A question...

[bLizZuE]

Ok, in the first paragraph, you say you can carry tools or equipment for your personal use. Do you mean that you can carry tools that your employer provides to do your job? If it's personal use, does that mean you don't use it except for you and not your job?

In the last paragraph, you say the opposite. You say "provided I do not carry passengers or property." Which do you mean? You've said both sides in these two statements.

I'm starting to think you're having a hard time understanding.
Carrying property for someone else, not OK. Carrying your own property, OK. Regardless of who owns the property. Provided you're not carrying/transporting/whatever property for someone else.

I would be careful to say you're "more informed" unless you can provide where you've done research they haven't

I was being facetious. Although I will argue that I have a better working knowledge.

It is unclear. I think it is ludicrous to have the language in the reg to allow a private pilot to operate an aircraft for compensation and then strip out any circumstance where it's actually useful.

If my interpretation is correct, that doesn't completely 'strip' it of usefulness. You just can't carry passengers or property

 

[bLizZuE]

In regard to whether you may seek reimbursement from your employer for transporting your
colleagues, since you are transporting people to the meeting, the allowance for the flight to
be conducted for compensation or hire (i.e., reimbursement) under 61.113(b) does not apply.
The exception in paragraph (b) allows you to use your private pilot certificate only for
compensation or hire if the operation is incidental to your employment and you are not
transporting other passengers or property. Thus, because you are transporting people to the
meeting, you may not seek reimbursement from your employer for this flight under 14
C.F.R. § 61.113(b).

I just wanted to point that out from the letter posted earlier in the thread. Which confirms my interpretation.

 

[msmspilot]

I'm starting to think you're having a hard time understanding.
Carrying property for someone else, not OK. Carrying your own property, OK. Regardless of who owns the property. Provided you're not carrying/transporting/whatever property for someone else.


I was being facetious. Although I will argue that I have a better working knowledge.



If my interpretation is correct, that doesn't completely 'strip' it of usefulness. You just can't carry passengers or property

I understand. What I don't understand is how one situation is ok and the other not when they're in the same freaking sentence in the regulation. If you can't carry passengers, HOW can you carry property? The reg says "passengers or property." If it's one, then it's also the other.

What situation could you possibly use this given your interpretation?

I just wanted to point that out from the letter posted earlier in the thread. Which confirms my interpretation.

I have already acknowledged that letter TWICE.

 

[bLizZuE]

I understand. What I don't understand is how one situation is ok and the other not when they're in the same freaking sentence in the regulation. If you can't carry passengers, HOW can you carry property? The reg says "passengers or property." If it's one, then it's also the other.

Because if it belongs to you, and you're not transporting it for someone else, then you're not carrying 'property'.

 

[msmspilot]

Because if it belongs to you, and you're not transporting it for someone else, then you're not carrying 'property'.

I am carrying property. I'm just not carrying property for compensation or hire. Reading comprehension here.

And if that's ok, why can't I take my wife? She's not being transported "for hire."

 

[bLizZuE]

You need a whole new interpretation letter then to define 'property'. You seem to have a different idea from the FAA on what is deemed 'property'.

You can't take your wife because the FAA stated per 61.113, you can't.

 

[msmspilot]

You need a whole new interpretation letter then to define 'property'. You seem to have a different idea from the FAA on what is deemed 'property'.

You can't take your wife because the FAA stated per 61.113, you can't.

No, the letter says I can't transport people "to the meeting." My wife isn't going to the meeting.

Property is defined as "something owned; any tangible or intangible possession that is owned by someone"

Barring the FAA redefining it in the regulations, that's what a reasonable person would go with. Since "passengers or property" are listed side by side, I have to interpret the regulation as applying equally to both.

The FAA hasn't defined property, and they do equate passengers and property in 61.113. So if you can't have another soul in the airplane, you can't have property in the airplane.

I would still like to see a scenario, which follows your rules, that's legal under this regulation. But, since I'm apparently too stupid for this one, I'm out.

 

[bLizZuE]

Again, the FAA didn't care that the colleague was going to the meeting, they only stipulated that you couldn't carry passengers.

I think you're just over thinking this property thing.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I understand that logic. But it still doesn't answer my question. If I can carry equipment (that I personally am going to need to do the job my employer hired me to do) then how am I not violating the "carry property for compensation or hire" clause?

The distinction is between cargo and what you use to do your job.

No, you're not carrying property for compensations because you are wearing clothes.

Yeah, you can find situations where the distinction is not all that clear. Even reasonable ones. But in most cases it is (unless of course you don't want it to be so you can support an argument) and, where it's not, you get to the duck test.