Another professional integrity scenario....
- Thread starter flyinguitar
- Start date
BravoHotel
Well-Known Member
Yup. Can't buy groceries with a log book entry. I had this debate with the first drop-zone I ever flew for.
Ajax
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If they (the FAA) were even able to defend it, which is doubtful I think considering the example of "I worked for five hours my pay was working five hours"' when does it stop?
Say I let my medical run to the 3rd class privileges, a friend asks me to fly his 172 somewhere to pick him up, how on earth is an hour or so of 172 time compensatory for a 121 pilot? If I did tl log it would it still be compensation?
I don't. But because the feds do, so do some operators.
wbauman1217
Well-Known Member
I think it's legal to do flights for free, but at the point where you log it, THEN it becomes compensation. Total BS. There's no way that would hold up in court. If they tried to violate you for doing a free flight (which you shouldn't do anyway) on a 3rd class medical I believe you could find plenty of lawyers to take up your case, and win.
JeppUpdater
Well-Known Member
It's your logbook - log what you want. I read one of those legal interpretations last night and the wording in it was to he effect that flight time could be used toward gaining a rating, and therefore was advantageous and a compensation to the pilot. If I have an unrestricted ATP ASEL/AMEL, logging some 172 time isn't going to help me toward a rating (unless there's floats hanging off the bottom of course...I wish).
My opinion is the reason the Feds are all hard up on this is because some students and lower time pilots are tripping over themselves to find any way possible to squeeze an hour of time out of whatever grey area they can find.
My opinion is the reason the Feds are all hard up on this is because some students and lower time pilots are tripping over themselves to find any way possible to squeeze an hour of time out of whatever grey area they can find.
guywhoflies
Y'NO WUT IM SAYIN
Here are one of the interpretations that Stomp16 posted:
Letter of Interpretation from 1997
"In determining what is considered compensation,it has been the FAA's long-standing policy to define
compensation in very broad terms. For example, any reimbursement of expenses (fuel, oil, transportation, lodging,
meals,etc.), if conditioned upon the pilot operating the aircraft, would constitute compensation. In addition, the
building up of flight time may be compensatory in nature if the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating
the aircraft. While 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."
I completely agree with you that if you have nothing to gain from the flight in terms of flight time it is BS for the FAA to say you are being compensated. I think this is where a pilot with an ATP could go after the FAA and have a leg to stand on.
A free flight to pay for an attorney? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.