Picture this (related)

NYCDooDahMan

NYCDooDahMan

New Member
OK, after that lengthy discussion.

What if I am private pilot, and my CFI makes these fliers and advertises sight seeing tours. Then he and I go in the plane with the tourists and I am the PIC the whole time? Would that be allowed?

Technically they're paying him for his services, I happen to be there as a student observing him and he gives let me be in commmand, could those be logged as legitimate hours?
 
No.


Look, you can log anything you want. If someone wanted to they could fill up an entire logbook with false entries. The question is; are those entries valid and or will they bring the FAA down on you. If youstart going around entering "Parker Pen Time" or printing up flyers for services you or your CFi are not legally able to provide the FAA is going to come down on you like a <font color="red">hang-gliding elephant</font>.
 
Long story short is if you have to find a way to bend the rules to get hours it's probably not legal. It's like trying to find ways to make money without working; it does not work.
 
You definitely need to look at joining the Libertarian party. No income taxes and no government regulation. You could start your airline and wouldn't even need a pilot's license.

Dave
smile.gif
 
Here's one some guys (private pilots) I knew tried.

They went on a "vacation" to a South American country. Hating all the "hassle" of rules they didn't file flight plans or clear customs or immigration either direction.

While there they took advantage of low local prices to purchase a large quantity of recreational drugs. Then they decided to fly home staying really low to "look at the fish".

After returning they realized they had way way too much and sold most of it to other drug users.

Since they more than covered their expenses was this a legal operation under FARs? (They only flew low over unpopulated areas).

Dave
 
A million times NO.

Dude, if you get called into the FSDO to discuss your scheme and can't hold a straight face, chances are it's not too legal.
 
NYCDooDah...just remember one thing...the advice you get is often worth exactly what you pay for it.

I'd suggest calling a tech specialist at AOPA with these questions (you're paying for it with your AOPA membership). If their answers aren't satisfactory, then hire the AOPA attorneys independenty (Yodice &amp; Associates here in DC). Get a written opinion letter from them.
 
Dude, seriously, WTFO? When a retired airline pilot, an active airline pilot, and several other pilots of various ratings and experiences all agree and are saying not to do something – it really doesn't matter if the advice is free or not ... it's what they call in the police world a clue.
 
Well let's look at the extremes.

Say you wrecked the aircraft. Now the PIC of the aircraft was a private pilot, but there was a CFI, however a passenger being carried was under the impression that a qualified commercial pilot was conducting the flight.

However, a private pilot assumed responsibility by acting as PIC.

But if the CFI is truly conducting 'dual given', the private pilot is receiving 'dual training' and the passenger accepted the services of what (s)he thought was a legal flight conducted by a certificated commercial pilot, not only would you get revoked, they'd most likely revoke your CFI's certificates, incur a steep civil penalty and probably throw you in the "pokey" for fraud.

And unless you like 'tossing salad', I certainly wouldn't even attempt a scheme as such.

It's not worth it.

I could string a cable from my neighbors cable box, splice it and split the monthly fee with him. But the second that the cable company catches me, the savings are instantly evaporated by court costs, legal fees and months of hassle sitting in a court room defending myself.

Whether it's legal or not.
 
Totally illegal. A private pilot cannot act as PIC of any flight that involves payment (other than equally sharing expenses), regardless of whether the Private Pilot receives any pay. The above post about AOPA is right on, AOPA's legal department will quickly set you straight on this one and provide some pretty straight forward case law.

AOPA publishes a booklet that is free for members called -- Part 91 vs. Part 135 Operations. You would be amazed at what the FAA considers a revenue flight. There is also a requirement in the FARs that any pilot, school, company, etc. that ADVERTISES (holds out) to conduct sight seeing flights must conduct random pilot drug and alcohol screening as per Part 135. The trigger for the drug screening requirement is the advertising. Incidental sight seeing trips with a flight instructor are overlooked by the FAA. That may all be going away with the new NPRM calling for all sightseeing to be under Part 135.
 
Point 1) No insurance company would go along with any of your schemes. You would be wrung out for the rest of your life if anything happened.

Point 2) Do you really think you can come up with a scheme that has not been tried by several million pilots ahead of you? Flying is not a creative science. Follow the group and stay in line. It is definitely a "learn from and learn by" experience industry.

THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS FOR EXPERIENCE.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Dude, seriously, WTFO? When a retired airline pilot, an active airline pilot, and several other pilots of various ratings and experiences all agree and are saying not to do something – it really doesn't matter if the advice is free or not ... it's what they call in the police world a clue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if I'm the "dude" to whom you refer or not...but if it is...Well, this is about a govenment regulatory agency, the rules they promulgate and enforce, and, ultimately, the penalties that flow from them as determined in adversarial procedings in administrative hearings and courts of law. I have a few clues when it comes to that. One of those clues is that experts aren't always right...even when there's consensus among them. I've earned that clue from cross-examining them (and having mine cross-examined). If you want legal advice, get it from a lawyer. If nothing else, it can afford you varying degrees of protection on the basis of having made good faith inquiries. And yes...the legal advice will probably be "don't do it." I'm just recommending covering the right bases, "dude"
smirk.gif
 
Argh. I thought we already went over this.

Just like everyone has said countless times, this is illegal. I even posted a couple good links to resources that you can use to determine legitimacy before you come here with such questions. Of course that topic is the only one on this page with less than 100 views, so I'll post them again:

Advisory Circulars (Pay special attention to AC 120-12A)

and

Part 61 FAQ (Word file)

Those two should get you started...casey posted some other good ones in the "Good FAR and AC Refs" thread as well. Seriously, these are publicly available documents, and this shouldn't be anything new. You have TONS of resources at your disposal as a pilot, so dig around and use 'em!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dude, seriously, WTFO? When a retired airline pilot, an active airline pilot, and several other pilots of various ratings and experiences all agree and are saying not to do something – it really doesn't matter if the advice is free or not ... it's what they call in the police world a clue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if I'm the "dude" to whom you refer or not...but if it is...Well, this is about a govenment regulatory agency, the rules they promulgate and enforce, and, ultimately, the penalties that flow from them as determined in adversarial procedings in administrative hearings and courts of law. I have a few clues when it comes to that. One of those clues is that experts aren't always right...even when there's consensus among them. I've earned that clue from cross-examining them (and having mine cross-examined). If you want legal advice, get it from a lawyer. If nothing else, it can afford you varying degrees of protection on the basis of having made good faith inquiries. And yes...the legal advice will probably be "don't do it." I'm just recommending covering the right bases, "dude"
smirk.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Pilot 602 is actually responding to the original poster. Some people read through the threads and then hit the "reply" button, which shows them as replying to the last thread, when in fact they may be replying to another.

I just don't see the connection between his and your respective previous posts, that's all.

MD
 
(edit: and yes I was refering to you Newbie ... )

I'm just curious ... no offense intended or implied with this question ... but do you have any pilot ratings as of yet?

The reason I ask, is if you're familiar with the FARS (CFRs) (and you should be if you have anykinf of pilot certificate) you'd know that what we're saying is pretty cut and dried. What you can or cannot do as a pilot is spelled out within the FARs many times over. Any and every attempt to circumnavigate the FARs is, by default, illegal. Yes there are grey areas but the FAA makes some things pretty clear – and compensation, holding out, etc. is one of those areas the FAA is pretty picky about.

The FAA even has published it's own legal opinions. The advice of some lawyer is about as good as your valuation of our advice here. The only thing that matters is what the folks at the FSDO or Washington FAA offices think and what they think is pretty clear along these lines which is why all these "experts" are essentially saying the same thing.
 
MikeD...it was me. lol.

I'm only a lowly PPL going for my instrument. Yes, I know the FARS (heck, I even got a 100% on my written...not that I'd mention it if you hadn't asked about my quals). Yes, I know the FAA has its opinions. I also know that the FAA and FSDOs are only one set of parties on one side of the adversarial system -- so what they happen to think is NOT actually the only thing that matters. Believe it or not, the FAA does not have a 100% track record in court.

I'm not sure why you're so upset at me for advising him to pay for some protective advice. If it's really so clear cut, then the advice will be "don't do it" ...right?
bandit.gif
 
Not upset that you said to pay for advice which he can get for free - it's that you discounted everyone's opinion/advice because "it's free."

Can you win against the FAA? Sure. But while you're fighting it out with them guess what? Your certificates are generally suspended or revoked (don't even get me started talking about the pilot insecurity acts that's far worse aas there is no due process involved in those specific cases) so in the end even if you do win you still suffer damage from not being able to fly while it's all being worked out. As a private pilot that might not be too horrible but when your livelihood depends on flying and the conservative nature of flying jobs to begin with any "temporary" suspension or revocation will damage your career, even if you are cleared.

The best advice is to avoid all possible greay areas like the plague. Which is what everyone in this thread andthe other thread is saying.

The only thing you gain from toying with the FARs is a trip to court which is a) not fun and b) expensive. Maybe you feel luckier than I, or are mroe willing to tempt your fate than I but I, personally, would rather avoid a position where I would need to go to court against a federal entity.

Just my opinion ... free and all.
grin.gif
 
I stand by my assertion that free advice is worth just that. I speak from faaaar too much experience to take it back. But be that as it may...dude, if you were a philosophy major, you'd have gone in for the kill and said:

"Well Newbie, then he shouldn't take your advice (i.e. to pay for advice) either...because you gave it to him freely."

That would have been more fun to play with, don't you think?
smirk.gif
 
He did. Seems that you're not studying philosophy either eh?

[ QUOTE ]
Not upset that you said to pay for advice which he can get for free - it's that you discounted everyone's opinion/advice because "it's free."

[/ QUOTE ]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top