Regulations - Aircraft Certification

Discussion in 'Rules and Regulations / Flight Safety / Better Pil' started by Will Aldridge, Dec 12, 2010.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. May 20, 2016 #41

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,201
    Likes Received:
    2,401
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    No, this recent conversation started with free and was not about Angel Flight. See post #22
     
  2. May 20, 2016 #42

    D Hillberg

    D Hillberg

    D Hillberg

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    425
    Location:
    very low low low earth orbit
    IT WENT FROM REGULATIONS TO FREE, see post #3 ,9 Why am I yelling? I'll excuse myself....
     
  3. May 20, 2016 #43

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,840
    Likes Received:
    1,753
    Location:
    Upper midwest in a house
    I don't think I said anything about limits on number of free rides.
    What I meant was depending on who is being offered a ride, there may be limits on what kind of ride can be offered. Again, the question is: "Do any additional rules apply to this specific flight?"


    Obviously there is no black and white rule which is why ever since non-emergency, volunteer humanitarian flights started, FAA and lawyers have argued back and forth over what is permitted and what isn't. The easiest solution is to operate under the banner of an organization that does volunteer humanitarian flights because interpretation of the rules is constantly evolving and organizations have the latest interpretations, rulings and decisions on their side. If one doesn't want to do that they are assuming the associated risk ranging from FAA enforcement to personal financial loss in the event of a mishap. I think one should exercise due diligence before making that choice.
     
  4. May 20, 2016 #44

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,840
    Likes Received:
    1,753
    Location:
    Upper midwest in a house
    I dunno. I thought it was a valid segue of the discussion.
     
  5. May 20, 2016 #45

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,840
    Likes Received:
    1,753
    Location:
    Upper midwest in a house
    Would that not be a generic airspace violation on the part of the pilot? RE: Sporting event TFR?
     
  6. May 20, 2016 #46

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,974
    Likes Received:
    4,919
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    We've dealt with the same issue. We volunteered our time and planes to the County Sheriff's Department for Flight Search and Rescue missions, as well as providing occasional transport missions for deputies and (maybe) prisoners. The transportation portion got shut down by the FAA because they considered it an Air Taxi operation, and even though it was unpaid, they can interpret anything that might bolster your reputation as payment. We can provide our service for SAR, and we can even carry a deputy during the search, but we cannot drop the deputy off anywhere but our original departure point. It seems that the two defining issues that move it into the Air Taxi category are "service on demand" and transport and disembarkment of an individual or equipment to a location other than the original point of departure.

    Now, I can understand and appreciate that any flight that can be done by a commercial operation (airline, air taxi, etc) should be protected by the FAA to prevent loss of revenue, but the policy alternative for the flights we did was a long ride in a patrol car, which was a greater cost to the tax payer and it took a patrol car out of service for an extended amount of time. In the eyes of the FAA, it didn't matter though, because their charter is to safeguard and protect commercial operations.
     
  7. May 20, 2016 #47

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,840
    Likes Received:
    1,753
    Location:
    Upper midwest in a house
    Actually, there is an FAR that says:

    § 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.
    (a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate—
    (1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued;


    However, FAA legal has interpreted that "purpose" under 21.191 (g), is very broad and allows for activity that to some might seem to be outside that purpose. For example, in the Josephson interpretation, they said an E-A/B aircraft can be used to conduct an aerial mapping survey.

    Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire muddies the water because compensation also has a broad definition. For example, if the operator receives any benefit from the above aerial mapping survey, the operation would become illegal.

    Sometimes alleged FAA violations are dismissed or substantiated once an investigation is completed and all the facts are in. Each case is different and relying on luck is usually not a good strategy.
     
  8. May 20, 2016 #48

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,201
    Likes Received:
    2,401
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    You said there may be limits. Sounds sort of like just assume it is prohibited because someone argued it should be.
    If there is no black and white rule then there is no rule. Arguments and opinions don't count. If you ask the FAA they probably will say no. The point is don't ask about unclear foolish rules in your day to day activity.
    I am amazed how some interpret rules that don't exist. Last week at the RC field a member asked me to help ban another member that flew a low pass in his "ultralight". He said the pilot was well below the required 1000 feet and he was annoyed the pilot was in the RC field "airspace". I told him the 1000 feet rule was for congested airspace, not the 1/2 mile farm we were on where 500 feet from persons or structure is required for airplanes. An ultralight has no restrictions for distance.
    But he said he would call the FAA anyway to get the RC field listed on the " chart" to keep pilots away.
     
  9. May 20, 2016 #49

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Turd Ferguson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    4,840
    Likes Received:
    1,753
    Location:
    Upper midwest in a house
    That's an interesting example you use. Is there a published black and white definition for "congested airspace?"

    No, there is not. Any violation using "congested airspace" (as well as "densely populated" and "open air assembly of people") is determined on a case-by-case basis, using arguments and opinions. The RC club member may have been correct because someone was interpreting something that does not exist.
     
  10. May 20, 2016 #50

    Dana

    Dana

    Dana

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8,687
    Likes Received:
    3,064
    Location:
    CT, USA
    And according to 21.191g (and my operation limations), that purpose is... "operating amateur built aircraft." Bit of circular logic here?

    Dana
     
  11. May 20, 2016 #51

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,481
    Likes Received:
    1,005
    Location:
    Corona CA
    So if you enjoy the flight, that is an obvious benefit for you and you'll be illegal. Make sure you tell the FAA you hated every minute of it.
     
  12. May 20, 2016 #52

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,201
    Likes Received:
    2,401
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    My point was if it isn't clearly banned then we have the right to do it. I am surprised that a retired airline pilot even feels the need to ask such a question as he did here. And surprised that members say he can't because the rules are fuzzy and apparently anything can be construed to be a violation. Sad state.
    Of course, I understand that a current airline pilot will not want to get too near a rule and so be extra cautious.
    But he is retired and may not care what absurd FAA action might happen.

    note, my comment before about "congested airspace" was incorrect. Should have said " congested area".
     

Share This Page



arrow_white