. After the flight was over he offered to pay for it, but I said, don't worry about it I was planning on going up soon anyway.

 

A couple of weeks later I recieved a gift in the mail from him with a note that said, thanks for the flight, it was awesome!

 

I suppose I should have returned the gift to him along with a note scolding him for such a haynus gesture!

[Yamer]

A while back my uncle was in town on vacation. He asked me if I would take him uo for a ride. I said, sure. After the flight was over he offered to pay for it, but I said, don't worry about it I was planning on going up soon anyway.

 

A couple of weeks later I recieved a gift in the mail from him with a note that said, thanks for the flight, it was awesome!

 

I suppose I should have returned the gift to him along with a note scolding him for such a haynus gesture!

 

my views exactly

[nightsta1ker]

 

Contrary to popular belief, the Fed's aren't dumb.

 

No, they're not, but they also pick their battles. They know when something is small fish and not worth their time. I doubt they would waste their time if someone tipped them that I or someone else had received more than 50% compensation for a joyride on one occasion. If they got tipped that someone was making a habit of it, they might raise an eyebrow, and if they heard that someone was running a full blown charter service or doing tours I bet they would DEFINITELY get involved in that. Another thing to consider would be someone that routinely takes more than their share attracts the interest of the Feds for something else, and they start digging. At that point, anything they find can and will be used against you, and the violations can stack up quick.

 

Once again, common sense applies here. I think Spike and the others have made the point: The rules are the rules are the rules. If you break the rules and get caught, your gonna be in trouble. So if you are gonna break the rules, don't get caught.

[Helipilot PTK]

I have a somewhat amusing story relating to this subject (sort of). My flight instructor was hired to fly boat races, he would carry two rescue divers and one spotter. If everything went well and there were no boat crashes, it would be under part 61. However, if there was a crash, and the rescue divers had to jump out of the helicopter, it would be under part 135 because he dropped them off and did not return with them. He had to get a special permeant for the flight.

[Mikemv]

I have a somewhat amusing story relating to this subject (sort of). My flight instructor was hired to fly boat races, he would carry two rescue divers and one spotter. If everything went well and there were no boat crashes, it would be under part 61. However, if there was a crash, and the rescue divers had to jump out of the helicopter, it would be under part 135 because he dropped them off and did not return with them. He had to get a special permeant for the flight.

 

This does not describe a part 135 operation. Just because the divers exited the helicopter does not make it a 135 flight. What was the "intent" of the flight? Moving pax from A to B or providing protection for boat racers? Did he "hold out" the offer of dropping pax off as they requested? No.

 

The intent of the flight and "holding out" is what makes it a part 135 flight.

 

I did a lot of these exact flights when I protected the Alcone super boat. If I moved the rescue divers from Miami to Key West it was a 135 flight as the intent was to move pax and available to the public. If they exited during a rescue it was not, as the intent was protection/rescue and not "held out" to the public. It made no difference to me as both the aircraft and myself were on a 135 certificate.

[Mikemv]

As someone that is active in promoting "Safety Culture", Safety Management Systems, ADM and Risk Management, Professionalism and Career Advancement paths, I caution all of the posters that have made justifications for fudging the log book when necessary, logging flight time as they determine they want to, carrying pax for compensation with a Private Pilot Certificate, and basically doing things in aviation as they want to with disregard for regs and definitions.

 

These expressed attitudes will never convince an employer to hire you. You will not all of a sudden see the light and follow company SOPs, GOMs, SMSs and regulations. Procedural Intentional Non Compliance (PINCs) will get you fired if not hurt someone.

 

Own your training and develop an attitude of professionalism. Do the right thing when no one is looking every time.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Mike

Edited August 20, 2012 by Mikemv

[aeroscout]

No one should ever want a pilot to crash "by the book", if they could otherwise land safely.

[aeroscout]

A hundred hours of it's annual? The annual inspection is due on a certain date. Hourly inspections are due at certain flight hours. Your statement makes absolutely no sense at all. Either you are not explaining something well or you are confused about something you have been told.

 

A 100 hour inspection is the equal of an annual. Maybe you are confused ? After an annual you may operate for 100 hours, as long as you don't exceed the annual, calendar wise, and still be legal for commercial operations, aircraft wise.

[Mikemv]

A 100 hour inspection is the equal of an annual. Maybe you are confused ? After an annual you may operate for 100 hours, as long as you don't exceed the annual, calendar wise, and still be legal for commercial operations, aircraft wise.

 

Wow, these comments are not even close!

 

OEM MMs determine what 100 hour items & annual items need to be inspected/addressed.

 

The sign offs are different and an annual must be signed of by an IA. What about annual continued airworthiness items?

 

Mike

[nightsta1ker]

We have to do both 100 hours and an annual inspection. How does a 100 hour inspection count as an annual if I still have to do one every year? If I hit 100 hours 10 days before the aircraft is due for it's annual, but I need to fly the aircraft for those 10 days, then I would still need to do a 100 hour if I wanted to fly.

[nightsta1ker]

As someone that is active in promoting "Safety Culture", Safety Management Systems, ADM and Risk Management, Professionalism and Career Advancement paths, I caution all of the posters that have made justifications for fudging the log book when necessary, logging flight time as they determine they want to, carrying pax for compensation with a Private Pilot Certificate, and basically doing things in aviation as they want to with disregard for regs and definitions.

 

These expressed attitudes will never convince an employer to hire you. You will not all of a sudden see the light and follow company SOPs & GOMs, SMSs and regulations. Procedural Intentional Non Compliance (PINCs) will get you fired if not hurt someone.

 

Own your training and develop an attitude of professionalism. Do the right thing when no one is looking every time.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Mike

 

 

I would sure like to pretend that I am perfect and do the right thing to the very letter of the law every single day all day long, but I don't. When it comes to aviation I walk the line to the best of my ability. I know and understand the laws. I do not condone any action that violates them. All I am saying Mike, is that I think sometimes there are circumstance under which that law does not apply. If someone wants to give me money, and I happened to take them for a flight that day, and the amount they give me covers more than 50% of that flight, does the FAA have the ability or the right to say in black and white that the money accepted by me was for the purpose of paying for the flight? What if that transaction happens the following day? Following week? My point is, handle your private transactions privately. Keep the Feds out of your business.

 

If you want to dredge up the logging of flight time thing again... I think the big argument there was that what the law clearly states, and what is common and accepted practice are two completely different things.