CFI or Contract Pilot

butt said:
but like I said before, it was told to me by a DPE.
Click to expand...
The point being?

How on earth is a court of law going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
Click to expand...
Where did you get the idea that there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Or a court of law? This isn't a criminal case. A certificate action is an administrative proceeding in which the FAA's burden of proof is to produce "substantial evidence" (technically meaning "any reasonable evidence" but in application more like "just about any evidence") that the ALJ, who in most cases is inclined to accept the FAA's version rather than the pilot's, chooses to believe.

If the pilot had truly intended to stop at Myrtle Beach to get gas and look around on the way to Tampa bay, would the charter still be illegal?
Click to expand...
As I said before, I think these things are very fact-intensive, but yes, this looks a lot like a duck to me. Where's your shared purpose? Sounds like his purpose was golf for the weekend in Myrtle Beach. Yours was to stop on the way to your intended destination to buy gas.

But, that aside, I did notice that =you= are the one using the word "charter" to describe it. Or should I say "duck."
 
butt said:
How on earth is a court of law going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you got the idea to go there the day before or the day after the passenger approached you? There is absolutly no way. I was told that as long as you land at Myrtle Beach first and spend some time there, it's enough to show to a judge that the stop was part of your intended trip. I don't have an FAA source on any of this, but like I said before, it was told to me by a DPE.
Click to expand...

Ahh. You think you get to see a court of law if the FAA comes after your ticket. You don't. Here's how it works:

After the FAA gets words of your misdeeds, it (the FAA) investigates, decides whether you violated a regulation and what your punishment will be (it is judge, jury and executioner). If you don't like the punishment levied by the FAA, you have the right to appeal to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Although that sounds sort of like a court of law, it isn't. The ALJ is an executive branch position, in this case employed by the NTSB.

The ALJ may hold an evidentiary hearing as a part of your appeal, but the FAA will not be required to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt." The FAA need only establish its case by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) and the initial judgment of the FAA will be given signficant deference and generally will be upheld if supported by any evidence (and at least one court has indicated that the FAA's reasonable interpretations of its own regulations are dispositive).

If you don't like the decision of the ALJ, you have the right to appeal to the full NTSB, but since the NTSB has better things to do, is not particularly inclined to reverse its own staff (ALJ works for NTSB, remember) and doesn't have any incentive to annoy the FAA, you will probably lose.

Now you finally get to go to a court of law. Sort of. Your right of appeal from the NTSB is not to a district court, but to one of 12 federal circuit courts of appeal, which, like the NTSB, have much better things to do. Further, at this point there is a clear bias in favor of upholding the decisions of the FAA/NTSB. So you will, in all likelihood, lose your appeal. Although you technically can then appeal to the Supreme Court, I'm not aware that the Supreme Court has ever taken a case involving an appeal from an FAA administrative license action.

So, still feel like you want to push the limits with the FAA?
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
The point being?
Click to expand...
DPE's usually know what they are talking about.
Where did you get the idea that there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Or a court of law? This isn't a criminal case. A certificate action is an administrative proceeding in which the FAA's burden of proof is to produce "substantial evidence" (technically meaning "any reasonable evidence" but in application more like "just about any evidence") that the ALJ, who in most cases is inclined to accept the FAA's version rather than the pilot's, chooses to believe.
Click to expand...

"Reasonable doubt", "preponderance of the evidence ", same thing... You still have to prove your case to a judge.

As I said before, I think these things are very fact-intensive, but yes, this looks a lot like a duck to me. Where's your shared purpose? Sounds like his purpose was golf for the weekend in Myrtle Beach. Yours was to stop on the way to your intended destination to buy gas.
Click to expand...

Where do you get "shared purpose"? Where does it say the pilot and any passengers have to have the same purpose for it to not be an illegal charter?

My father flew my mother and her mother to Niagara Falls a few months ago. My father's main reason for the flight was to just go flying. My mother and grandmother's reason for going was to see the falls. Since those are two different purposes, are you saying this was an illegal charter?

What if the pilot in my example had truly intended to stay and golf with the other guy at Myrtle Beach, but certain circumstances came about, and he had to leave. Would it still be illegal?

But, that aside, I did notice that =you= are the one using the word "charter" to describe it. Or should I say "duck."
Click to expand...

What word do you want me to use then? "Passenger carrying trip"?
 
butt said:
Where do you get "shared purpose"? Where does it say the pilot and any passengers have to have the same purpose for it to not be an illegal charter?
Click to expand...
FAA Legal opinions and NTSB case law consistently saying so over the past 30 years or so.

Like,

==============================
Section 61.118(b) [same reg, earlier numbering] allows a private pilot to share the operating expenses of a flight with his or her passengers. Additionally, the FAA has interpreted 61.118(b) so that the only allowable share-the-costs operations are those which are bona fide, that is, joint ventures for a common purpose with the expenses being defrayed by all passengers and the pilot. - 1985 Legal Opinion
==============================

or, one of my favorites, from 1977, involving a a "no" answer to a pilot who wanted to transport a candidate he wanted to help win for a share of the expenses
==============================
it is not a joint venture (you are not running for office)
==============================

Or, maybe you want one a little more current. How about this from a 1994 NTSB decision upholding a 45 day suspension of a commercial pilot certificate for transpoting TV crew:

==============================
Part 135 compensation or hire . There is a clear public interest in ensuring that only properly certificated commercial operators perform commercial services. Administrator v. Carter , NTSB Order EA-3730 (1992). Although an exception has been created to permit certain operations under Part 91, where passengers contribute to the flight cost, to be performed without compliance with the stringent training and proficiency rules of Part 135, that exception is a narrow one. Otherwise, stricter rules in Part 135 (concerning for-hire operations generally in smaller aircraft) apply. See 49 C.F.R. 135.1 and Administrator v. Sabar , 3 NTSB 3119, 3120 (1980). Expenses may be shared only where the pilot and the passengers share a common purpose in the flight. Notably relevant here, in Administrator v. Reimer , 3 NTSB 2306 (1980), we found that there was no common purpose in a pilot sharing expenses with passengers, when the pilot's purpose was to gain flight time and the passengers' purpose was to skydive.
==============================

BTW, in that case, there were two pilots who were violated. One of them claimed that he didn't know the other pilot had an arrangement with the TV crew. He claimed he was a CFI and was just giving flight instruction to the other pilot. Funny. Isn't that where we started?

Here's that last case: http://ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4306.PDF You might even see just how hard it is to prove one of these. I have no doubt that you can read it and find 20 reasons why it wouldn't apply to =you=. But then, I'll leave it to you to find 20 other times where the NTSB or FAA Legal upheld the exact same principle.


Funny that your DPE didn't mention those or the many more like them.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
FAA Legal opinions and NTSB case law consistently saying so over the past 30 years or so.
Click to expand...

Lets say two pilots rent a C-152 each pay half. During the flight, they trade off being under the hood while the other one is safety pilot. Would you say they are not sharing a common purpose if one was trying to get hood time for 135 minimums, while the other one was trying to build hood time for his instrument rating?

In my example, the way I see it, there are two people who are flying for the purpose of traveling to Florida.
 
butt said:
My father flew my mother and her mother to Niagara Falls a few months ago. My father's main reason for the flight was to just go flying. My mother and grandmother's reason for going was to see the falls. Since those are two different purposes, are you saying this was an illegal charter?
Click to expand...

certainly a private pilot may rent an airplane to fly family members, or use his own airplane, whichever it was in this case. this has absolutely nothing to do with charter or commercial flying.

butt..it's just my opinion, but were you to spend half the time that you appear to spend on here trying to genuinely understand operating rules, further your own aeronautical knowledge and assist others - as i believe you purport yourself to be a flight instructor - instead of constantly challenging almost anyone and everyone who posts, and going well out of your way to seek 'loopholes' and any possible 'shade of gray' in the cfr's, that you'd become a far better aviator. we're all here to share information and experiences in just such a pursuit. i've been on this forum about two months,and spend most of my time exchanging information on the cfi corner. the timbre of your posts were quickly noted with an attitude which smacks of sheer anti-authority. if your sights are set on part135/121 flying, this mind-set doesn't carry one very far. you have a good mind..perhaps put it to more productive use for yourself and the community. the advice is free. :bandit:
 
exleardriver said:
butt..it's just my opinion, but were you to spend half the time that you appear to spend on here trying to genuinely understand operating rules, further your own aeronautical knowledge and assist others - as i believe you purport yourself to be a flight instructor - instead of constantly challenging almost anyone and everyone who posts, and going well out of your way to seek 'loopholes' and any possible 'shade of gray' in the cfr's, that you'd become a far better aviator. we're all here to share information and experiences in just such a pursuit. i've been on this forum about two months,and spend most of my time exchanging information on the cfi corner. the timbre of your posts were quickly noted with an attitude which smacks of sheer anti-authority. if your sights are set on part135/121 flying, this mind-set doesn't carry one very far. you have a good mind..perhaps put it to more productive use for yourself and the community. the advice is free. :bandit:
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

falls on deaf ears...... :panic:
 
butt said:
Lets say two pilots rent a C-152 each pay half. During the flight, they trade off being under the hood while the other one is safety pilot. Would you say they are not sharing a common purpose if one was trying to get hood time for 135 minimums, while the other one was trying to build hood time for his instrument rating?

In my example, the way I see it, there are two people who are flying for the purpose of traveling to Florida.
Click to expand...
So you really don't see the difference between two pilots sharing flight time and charging someone for what you referred to as a charter flight so that Joe Blow can join his buddies (not you) on a golf trip?

You're so funny. Some might even say a troll. Like I said, I really want to be there if you ever have to express those views in response to a certificate action.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
So you really don't see the difference between two pilots sharing flight time and charging someone for what you referred to as a charter flight so that Joe Blow can join his buddies (not you) on a golf trip?
Click to expand...

Legally, no. According to you, the two pilots have to have the same "shared purpose" for the flight to not be illegal. I was asking you to define what exactly you meant by "shared purpose".

You're saying two pilots sharing flight time for different flight requirements is indeed "shared purpose", yet two pilots sharing a flight for the purpose of golfing at two different locations is not "shared purpose"? The point I'm trying to make is that this "shared purpose" thing is kind of worthless unless there is a clear definition of the term.

You're so funny. Some might even say a troll. Like I said, I really want to be there if you ever have to express those views in response to a certificate action.
Click to expand...

Every law has a beginning, and an end. For every operation that exists (especially complex ones like chartering flights), it's possible to define exactly what to do to be legal and what it takes to be illegal. I believe it's important to know exactly where these boundaries are.

Round these parts I've noticed a trend where people think it's OK to just "add to the margins" so to speak. Theres nothing wrong with that, I guess, but that doesn't change the boundaries of the law in any way.

A lot of people here I feel have the mentality that "The laws relating to charter flights is so complicated, I don't carry anybody on my flights just to be safe". Maybe not to that extent, but what they do is instead of trying to understand the law throughly, they err on the safe side. Thats fine and all, but it's the easy way out.
 
exleardriver said:
instead of constantly challenging almost anyone and everyone who posts, and going well out of your way to seek 'loopholes' and any possible 'shade of gray' in the cfr's, that you'd become a far better aviator.
Click to expand...
You're saying if I just stop trying to learn about where the regulations begin and end, I'll be a better aviator...
 
butt said:
what they do is instead of trying to understand the law throughly, they err on the safe side. Thats fine and all, but it's the easy way out.
Click to expand...

the 'trick' to flying is in large part learning how to manage risk. again, it's my opinion that you present a dangerous pilot attitude, perhaps the type that must learn things the 'hard way'. you don't handle the taking of experienced advice well, preferring to push the envelope. i hope this attitude doesn't ever make you - or your passengers - a statistic. you want to be the 'maverick' pilot on this board and in your aviation community? that's clear enough. those of us old enough to know better, probably flying as long as you've been alive, shake our heads. one of you always comes along with the idea that 'they' can 're-mold' aviation to suit their purposes..smarter than all of us other dumb 'heads in the sand' pilots. think i haven't heard all of this 'what if this, what if that?' gobbledygook before? just keep in mind, 'there are old pilots, there are bold pilots..but there are no old, bold pilots..' :bandit:
 
exleardriver said:
the 'trick' to flying is in large part learning how to manage risk. again, it's my opinion that you present a dangerous pilot attitude, perhaps the type that must learn things the 'hard way'. you don't handle the taking of experienced advice well, preferring to push the envelope. i hope this attitude doesn't ever make you - or your passengers - a statistic. you want to be the 'maverick' pilot on this board and in your aviation community? that's clear enough. those of us old enough to know better, probably flying as long as you've been alive, shake our heads. one of you always comes along with the idea that 'they' can 're-mold' aviation to suit their purposes..smarter than all of us other dumb 'heads in the sand' pilots. think i haven't heard all of this 'what if this, what if that?' gobbledygook before? just keep in mind, 'there are old pilots, there are bold pilots..but there are no old, bold pilots..' :bandit:
Click to expand...

OK you are presuming way too much. How do you get all of this based on a few paragraphs I have posted on the internet about charter flights? When have I said I take illegal charters? When have I admitted to doing any of the things I talk about? I'm playing devils advocate here. It's a role essential to learning, but many wouldn't dream playing because of the stigma related to being "against safety".

If you never question where the boundaries are, then how on earth are you going to know where they are? Do you believe the boundaries of law and safety are irrelevant? You call it anti-authority, but I call it not sitting back doing nothing while more experienced people tell me I can't do things I really can.
 
Ahhh, Butt I see you're still making friends around here. It's amazing how many people you've been in these discussions with. At first, I thought it was just Chris Ford creating an alter ego, but he actually made some good points. I have yet to see you make any sense in any of your statements. There are so many contradicting statements in your posts in this thread alone, it's sad!!

As always, entertaining...not very educational except the people wasting their time trying to educate you, though.:banghead::banghead:

To the rest of you, good luck!!!:panic::D
 
butt said:
why don't you try pointing out some of these "contradicting statements" to me?
Click to expand...
Okay, "contradicting statements" was the wrong term...how about fishing for anything to fit your agenda. All of your scenarios were trying to prove your point, in a horrible way. Your dad on a personal flight being a charter...come on. Seriously?!:banghead: Good luck in this career. You're going to be "that guy"....:D
 
Butt's attitude is... "I'm going to do it this way, it's legal prove me wrong".
And when nearly every person does he screams everything except "nuh uh".
 
butt said:
For every operation that exists (especially complex ones like chartering flights), it's possible to define exactly what to do to be legal and what it takes to be illegal. I believe it's important to know exactly where these boundaries are.
Click to expand...
This isn't really for you. It's for those who are interested in a broader explanation.

In this area those exact boundaries are not there. There are things that are clearly okay; there are things that are clearly against the rules. But there is 10 mile wide border between the , not a bright clear line. We're dealing with a mixed area of law and policy. This is an area where folks have =always= tried to find the boundary you are looking for in an effort to make the duck look like a fish. They try to say (much as you have), "I know it looks like a charter, walks like a charter, and quacks like a charter, but if I just stop for gas at the passenger's destination, it's not a charter." Doesn't work because, after all, it =is= a charter.

Heck, =you= called it a charter. You know exactly what it is. Then you tried to find some other phrase. "Passenger carrying trip" was the best you could come up with. Yep, that describes it also - a trip carrying a passenger for which you got paid. If this was not a charter, the description would be easy. "I went with my friend (on a golf trip) (scuba diving) (to the beach) (for a $100 hamburger) (to a business meeting) and we took my airplane and shared the expenses."

But that's not what it is. And you know it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top