PPL- Logging flight time as compensation?

[FN FAL]

However, your interpretation and narrow construction of these cases, would go so far as to make it illegal for an employee of a company, to take an aircraft (rented, owned or otherwise) to a required company function, such as a job related activity with other employee's on board; while getting paid as an empolyee and being on company time...

A construction foreman and three construction employees, go to a job site in a plane. The foreman is a private pilot and rents the plane to go to this job site and is going to be re-embursed for the rental by the company. While they are on the trip, they are all receiving compensation...for being employees of the construction firm. Let's add in that the foreman is going to drop these guys off at one job site after they park the plane and then drive over to another company job site and do some other work for the company, not relevent to what the first employee's were doing. The private pilot logs the time...he's in violation? Yea, right.

I can articulate all of this be lawful and unlawful...which way do you want to tangle?

Let's see, the mission of the pilot and the mission of the passengers? Pilot is management and the others are labor? Different mission. Pilot went to jobsite A and the others went to jobsite B. Different mission.

They were getting paid while being in transportation for work related functions...compensation? Hell yea, they burn in hell.

The manager quits and uses all such time to build a logbook towards his ATP...big no-no?

No...it's all legal in the real world, but in your articulation, it would be illegal.

 

[avbug]

As I continue to read your posts, clearly you have no understanding of the subject at all, nor do you apparently care to learn. Fine. Don't spread your misunderstanding to others who might believe you.

You've now transferred the discussion to an entirely different regulation, and transferred it to an entirely different set of legal interpretations.

The scenario you now present is very different from flying skydivers. You present a scenario in which all parties involved have a common purpose, and wherein all parties are not paying for the privilege of making the flight, but are paid employees of the corporation. The private pilot acting as PIC is doing entirely so in an act incidental to his employment. He may be reimbursed for the cost of the airplane and paid his wage in making the flight; he is going there anyway, the others are doing the same, and they have a common purpose in going to a destination they would have gone to regardless of the mode of transportation.

Let's modify it even further. The company needs a package delivered...here george, take this to beantown to show in the meeting, will you. Okay, so far.

George gets to beantown, and his supervisor now tells him, "George, I need you to take Mike and Bill and fly them to Pottsville and get back here by three, so you can take this box of baked beans to Bulgerville. I'll pay you your hourly wage."

George wouldn't be making this flight if it weren't for Mike and Bill needing to get there, and he's now outside the limits of the privileges of his private pilot certification. Paid or not, he can't make that flight. He hasn't yet tread on Part 135 territory, but he's certainly acting in a commercial capacity, and would no longer be acting incidental to his employment, regardless of his job description.

But wait! I hear you cry, in your shrill tone as you begin to feel your coca cola welling up in the back of your throat and spilling out your nose. Just wait! His job description is Lima Bean Inspector! He's a supervisor! He's an important man! He doesn't have a job description that says "pilot." I've fooled the FAA! I've done an end-run around the regulation! What do you say to that, avbug?

Well, quite simply, that would be wrong. No matter what his job description, when he undertakes a flight for which he has no common purpose with the passengers, and a flight which he wouldn't be making except at the behest of the company or the passengers, he's no longer acting within the scope of the privileges and limitations of his private pilot certificate. The FAA has been very clear on this in numerous legal interpretations, and ample case law exists to back this up.

In the case of skydivers, the pilot would not be climbing to altitude and descending again without the skydivers on board. He isn't taking them along jsut because he was going anyway. And the skydivers who are paying for the experinece wouldn't be able to go to altitude if the pilot didn't take them. That he receives "credit" in the club means he's being compensated in some way, but that's not necesary to establish violation of the regulation. "Articulation," as you like to say it (I do not think that word means what you think it means) has nothing to do with the matter. The flight is conducted for hire, club or not, the passengers and property on board are hired out, the flight is made expressely to conduct those passengers to altitude for no other reason than to provide a platform for their skydive, and the use of a private pilot to conduct that flight is not legal, nor is there anyway it can be spun to construe it otherwise.

Several times now you've excused the situation by suggesting that as nobody has been violated, the situation is legal. In other words, they didn't get caught or enforcement action hasn't taken place, and therefore the Administrator has blessed the situation.

Interesting logic...if I rob a bank and don't get caught, does that mean the law has been altered to approve of my activities? If I admit to something in front of a police officer and I don't get arrested, is the officer offering a legal justification for my act, and am I henceforth and forever immune from prosecution? More importantly, have I just set a ground breaking precedent that permits others to do the same, merely because I haven't paid a penalty?

Keep that up, and a lot of somebodies are going to elect you president. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. What do you think?

The simple fact is that the officer has the authority to enforce the law, but not the authority to interpret it. That's left to the courts and the legislature. Likewise, the FSDO has the authority to initiate enforcement action (but not to enforce), and has no power of any sort to interpret the regulation, or to enact or develop any regulation. The FSDO is not autonomous. The FSDO is the bottom, or grass roots level representing the administrator; it's the face of the administrator at the local public level...without the teeth or the ability to speak for the administrator. Do you not understand this?

Back to the topic...you seem to think that somehow four people flying to a common destination in a single Cessna and being paid their hourly wage or regular salary is the same as flying skydivers for a club...there's no comparison between the two. Entirely different subjects, regulations, legalities, absolute apples vs. mangoes. Not even apples vs. oranges.

You were wrong to begin with on this subject, and surprisingly, you continue not only to support your original wrong assertion, but to become more wrong, the longer you post. Stop, already. You're passing on incorrect information. How is it that you cannot see this?

 

[Yellow Snow]

I flew with a jump pilot a lot. I paid for each flight according to the skydive center policy. The pilot made sure I had receipts for each flight so there would be no problems with the FSDO. Even free flights in this scenario would, I think, be considered compensation.

PS. Man that pilot was a fantastic stick. His name is Glen G. if any of you know him? We used to look forward to good crosswinds so we could compete to see who could make the best one wheeled greasers and hold the acft on one tire the longest. I sure learned alot from him, just a great stick and a great guy.

 

[FN FAL]

You were wrong to begin with on this subject, and surprisingly, you continue not only to support your original wrong assertion, but to become more wrong, the longer you post. Stop, already. You're passing on incorrect information. How is it that you cannot see this?

I think you're right on the robbery analogy. However, you cannot articulate the construction of a bank robbery, just because some local resident owns a gun and there's a bank on the east side of town that has money available in it. The guy with the gun would have to at least attempt to receive the money, while using threat of force or actual force, in order to call it a robbery.

 

[FN FAL]

Hey Avbug...not to keep beating on this subject, but had you posted links to the PDF of the cases, which I just found and re-read...we could have saved a lot of typing at each other. Also, you have to keep in mind, I left the sport parachuting "club" scene over 7 years ago. That's before most of these cases occured and as much as you want to beat on FSDO not giving us a "real answer" it was the BEST answer we had at the time. I suppose if our club was smart, we could have had someone from the feds come out and bust one of our pilots, sacrificing him/her so we could observe their painful experience of going through the administrative law process...but it never happened.

In the case of the dropzone in Louisiana...had they simply posted a sign in their advertising and brochures and what not, that you had to pay $5.00 membership fee to join their "so called" club...the pilot would have been off the hook. It would have been that simple...$5.00 bucks, here's your bumper sticker, your t-shirt and your membership registration form. New memberships are $5.00, "probationary" and last three months. In three months, if you choose, you can stay a member and pay the usuall $25.00 annual membership fee.

It might not be the same rules as criminal court, but when you join a club...you join a club. And had the owner of that drop zone done that, plus checked reserve packing dates, they would have saved the skydiving world a load of grief.

Your piecemeal posting of all this information was a little hard to read and looked like it was edited for effect. Sorry, but that's the way I saw it. If you would have posted a link to the PDF's on these cases, I would have read them as the government produced them...and we'd be done by now.

My, the world of skydiving has changed in 7 years...and yes, we operated with a couple of club members who were private pilots, but those people were not seeking to further a career in aviation. They were just club members who had a private and were very active participants in the club. I.e. officers in the club, jumpmasters, etc.

I'm going to make an e-mail or phone call on tuesday to my old friends and find out if the USPA has advised dropzones of what to do in order to avoid complications with this case of "holding out" and "private pilots". If they are clueless, I'm going to let them know what has happened in these cases and make them aware.

I see two issues if they choose to operate with private pilots (if they still have any private pilots around...I haven't seen those guys for years, things may have changed).

One, licensed skydivers from other dropzones that show up and pay to jump.
Two, students that pay to jump.

The issue is the same for both scenarios...they have to make those non-members join the club. Or...quit using any club members that are private pilots, as pilots.

The legal "structure" of making all jumpers, student or otherwise, become club members...changes everything.

In the Louisiana case, had there been a membership clause...this private pilot would have not been busted because of the drop zone's "holding out for skydiving instruction" and "carrying persons or property for hire"...if all persons coming in to make their first jump or any jump were advised of a mandatory policy of joining the club.

Give me a break... It was, the way it was, back then...I'm just glad people I knew weren't test cases. And...next time you are citing references...please provide a link to the case. Don't do the scroll and paste thing, let me see the actual document! I'm not from Iowa, but your typing of the case looks a lot like your typing...I need to see the real deal.

Like I said, I'm going to be touching bases with the old club and make sure they got a heads up on this issue.

 

[FN FAL]

Also, you have to keep in mind, I left the sport parachuting "club" scene over 7 years ago. That's before most of these cases occured and as much as you want to beat on FSDO not giving us a "real answer" it was the BEST answer we had at the time. I suppose if our club was smart, we could have had someone from the feds come out and bust one of our pilots, sacrificing him/her so we could observe their painful experience of going through the administrative law process...but it never happened.

Think about this Avbug, 7 to 12 years ago, while I was a budding skydiver and newly minted commercial pilot, the sport was just starting to become "mainstream". Subtract another 7 to 12 years and all skydiving was "fandango". Round parachutes and guys getting high in the desert around a campfire. Eventually, incidents and accidents were going to lead test cases into the courts and here we are...

 

[i'mbatman]

Until those hours jump out of my logbook and pay my bills, flight time is not compensation.

 

[midlifeflyer]

However, your interpretation and narrow construction of these cases, would go so far as to make it illegal for an employee of a company, to take an aircraft (rented, owned or otherwise) to a required company function, such as a job related activity with other employee's on board; while getting paid as an empolyee and being on company time...

It's been fun to watch this one.

I think you're right about AvBug's interpretation on this one. Of course, his interpretation is correct. That's why there is a specific regulation that permits it - the incidental employment exception, which as you rad the regulation, doesn't say it's =not= compensation. Quite the contrary, the regulation says that is it is compensation.

Flight time as compensation is unfortunately fluid. It seems to be a principle that the FAA brings up when it sees something it doesn't like and wants to stop it - usually in the context of something that 'looks like' commercial flying.

Do an acquaintance a favor and take him his sister's wedding (no charge, not even sharing expenses) and it's probably okay.

Do it every week and post your availability on a bulletin board, and you're probably looking at flight time as compensation.

 

[FN FAL]

It's been fun to watch this one.

I think you're right about AvBug's interpretation on this one. Of course, his interpretation is correct. That's why there is a specific regulation that permits it - the incidental employment exception, which as you rad the regulation, doesn't say it's =not= compensation. Quite the contrary, the regulation says that is it is compensation.

Flight time as compensation is unfortunately fluid. It seems to be a principle that the FAA brings up when it sees something it doesn't like and wants to stop it - usually in the context of something that 'looks like' commercial flying.

Do an acquaintance a favor and take him his sister's wedding (no charge, not even sharing expenses) and it's probably okay.

Do it every week and post your availability on a bulletin board, and you're probably looking at flight time as compensation.

I think you are right on the fluid part and I have to thank Avbug for bringing up these cases that have occured since I left a club many years ago.

Notice in these cases, that the "club" status was in question or the pilot's relationship to the club or skydiving flight operation was in question. Also in one of the incidents, a death was involved. It sounds to me that these specific situations came to light, because the operation brought it on or the operaton was beyond being "private".

Most people will think of a private pilot flying for the not-for-profit club, as being some just out of the check ride kid, looking to build time for a career. This is not the situation I saw at my old club. We had a club president with 800 hours and his only flying was for the club. He was never interested in accumulating hours for an instrument rating or an ATP.

There was another pilot that flew for the club, very capable and had many hours. He told me that he never logged the hours, he just liked being a club member and participating in club activity. He wasn't a green horn either.

In light of these cases Avbug pointed out, I'd say that the easisest thing for these guys to do, would be to learn how to do a chandelle and go see the old timer DE at Marshfield...duffy, or whatever his name is and go get a checkride done. That would make life a lot easier and would remove the chance of ending up in an administrative action.

However, on the other side of the coin, I think that if the dropzone publishes a policy manual (club bylaws) and in that manual it is written that longstanding and genuine clubmembers that are private pilots who fly for the club, are only to fly bonified club members who pay club member rates and dues and are only manifested on club member flights...I don't see how the feds could say a thing is wrong. That would be a private part of the operation, private club members doing what clubs do.

I can see how charging people off the street who come to make a skydive, could change things for a not-for-profit club. You have your commercial pilots fly those flights.

It wouldn't be hard to prove the legitimacy of the club and it's operation, as documentation would be in place. Because real clubs keep records of who is in good standing with a club; you pay your annual dues, you attend meetings, you help with spring clean up...etc, etc.

The other documentation would be the manifest sheets. If you have the documentation, you have the ability to prove that one flight verses another flight was hire or not for hire. Especially, when the club status is not being challenged and the pilots and jumpers are long standing club members.

The one thing an operation would have to keep in mind, is that licensed jumpers that stop in for the day or the weekend, either have to become club members or they need to be manifested on the planes where there is a commercial pilot flying it.

The dropzone is holding out to the public for the skydiving instruction and charging money...yea, a commercial pilot needed. The dropzone is holding out to the pubilc if they let an authorized stranger get on a load...yea, a commercial pilot needed. The dropzone is not holding out to the public, when four dues paying clubmembers get on a plane and ride up with another dues paying clubmember at the controls...yea, a private pilot could do that.

 

[FN FAL]

Until those hours jump out of my logbook and pay my bills, flight time is not compensation.

Well that's just it in nutshell, about this debate of what is considered compensation and what is not.

In one case, a jump club using a private pilot is wrong, because the private pilot can, can't, might, may, could, would, log time that is made "available" to him...so that's compensation.

In the other case, the construction forman that rents a C-310 or C-210 for company related business, in lawful expectation that the owner of the business is going to re-emburse him on the rental...that's considered legal to log? Dude, think about it? When you stay "current" in a complex single or nice twin, because someone else picks up the tab incidentally...isn't that COMPENSATION?

So lets just say for the sake of argument, every 89 days your boss picks up the tab on an "incidental to business" flight. We all know that's golden...it's legal. But the hours flown could be articulated into being compensation in a big way...theres the expense of being FAA current and there's the expense of being "FBO" current. That's right, if you don't rent for three months at most FBO's, you gotta get another "rental" check out...and that stuff costs money, lots more money than just renting the plane. So the incidental to business flight that a private pilot flies and receives flight hours while doing so, is just as much a compensation as being handed money.

 

[midlifeflyer]

So the incidental to business flight that a private pilot flies and receives flight hours while doing so, is just as much a compensation as being handed money.

Of course it is. No one ever said it wasn't.

 

[lawfly]

Wow. Is anyone billing for this?
I'm too tired to read carefully read all the posts. (Maybe later.) But you guys certainly got into this one. A little spirited debate is usually a good thing. Carry on.