Light Plane Philosopher
- Dec 16, 2007
- Port Townsend WA
*That* brings up my biggest gripe about the 'system'. Not that they limit the number of examiners and DARs, but that they allow them at all. Our tax money pays for the service, and DPE & DAR programs force us to pay *again* for the service. How would you feel if your city contracted out some of their fire service, and when you called for fire response, they told you that they were too busy at the moment, but you can call ACME Fire PuterOuter and they will come to your house for a fee?I think the FAA limits competition for EA-B instructor checkout authorizations, examiners and DAR's.
91.309 says "civil aircraft", and I couldn't find where I thought banner towing was banned for E-AB, but I finally found it, it's not in the FARs, but in an order.But not in a homebuilt. In a Restricted category a/c (an ag plane, for instance) yes, but in a homebuilt, no. Unless you can talk the FSDO into forgetting that line in their boilerplate...
Are there any good threads here on the subjectI agree that there are things about the rule that don't *seem* to make sense. But when you start to wrap your head around what the rule specifically says, it's a bit easier. In that example, you're not 'carrying persons or property *for hire*'. If you travel to a meeting in your a/c, and take a fellow employee along, *and you aren't reimbursed for the flight*, it's legal. But if your company pays you for the travel, then the FAA will likely see part of that reimbursement as payment for carrying a 'person for hire' (your fellow employee).
The general legal tentacles for these kinds of issues extend far outside aviation. My former employer (a gubmnt agency) eventually got so strict that they were refusing to reimburse automobile mileage if any non-employee was in the vehicle for the trip, because the gubmnt got sued when an employee (and his ride-along spouse) were in an accident while on an agency trip, and they tried to hold the gubmnt responsible for the wife's injuries.
Attorney Kent Jackson has published some books on enforcement actions, case law, FAR interpretations, etc. Much easier reading than buying a Westlaw account and trying to decipher case law.Are there any good threads here on the subject
Per my understanding the ONLY way that you get "credit" towards your experimental 51% is option #4 "What if I take a wing apart and use those parts as a pattern to create new parts and then build a wing from them?" as you are making new parts and not "refurbishing" them...OK if I take a wing apart and put it back together it’s just a rebuild and there’s no credit
What if I take a wing apart and then create a shorter wing from The parts I now have on hand?
What if I take a wing apart and build a longer wing from the parts I have on hand and extra parts I have to create?
What if I take a wing apart and use those parts as a pattern to create new parts and then build a wing from them?
There's a difference between Bob going out and while flying taking pictures or videos and later profiting from those pictures by whatever means vs. operating a business called "Bob's Aerial Photography." In the latter the aircraft is part of the business and subject to commercial operating rules vs being "incidental" to taking pictures while flying.So all these people making YouTube videos (and getting paid for it) on aviation related videos - are profiting from aviation and *should* have a commercial license - and cannot be done with - say a kitfox as it is experimental?
That scenario is tip-toeing on the line between "employee with a plane giving a ride" and "Air Taxi and Commercial Operator." The sticking point is that the pilot is also providing the plane. If the pilot holds a commercial pilot certificate, he would be permitted to accept compensation for the flight but by also providing the plane he becomes and Air Taxi and Commercial Operator. (I can pull up some case law on that later if I get time). It would probably be better if the pilot held a private pilot certificate and he and the passengers were travelling to point 'a' and back to point 'b' in furtherance of the business (common purpose). The devil is in the details and would ultimately determine which side of the line this particular operation falls.If you are say an XYZ employee and are paid a salary for being an XYZ employee and have an airplane that let's say Mr or MS would like you to fly them in to get to point a and then back to point b and you are on company time as long as that is not your primary position with the company you can be compensated for that. whether or not you can be compensated for actual use of your airplane is another matter.
Assuming the pilot holds a commercial pilot certificate, absolutely.Here's another one for you.. the company owns an airplane because they want one.. you are again ABC employee paid salary for doing your ABC job. You are a licensed pilot and thoroughly qualified even as an instrument rated pilot in the type of airplane they just happen to own an company time your boss asks you to fly them to know where USA and back again.. I know the answer to this question but I'd like to hear others answers and I know that sounds cheesy... Are you legal to do that?