Potentially shady job offer...need advice

kellwolf said:
I can't find any hard evidence on the flight time as compensation arguement (I looked a while ago b/c of the other thread), but I've heard from several sources that it could be interpretted that way. It's not only going to vary from FSDO to FSDO, but also from inspector to inspector. If it were me, I'd steer clear just to be on the safe side.
Click to expand...

tgrayson already provided one letter of interp, and, as he indicated, there are more. Kell, this is for you, but also for anyone else who doesn't fully understand this, and it is a "foot stomper" important item to remember:

FAA Chief Counsel, in Washington D.C. is the ONLY FAA opinion that matters, period. NTSB will rule according to the Chief Counsel interp. You could have a letter from your local Inspector, another one from the FSDO, and another one from the Region, that you are legal, but if the Chief Counsels office disagrees, you WILL lose. Period.

In simpler terms, it means the opinion of your local FAA inspector is not worth more, in the final analysis, than the airport bum hanging around the local flight school. You would HOPE that the inspector has done their homework, but don't bet the farm on it!
 
SmitteyB said:
he FAA is getting shady there as well TGRAY...
You can't say
"Well it's compensation for this guy because he needs the time"
and
"Well it's not compensation for this guy because he isn't doing it as a career"
Click to expand...

I don't get your point. The FAA didn't say "sometimes yes", "sometimes no". They said no. Flight time is compensation regardless of whether you need it or not.
 
The first thing that would worry me is that he said, oh, I don't need insurance because the plane is paid for.

Uh, yeah, so if there's an accident, and there is a lawsuit, guess who is going to be having to cough up money for the rest of his life?

Probably not the guy who owns the plane, that's for sure. He'd dump everything on the guy operating the plane.

In other words, you.

I'd call the local FSDO and tell them what this guy is looking to do. Pose it as a "is this legal" question so you're not ratting the guy out but I'm sure they wouldn't look kindly towards this kind of arrangement.
 
Yet another way to look at it...even though you (private pilot) are not making any money, the company running the skydive operation is making money...therefore, you would be operating a plane for the "furtherence of a business".

Another way to look at it...these people paying money to someone (skydiving outfit) have an expectation that the pilot is a properly trained and rated pilot to be flying them. It's almost the same as letting one of us private pilots fly passengers in commercial airliner as long as we don't get paid...oh wait, that already happens! (sarcasm)
 
John_Mitchell said:
Yet another way to look at it...even though you (private pilot) are not making any money, the company running the skydive operation is making money...therefore, you would be operating a plane for the "furtherence of a business".
Click to expand...


A Private Pilot can fly in furtherence of the business, under certain circumstances.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as
pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any
business or employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or
employment; and
Click to expand...
 
Pro-rata share. This guy is looking for a reason to not pay a commercial pilot. Not only is it unethical but dangerous.

Who was the lady on here who was such a fan of the Monty Python movies? Should have already posted the pic with the fellas from the troope and big letters stating: "Run away! Run away!" AAmaqOrd right?
 
kellwolf said:
I can't find any hard evidence on the flight time as compensation arguement (I looked a while ago b/c of the other thread), but I've heard from several sources that it could be interpretted that way. It's not only going to vary from FSDO to FSDO, but also from inspector to inspector. If it were me, I'd steer clear just to be on the safe side.
Click to expand...
No, it's a pretty solid FAA position. CAP had to obtain a waiver to 61.113 to reimburse its private pilots for operating expenses incurred in the course of SAR operations. For non-SAR operations that are USAF-directed & reimbursable missions, private pilots may be reimbursed for their expenses OR log the flight time, but not both. Kinda silly if you ask me.

In general, the FAA's stance is that if you don't hold at least a commercial ticket, every hour in your logbook had better have cost you something.
 
Nismaxdan said:
Oh and one more thing mhcasey, I think you should definitely report that guy to the FAA. Without delay.
Click to expand...

I was going to say the same thing - you certainly don't want this operation taking the lives of innocent passengers (and pilot) and be wondering if you could have prevented it by saying something. Just send an anonymous letter to the Fed.
 
mhcasey said:
Hey guys,

The manager of a local skydiving outfit called me the other day to see if I would be interested in "time building." He flies a C206.

I immediately told him that I'm only a private pilot, so I didn't think I would be able to help him. He assured me, "As long as you're not being reimbursed at all, it's not illegal. We'll pay for the gas and everything, but you'll just get flight time out of the deal."

I asked him what his insurance requirements were, to which he responded that he does not have insurance because the aircraft is paid in full.

He told me I'd have to sign a waiver that should anything happen, the company is not liable.

My thoughts are that this is a pretty shady offer. Seems kind of like a "we don't have to pay you to ensure the safety of our customers because you're so desperate for time, and you're risking big time trouble with the FAA without a commercial license, and oh by the way, should the engine explode in flight, we won't be liable for your life and the customers families can sue your family into the ground" type of offer. Your thoughts?

Thanks.
Click to expand...


Report him to the FAA, and see what they have to say about it ;)
 
Definitely stay away from that stuff. Like yourself, a guy once offered me a weekend job flying skydivers in C-182. I walked away. While not all skydiving operations are shady, many are.
 
Even if you were to "get away with it", I can't imagine how badly this would look when the FSDO certifies your logbook for your ATP. Or what employers would say "Hmm... So tell me about all these skydiving flights you made when you just had your PPL".

I'm surprised how ignorant that company is, must be new.
 
I'm glad a few of you are stating to bring the operation to the attention of the local FSDO. I hate being a whistleblower, but this kind of a practise cant be overlooked, someone is gonna get hurt.

I hadn't gotten to this thread to post until all of the previous replies, and I know it can be hard to be the first to state on a public forum to do something which might be viewed as controversial, so kudos to the folks who gave that advise, it was mine too as I was reading thinking what to post.

Over the weekend I watched a plane descend to 200' above the tree tops to do a circle to land about 400 feet below DH. The problem I have is it was with passengers (and the fact that no flight plan was filed from 50 nm away in solid IMC), you know what's happening tomorrow? 1-800-255-1111 option 3.

I don't like doing it but if it prevents someone from being hurt...
 
Mike you should be calling the FSDO about these guys, and if you won't I think I've already got a pretty good idea of who these guys are and I'll do it myself.
 
The only way a PPL can fly for skydivers, is if they are a member of a skydiving club.



Is it still a "club" if they offer tandems to nonmembers? I doubt the FAA would think so.
 
tgrayson said:
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.


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.



Thank god the FAA is there to tell us what is valuable to us and what is not. Flight time is not a benefit of aviation. It is a by-product
Click to expand...
 
Oh and by the way, I'll add my "stay away" to the pile. It sounds like this shady operator will be deriving value (i. e. income) from your piloting services. You deserved to be compensated, period.

Or like another post I saw: "no bucks, no buck rogers"
 
The Verdict: The skydiving company will not hear from me for a while, but will probably be receiving a call from the FSDO in the coming weeks...

Thanks for the guidance, guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top