PPL- Logging flight time as compensation?

[toneal]

Is this legal? I thought logged flight time counts as compensation. I also thought you have to pay the pro rata share of the flight. Wow, for $4.99 I can figure out the easiest way to log hours... hehe.


http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=26440&item=4550947328&rd=1

 

[avbug]

The claims made on that ebay site are laughable at best, and certainly bear no origin in reality. Yes, the logging of flight time can be construed as compensation with respect to the limitations accorded a private pilot.

Only a fool and his money would invest in such a scam.

 

[toneal]

thought so.. thanks av..

 

[TrafficInSight]

The claims made on that ebay site are laughable at best, and certainly bear no origin in reality. Yes, the logging of flight time can be construed as compensation with respect to the limitations accorded a private pilot.

Only a fool and his money would invest in such a scam.

Forget all of that, I wouldn't invest my money in someone who spells commercial wrong.

 

[FN FAL]

The claims made on that ebay site are laughable at best, and certainly bear no origin in reality. Yes, the logging of flight time can be construed as compensation with respect to the limitations accorded a private pilot.

Only a fool and his money would invest in such a scam.

I didn't read the ad, but I would like to add that at the old drop zone I used to fly at, we have used private pilots to fly skydivers. This drop zone was a not for profit organization...a club.

I questioned them on the practice and the board of directors let me know that they had been in touch with FSDO on this. Here's the rub...even though we did students that paid for skydiving instruction, the plane ride was viewed as incidental to making a skydive. The jumpers weren't paying for a plane ride.

Also, they made it clear that as long as the private pilot was a memeber of the club, they could receive club credits for performing a club function. Just like the tandem jump master, the rigger, the parachute packer and the manifest lady.

Also, they made it clear that flight hours in this specific case, were not viewed as "compensation", as long as the sole purpose for the pilot being there wasn't to earn flight hours for further ratings or priviledges. I.E: articulate it the way you want to...just don't run up to a fed and say, "I'm building time for ratings and so there!"

This information might not be relevent to the ad that was posted on the link, but I thought it correlated to the conversation. You don't always have to be a commercial pilot...to do things that "look" commercial in nature.

My current drop zone is a commercial drop zone and the owner has insurance...the insurance companies regulate him more than the feds, so I would say the insurance company requires a commercial pilot as well as the feds in this operation. Also, at the club, we had hard time keeping the few private pilots that came out for training...they just weren't up to it. Same is said for several commercial pilots we sent packing...even some with ATP's.

 

[avbug]

Wow...bad advice received by the DZ...remember that the FSDO may not have sought enforcement action at the time, but the FSDO has no authority to interpret the regulation. Visit the following legal interpretation by the FAA Chief Legal Counsel on the subject of private pilots flying for compensation or hire, when not being paid. The mere logging of flight time by the private pilot is compensation, and in no way could anybody make an assertion with a straight face that the airplane ride to altitude is incidental to a skydive.


October 30, 1990

Ms. Judy Lincoln

Dear Ms. Lincoln:

This is in further response to your letter dated July 19, 1990, and follows the August 14, 1990, interim response of Mr. George Thompson, Assistant Chief Counsel of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Northwest Mountain Region. You asked for a clarification of several FAA opinions concerning whether private pilots may act as pilot in command of an aircraft towing gliders.

Based on your letter and a memorandum to our office from Mr. Thompson, we understand that in the specific circumstances applicable to the Soaring Society of America (SSA) no money is paid to the private pilot. However, the glider pilot does pay a tow fee to the glider club, which provides the tow aircraft without charge to the tow pilot.

The opinions at issue are:

1. Letter dated February 11, 1978, from Clark Onstad, Chief Counsel, to Mr. Forrest Blossom of SSA.

2. Memo dated February 22, 1978, from Jonathan Howe, Acting Chief Counsel, to AEA-7.

3. Letter dated April 5, 1978, from Edward Faberman, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division, to Mr. Leonard E. Samuelson, Jr.

4. Letter dated June 26, 1980, from William Sacrey, Chief, Operations Branch, to Ms. Loretta Belter.

5. Memo dated April 28, 1982, from Joseph Budro, Chief, Flight Standards Branch, to Chief, General Aviation and Commercial Division.

6. Memo dated May 1982 from Bernard Geier, Chief, General Aviation and Commercial Division, to Chief, Flight Standards Division.

Your concern, as outlined in your letter and the attached commentary, is that the 1978 opinions (Documents 1, 2 and 3 above) appear to support the position that the tow pilot under the circumstances described need not have a commercial pilot certificate, while Document No. 6 says that such operations would require a commercial pilot certificate. I believe that these two lines of opinions can be explained by reference to the specific sections of Section 61.118 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), (Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations), to which they apply.

Section 61.118 provides, in relevant part:

"Except as provided in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, a private pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may he, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft."

In this paragraph from Section 61.188 there are two distinct prohibitions that apply to a private pilot. The first prong of Section 61.118 says a private pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire. As the question arises in the glider context, the first issue to be addressed is whether an aircraft towing a glider is "carrying passengers or property."

Document No. 1, the Onstad letter, concluded (in paragraph 5) that "a glider and its occupants are not considered to be property or passengers that are being carried by the aircraft towing them." From this premise, it followed that a tow pilot with only a private pilot certificate would not be violating the first prong of Section 61.118. Once it was decided that the glider and its occupants were not property or passengers, the issue of compensation or hire became irrelevant to the first prong of 61.118.

The Documents cited above are consistent in supporting this conclusion. See, in addition to Document No. 1, No. 2 (paragraphs 3 and 4), and No. 3 (paragraph 3).

The second prong of Section 61.118 says that a private pilot may not, "for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft." There is no question that the pilot of the tow plane is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft. The issue is whether he is so acting "for compensation or hire." With regard to this second prong of Section 61.118, the agency has repeatedly taken the position that building up flight time is considered compensatory in nature when the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft and would, therefore, be deemed a form of "compensation" to the private pilot under Section 61.118.

Only one of the documents you enclosed with your letter squarely addresses this issue. In Document No. 6, paragraph 4, Bernard Geier noted
"that a private pilot may not serve as pilot in command of such an operation [towing gliders] even when he/she elects to forego actual monetary compensation for service as pilot in command since, as stated, the private pilot is rendering his/her services to build (flight) time. This act, within itself, constitutes an operation for gain or advantage, other than for transportation alone. As such, it would be considered an operation for compensation or hire."

In summary we are left with two conclusions that may seem contradictory as applied to the tow plane situation. On the one hand, there is the Onstad letter (Document No. 1) and others holding that since a glider and its occupants are not considered to be property or passengers that are being carried by the aircraft towing them, a private pilot may tow a glider without running afoul of the first prong of Section 61.118.

On the other hand, there is the conclusion of the Geier letter (Document No. 6) that building flight time by towing gliders is considered to be an operation for compensation or hire; thus a private pilot towing a glider would run afoul of the second prong of Section 61.118.

One explanation is that Mr. Onstad and the others who reached the same conclusion simply did not address the second prong of Section 61.118. It appears that Mr. Onstad skirted the issue when he noted that the tow plane pilot does not "receive any remuneration other than the eligibility of flying the tow plane." It is unclear what "eligibility" means in this context, but in any event Mr. Onstad did not directly address the question of building flight time in this letter. In the sixth paragraph of his letter, he took at face value SSA's statement that the pilot received no remuneration for his service, and did not consider whether building flight time was considered "compensation or hire."

That means the Onstad letter is correct as far as it goes, but is an incomplete analysis of the issues. To the extent that it was intended to address the second prong, or can be reasonably read to address the second prong, this opinion, not the Onstad letter, now controls.

It could be argued that the accumulation of flight time is not always of value to the pilot involved. The FAA does not consider it appropriate to enter into a case-by-case analysis to determine whether the logging of time is of value to a particular pilot, or what the pilot's motives or intentions are on each flight.

One solution to this problem would be for private tow plane pilots not to log their time, a practice which I understand the Palouse Soaring Society (PSS) pilots have already adopted (according to Mr. Thompson's August 14, 1990 letter to SSA. I gather that this is not a hardship, since, as you note in your commentary:

"In the case of the PSS each private rated tow pilot has already logged flight time in excess of the commercial pilot minimums noted in 61.129(b), and thus has no motive to `build flight time' towing gliders. If compensation, hire, gain or advantage were desired, any of these pilots could readily obtain his commercial pilot rating and find a more efficient means to `build flight time' ..."

Another alternative would be for the PSS pilots to obtain their commercial pilot ratings, which would resolve the Section 61.118 prohibitions concerning private pilots.

This interpretation has been coordinated with the General Aviation and Commercial Division of the Office of Flight Standards at FAA Headquarters. We hope that it satisfactorily responds to your inquiry.

Sincerely,
/s/
Donald P. Byrne
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division

 

[avbug]

In 1980, in Administrator v. Rimer, (3 NTSB 2306), a private pilot was found in violation of 14 CFR 61.113 for carrying parachute jumpers on four flights. In that particular case, he attempted to "share expenses and justify his act in that way, but the board feld that such a situation was restricted to a time "where the pilot is making the trip for his own purposes and others accompany him and share with the costs of transportation." In carriage of the jumpers, the NTSB held that there was no common purpose...in other words, the pilot wouldn't have been making the flight without the jumpers, and the jumpers wouldn't have been making the flight without the pilot. The NTSB held that the purpose of the skydivers was to skydive (imagine that), whereas the purpose of the pilot was to gain flight time.


IN 1997, in Administrator v. Rawlins, (EA-4583), a private pilot who flew skydivers for no charge received a 45 day suspension. In that case, jumpers paid the skydiving club for instruction. The NTSB determined that the flight was for compensation or hire, and noted that the pilot's logging of flight time is compensation.

Case law and legal opinion of the FAA chief Legal counsel does not support the position of your former drop zone, and advising anybody to follow that position puts those so advised in jeopardy. Be careful.

 

[FN FAL]

One, it says "glider pilot" payed a fee to the club. That's one thing...an FAA certificated glider pilot paid a club for services. That could be considered a commercial operation...maybe.

Two, it says...

The second prong of Section 61.118 says that a private pilot may not, "for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft." There is no question that the pilot of the tow plane is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft. The issue is whether he is so acting "for compensation or hire." With regard to this second prong of Section 61.118, the agency has repeatedly taken the position that building up flight time is considered compensatory in nature when the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft and would, therefore, be deemed a form of "compensation" to the private pilot under Section 61.118.

As I said before...the articulable reasons a private pilot may fly for a club, may be providing a club function. If the flight time is logged and used as time to get ratings, it's compensation. If a private pilot flies for the club because he's a club member...it's not articulated in the "second prong". A club member who is not acting as pilot in command for the purpose of building time, is not included in this second prong.

 

[avbug]

It further states:

It could be argued that the accumulation of flight time is not always of value to the pilot involved. The FAA does not consider it appropriate to enter into a case-by-case analysis to determine whether the logging of time is of value to a particular pilot, or what the pilot's motives or intentions are on each flight.

My second citation, Administrator v. Rawlins, which passed in 1997, addresses this issue. The specific circumstance involved a private pilot flying for a skydiving club in which he served the club. Case law supports my prior statements.

You're giving bad advice.

 

[FN FAL]

It further states:



My second citation, Administrator v. Rawlins, which passed in 1997, addresses this issue. The specific circumstance involved a private pilot flying for a skydiving club in which he served the club. Case law supports my prior statements.

You're giving bad advice.

That's what MKE FSDO told them. Not me. If the flight time is considered compensation, that is due to articulation.

One, I didn't hire the private pilots who acted as pilots for the club.

Two, the ones we had while I was there, didn't stay long.

IN 1997, in Administrator v. Rawlins, (EA-4583), a private pilot who flew skydivers for no charge received a 45 day suspension. In that case, jumpers paid the skydiving club for instruction. The NTSB determined that the flight was for compensation or hire, and noted that the pilot's logging of flight time is compensation.

Once again, "noted that the pilot's logging of flight time is compensation".

Why would a "club member" need to "log time"?

I think the "logging time" thing is the issue here. If you think it's wrong, take it up with MKE FSDO and the Wolf River Skydivers, out of Shiocton WI.

 

[FN FAL]

Hey, I just got up...and was reading this thing over again...was really too tanked up to be debating this issue last night.

So this letter you posted from the Administrator said...

In 1980, in Administrator v. Rimer, (3 NTSB 2306), a private pilot was found in violation of 14 CFR 61.113 for carrying parachute jumpers on four flights. In that particular case, he attempted to "share expenses and justify his act in that way, but the board feld that such a situation was restricted to a time "where the pilot is making the trip for his own purposes and others accompany him and share with the costs of transportation." In carriage of the jumpers, the NTSB held that there was no common purpose...in other words, the pilot wouldn't have been making the flight without the jumpers, and the jumpers wouldn't have been making the flight without the pilot. The NTSB held that the purpose of the skydivers was to skydive (imagine that), whereas the purpose of the pilot was to gain flight time.

• there was no club here and the pilot was not a member of the club, nor were the jumpers.
• the mission of the passengers/pilot was different? That's because his ruse was to split the cost of the flight time...you can only do that when everybody on board the plane is doing the same thing! You can't rent a seneca and take your friends, who have concert tickets to go see a concert, while you sit in the FBO and wait for them and call that splitting a rental either!
• flight time must have been a consideration to the pilot-or he wouldn't have elaborated this ruse.
• this guy nailed himself by complicating it too much with the cost sharing scheme...

How does that apply to a non-profit skydiving club that owns its own planes, when the private pilot flying the jumpers is a club member? It doesn't...the mission of the pilot and the mission of the jumpers is always different...it only matters when the pilot is splitting the costs of the plane operation with the passengers.

The above mentioned activity in the Administrator's letter would be a violation...logging the time and splitting the costs of the plane would be illegal.

 

[avbug]

There's no need to take it up with anyone...the matter is clearly established presently with the FAA Chief Legal Counsel and by prescedent by the National Transportation Safety Board, and Administrative Law Judges.

Again, weather the FSDO has any issues with it isn't really relevant, as the FSDO has no authority to interpret regulation...and the FAA Chief Legal Counsel has already provided the interpretation that disagrees with the actions of both the FSDO and the DZ. That no enforcement action took place is of no significance...one might as well put a gun to someone's temple and press the trigger, and when it fails to go off, say, "no harm, no foul. Good day." The act itself is not legal, and is not appropriate, and to hold it up on a public forum as a justifiable example is wrong.

Again,you're giving bad advice. The topic here is private pilots receiving compensation, and a private pilot flying for a paying enterprise, weather the private pilot gets paid or not, is not legal. The FAA Chief Legal Counsel stated that the position of the FAA (and by default, the FAA Adminstrator) is not to determine who is logging time and who is not, for compensation. If the jumpers paid for the training (and the ride to altitude...it's not a freebee, and it's not taking place if the jumpers don't jump), then the flight is being made for compensation or hire. Period. End of story.

That the private pilot makes no money on the affair is not relevant. That the private pilot doesn't get compensated, is not relevant. Even if the private pilot doesn't log the time, the flight still isn't legal.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

A private pilot may not act as PIC of an aircraft that is carrying passengers (or property) for compensation or hire. Paying passengers who have purchased jump instruction and arranged for instructors to jump with them, instructors who are being paid and by default who are paying (or whose ride is paid) for the airplane ride to altitude, need not compensate the pilot to violate 14 CFR 61.113(a). Further, the parachute equipment, containers, reserves, mains, harnesses...are rented gear, being flown to altitude for use, and in addition to the carriage of persons for hire, one is carrying property for hire...property which has no common purpose with the pilot's being there.

It's for this very purpose that the case citation in Administrator v. Rawlins, which I've provided you and referenced twice previously now, was decided. You needn't concern yourself with what the locals at the FSDO think or thought. The matter has been decided and settled, under almost identical circumstances to what you describe, at much higher levels within the Adminsitration. Further, the matter is fairly cut and dried, as well as decided.

Attempting to promote that idea here could cause someone foolish enough to believe you, or believe the idiot who posted that ad on ebay, to do something that might cause him or her to lose their pilot certificate. For the Sunday flyer, not big deal...a few days reprieve from the expense of flying. But for someone who intends to go on to build a career, a monumental damage to their future employability, all because you intend to defend a dead and foolish point based on the illegal actions of a rural skydiving club. Not a good stand to take.

If the flight time is considered compensation, that is due to articulation.

No, it's due to legal interpretation at the highest levels within the FAA, as well as case law. That aside, the matter still violates regulation, regardless of weather the private pilot is compensated, as we have already seen...if the flight is for compensation or hire, or if the aircraft carries passengers or property for compensation or hire, without any regard to the time the pilot logs or pay, renumeration, compensation, or even a warm feeling in his belly...the flight violates the tenets of 61.113. Period.

One, I didn't hire the private pilots who acted as pilots for the club.

What has that to do with the price of tea in China? Someone hired them, and you appear to be holding up their hiring and employment as pilots to be a legitimate act blessed by the FAA, when in fact it is not.

Two, the ones we had while I was there, didn't stay long.

Aah, so it was wrong, but it's made less wrong because they didn't do it for very long. Quite logical. Good grief.

Why would a "club member" need to "log time"?

Why would a burmese python need to knit burlap? Why would a housebrick need to eat Thai? Why would a donkey wear a kilt? What does being a "club member" have to do with "logging time?"

Pilots log time. Private pilots log time. Private pilots "build time" toward higher certification and ratings. The logging of that time has been held repeatedly to represent compensation in light of 61.113, and has been used repeatedly in enforcement action against private pilots. Club member or not. Being a member of the "club" doesn't alleviate the private pilot from the limitations of his certificate, or the need, desire, or value of logging flight time, and we have already seen that the FAA does not feel it incumbent to determine who does and who does not gain value from logging time...the application is a blanket one...the time is seen as having value, weather the individual sees it that way or not, and it's applied that way in enforcement action, by legal interpretation, and in case law.

However, weather the private pilot logs the time or not isn't necessary to indict...if the passengers on the flight have paid for themselves to be instructed and to receive a parachute jump, if they've rented the equipment, if they're employing the jumpmasters and instructors and photographers riding to altitude with them, "club" or not, then they are being carried for compensation or hire, and a private pilot may not be pilot in command of that flight, in accordance with 61.113. While the logging of flight time may certainly be used to convict, it isn't necessary. The flight is illegal from the outset. With respect to sealing fate during enforcement proceedings and the appeal process, adding the logging of flight time to the matter is only icing on the administrative cake.

I think the "logging time" thing is the issue here.

It's certainly *part* of the issue, isn't it?

It is, but only part. Now, getting back to your original comments, seeing as you want this to be an issue...

Also, they made it clear that as long as the private pilot was a memeber of the club, they could receive club credits for performing a club function. Just like the tandem jump master, the rigger, the parachute packer and the manifest lady.

There's a word for this. It's called COMPENSATION!!!

You don't always have to be a commercial pilot...to do things that "look" commercial in nature.

Yes, you really do.

I questioned them on the practice and the board of directors let me know that they had been in touch with FSDO on this.

So this is second hand information. Sort of like asking someone else if they preflighted your aircraft, or being asked to do something illegal and then being told "it's okay, I got permission for you." We call that an assumption, and it's not a healthy thing in aviation. You're passing on advice based on what you were told, second hand. Why?

Here's the rub...even though we did students that paid for skydiving instruction, the plane ride was viewed as incidental to making a skydive. The jumpers weren't paying for a plane ride.

I think we've fairly well established that as a falsehood...your board of directors might think otherwise, but the FAA Administrator and the NTSB disagree. Go figure.

 

[FN FAL]

Avbug, I also found this one as well.

NTSB Order No. EA-5051 Blakey v. Blake 2003

At:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...PDF+Administrator+v.+Rawlins+(EA-4583)+&hl=en

According to testimony of a former employee, Mr. Adrian May, the aircraft was owned by Bruce Deville, the president of S’port City and also the local fixed base operator.

Respondent had become a commercial pilot certificate holder by the time of the hearing. The 150-day suspension was imposed upon that pilot certificate. 6Respondent testified that prior to the flight he looked at the parachute packing records for the parachute pack worn by Mr. Fisher.

He also testified that before the accident flight, he asked Mr. Bruce Deville, the owner of the parachute (and a certified parachute rigger), whether all of the parachutes being utilized were “ready to go,” and that Mr. Deville assured him that they were.

Here's another private pilot flying jumpers, not only that, but the private pilot is hanging because the jumper had an expired re-pack card in his reserve. Tsk tsk tsk!

If you carefully read Blakey v. Blake, you'll see that what got this private pilot in hot water, was the ruse of splitting costs and the fact that the club rented a plane from one of the club members...who incidentally was the owner of an FBO. The plane was not the clubs.

I'm surprised you didn't find this one?

I read that one responders post on Ipilot.com, he said something wrong in his reply...he said something to the effect "that because the time was available to be logged". That's wrong...receiving compensation hinges on the receiving...not the availability. Receiving would be proven by logging.

If you are a club member and you are a private pilot and you don't log the time, you can fly that club owned plane...for club purposes. "Availability", as your friend said, is not the same as receiving...any lawyer could punch holes in the "availability" to log hours as being the same as compensation.

I think the only reason Blakey v. Blake exists, is because there was a death and there was an expired reserve parachute and there was problem with legitimacy of the not-for-profit corporation using a rental plane from one of it's own members.

Otherwise, the feds would have issued an emergency order for all skydiving clubs to cease operating, especially when they know that non-club members jump there and pay money, those non-club member students come out and make one jump and pay the club and leave. If you narrowly construct Blakey v. Blake, you would be able to say that skydiving clubs cannot accept money from outsiders who come there to make a jump and pay cash.

I have been on the property when fsdo comes around...they know the club accepts money from strangers and takes them up jumping once. So why didn't they shut em down?

 

[avbug]

Amazingly, you continue to propogate this falsehood and then defend it. I find that truly increadible.

The case you cited indicates that the private pilot did in face suffer a certificate suspension. That the suspension wasn't for flying jumpers on his private certificate is irrelevant...it's just that the Adminsitrator chose to prosecute for a different violation. You cannot hold up as correct a case in which someone didn't get prosecuted...it doesn't work that way. Merely because you get away with something does NOT justify it.

Likewise, that your skydiving club didn't get hung for what they were doing does NOT, repeat NOT justify it, nor make it legal.

You apparently failed to read three citations of the same case, Administrator v. Rawlins, a recent one, in which the private pilot WAS flying for a jump club. Again, go figure. That has been given you three times now. Three times.

Make it four, with this post.

You're giving bad advice. Very, very poor advice. Hopefully an otherwise ignorant private pilot won't read your advice believe it, and suffer the consequences for his ignorance. You need to stop, learn a little more about the topic and the consequences of failure to observe the regulation, stop promulgating your advice based on the concept that someone didn't get busted, so therefore it's okay.

Garbage flying goes on all the time, and folks don't get caught. Even 135 operators regularly get away with all sorts of trash...this still doesn't make it legal or right, nor does it justify the act. Further, attempting to counsel someone that this is okay is borderline criminal, and certainly lacking on moral grounds.

Telling folks they can fly a commercial operation on a private pilot certificate is talking trash.

Telling folks, "You don't always have to be a commercial pilot...to do things that "look" commercial in nature," is talking trash. It's not a responsible, professional act. Really, it puts you in the same league as the individual who placed that ad on ebay.

 

[FN FAL]

There's no need to take it up with anyone...the matter is clearly established presently with the FAA Chief Legal Counsel and by prescedent by the National Transportation Safety Board, and Administrative Law Judges.

No it isn't, clear...you just keep attaching meaning to bits and pieces.

Again,you're giving bad advice. The topic here is private pilots receiving compensation, and a private pilot flying for a paying enterprise, weather the private pilot gets paid or not, is not legal. The FAA Chief Legal Counsel stated that the position of the FAA (and by default, the FAA Adminstrator) is not to determine who is logging time and who is not, for compensation. If the jumpers paid for the training (and the ride to altitude...it's not a freebee, and it's not taking place if the jumpers don't jump), then the flight is being made for compensation or hire. Period. End of story.

That is so bogus...clubs can charge money to recoup their costs, even the feds know that airplane operation is not free. And you're using the word "receiving compensation". A club member, who is a private pilot...can operate the plane without receiving compensation.

That the private pilot makes no money on the affair is not relevant. That the private pilot doesn't get compensated, is not relevant. Even if the private pilot doesn't log the time, the flight still isn't legal.

Narrow construction again. You keep leaving out the pilot being a club member part. It's relevent. It's all relevent when the pilot is a member of the club and the status of the not-for-profit club is not being challenged.

A private pilot may not act as PIC of an aircraft that is carrying passengers (or property) for compensation or hire. Paying passengers who have purchased jump instruction and arranged for instructors to jump with them, instructors who are being paid and by default who are paying (or whose ride is paid) for the airplane ride to altitude, need not compensate the pilot to violate 14 CFR 61.113(a). Further, the parachute equipment, containers, reserves, mains, harnesses...are rented gear, being flown to altitude for use, and in addition to the carriage of persons for hire, one is carrying property for hire...property which has no common purpose with the pilot's being there.

more narrow construction...and you're making things up now, the common purpose thing only articulates it self into this conversation when there is "cost sharing" involved. And you are trying to articlate that jumper gear is rented? It wasn't rented...its club gear, duhhhhh and it's incidental and required equipment to making a skydive.

It's for this very purpose that the case citation in Administrator v. Rawlins, which I've provided you and referenced twice previously now, was decided. You needn't concern yourself with what the locals at the FSDO think or thought. The matter has been decided and settled, under almost identical circumstances to what you describe, at much higher levels within the Adminsitration. Further, the matter is fairly cut and dried, as well as decided.

No it isn't...cut and dried...or they would be shutting skydiving clubs down all over america.

Attempting to promote that idea here could cause someone foolish enough to believe you, or believe the idiot who posted that ad on ebay, to do something that might cause him or her to lose their pilot certificate. For the Sunday flyer, not big deal...a few days reprieve from the expense of flying. But for someone who intends to go on to build a career, a monumental damage to their future employability, all because you intend to defend a dead and foolish point based on the illegal actions of a rural skydiving club. Not a good stand to take.Someone who intends to use the logged flight time...to build a career!??????? Hahaha, you just busted yourself on this whole matter...intent to build a career by using logged flight time while acting as a private pilot for compensation while flying jumpers? That is the crux of this biscuit. Intent to build a career and logging flight time as compensation...duhhh! Intent to build a career...keep twisting the argument around.

No, it's due to legal interpretation at the highest levels within the FAA, as well as case law. That aside, the matter still violates regulation, regardless of weather the private pilot is compensated, as we have already seen...if the flight is for compensation or hire, or if the aircraft carries passengers or property for compensation or hire, without any regard to the time the pilot logs or pay, renumeration, compensation, or even a warm feeling in his belly...the flight violates the tenets of 61.113. Period.

You keep saying ignore the FSDO, really. Wouldn't they be the ones investigating this?

Now that the administrator has made not-for-profit skydiving clubs illegal, then I guess the federales must be feather bedding again...they got a lot of work to do, gotta go and shut down all those not-for-profit corporations.

Someone hired them, and you appear to be holding up their hiring and employment as pilots to be a legitimate act blessed by the FAA, when in fact it is not.

I didn't hire them...they were club members. Now you're twisting words again...tsk tsk tsk. They weren't employees. Why don't you cite violations of the tax laws while you're at it...you can't, it's a not-for-profit club. Nobody HIRED nobody.

Why would a burmese python need to knit burlap? Why would a housebrick need to eat Thai? Why would a donkey wear a kilt? What does being a "club member" have to do with "logging time?"

mincing words again, in your narrow constuction of what is receiving and what isn't. If a club member is flying for the club, he only needs to show a log book that has met currency requirements...he is not required to log the time he flies.

Pilots log time. Private pilots log time. Private pilots "build time" toward higher certification and ratings. The logging of that time has been held repeatedly to represent compensation in light of 61.113, and has been used repeatedly in enforcement action against private pilots. Club member or not. Being a member of the "club" doesn't alleviate the private pilot from the limitations of his certificate, or the need, desire, or value of logging flight time, and we have already seen that the FAA does not feel it incumbent to determine who does and who does not gain value from logging time...the application is a blanket one...the time is seen as having value, weather the individual sees it that way or not, and it's applied that way in enforcement action, by legal interpretation, and in case law.

more narrow construction...and deceptive articulation.

However, weather(you can't fly jumpers in IFR dude! Know the fars before you bring weather into this conversation!) the private pilot logs the time or not isn't necessary to indict...if the passengers on the flight have paid for themselves to be instructed and to receive a parachute jump, if they've rented the equipment, if they're employing the jumpmasters and instructors and photographers riding to altitude with them, "club" or not, then they are being carried for compensation or hire, and a private pilot may not be pilot in command of that flight, in accordance with 61.113. While the logging of flight time may certainly be used to convict, it isn't necessary. The flight is illegal from the outset. With respect to sealing fate during enforcement proceedings and the appeal process, adding the logging of flight time to the matter is only icing on the administrative cake.

The club is allowed to be compensated for wear and tear on the equipment and wear and tear on the airplanes...that is why the club is incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation. More narrow construction and twisted articulation.

So this is second hand information. Sort of like asking someone else if they preflighted your aircraft, or being asked to do something illegal and then being told "it's okay, I got permission for you." We call that an assumption, and it's not a healthy thing in aviation. You're passing on advice based on what you were told, second hand.

Eh, I was never even remotely in violation, why would I care. I asked the question myself, when they utilized private pilot clubmembers to fly the planes, they gave an answer. Once again, you're attacking me for this? It was my concern for the private pilot that was flying as a club member that asked and received and answer from management. My curiosity was quenched...after that, it was him, him, fk him! if the private pilot was satisfied, the club was satisfied...who care's? no sweat off of my baggage. You think I was going to start a million man march to DC to protest what management at the drop zone said?

I think we've fairly well established that as a falsehood...your board of directors might think otherwise, but the FAA Administrator and the NTSB disagree. Go figure.

you've established that if a not-for-profit club is not operating truly as a not-for-profit organization, then the status of that organization can be challenged. You've established that a private pilot who is not a club member, can be violated for FAR violations. You've established that people who rent planes and share costs when the pilot's mission and the passenger's mission is different, violate far's.

 

[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.