flyinguitar
Well-Known Member
Flying for free is flying for free.
Sure, flight time is a benefit that has a monetary value. The FAA certainly thinks so. (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...iotsJetTeam - (2013) Legal Interpretation.pdf)
We have a professional standard of not flying for free. What is the underlying principle? It is not because you don't receive something of value when you fly for free. On the contrary, if you calculate what the flight time is theoretically worth, it is usually way more than what your paycheck would be. When I turned down unpaid SIC time in a Citation, the daily rate I was requesting was way less than what I would have had to pay out of pocket to buy Citation time that would indeed be valuable to me. Many people in this thread have run some numbers and found that the difference in value between Cherokee and Apache time is more than the $40/hr pay rate. So what's the problem?
The answer is that the principle of not flying for free is based on our collective experience that doing so degrades and corrupts the profession. If we are going to have flying be a true career -- i.e., one where people can support a family, and not just a hobby or side job -- we need to guard and maintain the value of a pilot's time as something that absolutely requires compensation regardless of the side benefits (experience, free food, etc.) to the pilot for doing the flight.
In this case, the fact that you can turn around and say "but it's optional" is a distraction. Think about it - any job is optional. The fact that a single employer is allowing you to switch back and forth between flying for free and flying for hire does not mean that flying for free is somehow not flying for free.
Now, does this mean that the owner of this business is evil, shady, and trying to take advantage of his pilots? Absolutely not. The principle of not flying for free is not intuitive to those outside the profession. (And also not intuitive to many inside the profession.) A well-intentioned, intelligent, and otherwise well-informed person can reasonably conclude that this setup is perfectly advantageous to the pilot group, as discussed above.
So I think the OP and his pilot group should collectively agree not to exercise the option of using the twin to conduct work they are normally paid for in the Cherokee. Renting the twin on their own time at cost is fine, and they should clearly express their gratitude to the employer for providing them that generous option. They should also explain to the owner that they appreciate what he is trying to do with the "free twin time" part of the arrangement and that they respect his intentions. However, they cannot perform professional duties without being compensated in the good, old-fashioned way: with a paycheck.
Sure, flight time is a benefit that has a monetary value. The FAA certainly thinks so. (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...iotsJetTeam - (2013) Legal Interpretation.pdf)
We have a professional standard of not flying for free. What is the underlying principle? It is not because you don't receive something of value when you fly for free. On the contrary, if you calculate what the flight time is theoretically worth, it is usually way more than what your paycheck would be. When I turned down unpaid SIC time in a Citation, the daily rate I was requesting was way less than what I would have had to pay out of pocket to buy Citation time that would indeed be valuable to me. Many people in this thread have run some numbers and found that the difference in value between Cherokee and Apache time is more than the $40/hr pay rate. So what's the problem?
The answer is that the principle of not flying for free is based on our collective experience that doing so degrades and corrupts the profession. If we are going to have flying be a true career -- i.e., one where people can support a family, and not just a hobby or side job -- we need to guard and maintain the value of a pilot's time as something that absolutely requires compensation regardless of the side benefits (experience, free food, etc.) to the pilot for doing the flight.
In this case, the fact that you can turn around and say "but it's optional" is a distraction. Think about it - any job is optional. The fact that a single employer is allowing you to switch back and forth between flying for free and flying for hire does not mean that flying for free is somehow not flying for free.
Now, does this mean that the owner of this business is evil, shady, and trying to take advantage of his pilots? Absolutely not. The principle of not flying for free is not intuitive to those outside the profession. (And also not intuitive to many inside the profession.) A well-intentioned, intelligent, and otherwise well-informed person can reasonably conclude that this setup is perfectly advantageous to the pilot group, as discussed above.
So I think the OP and his pilot group should collectively agree not to exercise the option of using the twin to conduct work they are normally paid for in the Cherokee. Renting the twin on their own time at cost is fine, and they should clearly express their gratitude to the employer for providing them that generous option. They should also explain to the owner that they appreciate what he is trying to do with the "free twin time" part of the arrangement and that they respect his intentions. However, they cannot perform professional duties without being compensated in the good, old-fashioned way: with a paycheck.
