Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:51 AM - Re: Re: Lamar Clinic (Bill Geipel)
2. 06:52 AM - Re: Re: Lamar Clinic (Bill Geipel)
3. 06:55 AM - Re: Lamar Clinic (Bill Geipel)
4. 08:20 AM - Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - another blow to general aviation (David McGirt)
5. 08:35 AM - Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - another blow to general aviation (Bill Geipel)
6. 10:01 AM - N Number size (keithmckinley)
7. 10:02 AM - TL Electronic COMBINED ENGINE INSTRUMENT TL-3724 (keithmckinley)
8. 10:24 AM - Re: N Number size (A. Dennis Savarese)
9. 10:39 AM - Re: N Number size (keithmckinley)
10. 11:15 AM - Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - another blow to general aviation (A. Dennis Savarese)
11. 12:21 PM - Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - another blow to general aviation (Bill Mills)
12. 01:10 PM - Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - another blow to general aviation (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
13. 01:55 PM - Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - another blow to general aviation (A. Dennis Savarese)
14. 03:21 PM - Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - another blow to general aviation (Roger Kemp MD)
15. 03:53 PM - Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - anoth... (cjpilot710@aol.com)
16. 04:13 PM - Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - anoth... (jblake207@COMCAST.NET)
17. 04:13 PM - Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - anoth... (jblake207@COMCAST.NET)
18. 05:19 PM - Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - anoth... (Robert Langford)
19. 11:42 PM - Re: TL Electronic COMBINED ENGINE INSTRUMENT TL-3724 (Markus Feyerabend)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lamar Clinic |
And don't forget your computer and plotter. Remember what they are?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 12:36 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Lamar Clinic
All kinds of significant others this year will be there. I know of at least
4 Female Gibs this year. Hey Mark maybe he is calling CJ's significant
others and not talking about Gibs? Show up at Lamar you won't regret it.
Bring your Gib and give her a camera. Mark told you the rest. We stay at
the Cow Palace in Lamar and have great Limo service to and from the hotel.
Don't forget to ask for the Red Star Special rate.
Dale
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 3237#203237
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lamar Clinic |
No. But bring your computer and plotter! Without a GIB, you will be busy
this year.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of N642K
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 9:18 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Lamar Clinic
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the quick reply.
Does the formation syllabus require a GIB? I am previous military but don't
own a parachute (yet).
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 3195#203195
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
1. Its nice. But we can make it work. (We have extras)
2. Yes. Encouraged.
3. No. Friday and Saturday are best. Thursday is when it really gets going.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of N642K
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 7:34 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Lamar Clinic
'm a new Cj owner looking for some info on the Lamar clinic.
1. Will I need a parachute?
2. Are significant others allowed in the back seat?
3. Do I need to be in attendance for all days?
Thanks in advance,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 3155#203155
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - another |
blow to general aviation
This is a message from the T-28 forum, but applies to our group as well.
The Red Thunder Airshow team was performing at this same event, and
witnessed this event. The T-28 group is up in arms, and working to get NAT
A
& EAA Warbirds involved.
DM
------ Forwarded Message
From: Becky Luther <blutherva@yahoo.com>
Subject: [t-28-flyers] Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
airshows - another blow to general aviation
Guys and Gals,
I wanted to share an encounter I had with the FAA this past weekend. I kno
w
there has been discussion on this topic previously.
I flew the T-28 to an airshow in North Carolina this past weekend. The
airshow was providing fuel for our flight down and back and for some flybys
.
I had agreed to give some sponsor or VIP rides.
After my first VIP ride, I was approached by the Greensboro FAA inspector
for the airshow. He asked to see my credentials and then my LOA. I told
him I no longer needed an LOA but had an authorization on my certificate to
fly the T-28.
He then proceeded to inform me that I needed an LOA (Letter of
Authorization) to carry any passenger for compensation and that the pilot
(s) operating the aircraft needed to be on a drug and alcohol program. He
asked if the airshow was providing me any fuel. I told him indeed they wer
e
as that was common practice when a pilot agreed to bring an aircraft to an
airshow for static or flybys.
He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for
compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was receiving
compensation. Since I did not have an LOA or an approved drug and alcohol
program approved by the FAA , I was in violation of 91.417. Being on a dru
g
and alcohol program for a Part 135 operation that did not include the T-28
did not cover me. I needed a specific program for this operation.
He told me he had mentioned this requirement to the airshow director prior
to the show.
I then told him that probably most airshow aircraft across the country and
at this airshow were probably in violation of this regulation. He told me
was checking everyone=B9s paperwork at the airshow. Needless to say there wer
e
some disappointed VIPS.
I asked him if I was in trouble. He told me he had not seen me give any
rides so therefore was not in violation of the regs. I assured him I had n
o
intention of giving any rides.
Of course this created havoc with all the other pilots in the same
situation. Not many of us have the LOA=B9S or approved drug program to give
rides on our planes when we are receiving any type of compensation.
Gordon asked if there was any problem giving a friend a ride during the
airshow at our expense. The inspector was not amused. I guess we would
have to prove we did not receive fuel for the flight.
Slowly, they are legislating us out of the sky.
Sec. 91.147
[Passenger carrying flights for compensation or hire.]
[Each Operator conducting passenger-carrying flights for compensation or
hire must meet the following requirements unless all flights are conducted
under Sec. 91.146.
(a) For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,
Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights in
an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance with Sec.
Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that begin and
end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute mile radius o
f
that airport.
(b) An Operator must comply with the safety provisions of part 136, subpart
A of this chapter, and apply for and receive a Letter of Authorization from
the Flight Standards District Office nearest to its principal place of
business by September 11, 2007.
(c) Each application for a Letter of Authorization must include the
following information:
(1) Name of Operator, agent, and any d/b/a (doing-business-as) under which
that Operator does business;
(2) Principal business address and mailing address;
(3) Principal place of business (if different from business address);
(4) Name of person responsible for management of the business;
(5) Name of person responsible for aircraft maintenance;
(6) Type of aircraft, registration number(s), and make/model/series; and
(7) An Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program registration.
(d) The Operator must register and implement its drug and alcohol testing
programs in accordance with part 121, appendices I and J, of this chapter.
(e) The Operator must comply with the provisions of the Letter of
Authorization received.]
Amdt. 91-295, Effective 3/15/07
Becky Luther
blutherva@yahoo.com
__._,_.___
------ End of Forwarded Message
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows |
- another blow to general aviation
I forwarded your post to our Aviation Attorney guy. Member of Red Star and
CJAA just for an opinion.
_____
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McGirt
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:20 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows -
another blow to general aviation
This is a message from the T-28 forum, but applies to our group as well.
The Red Thunder Airshow team was performing at this same event, and
witnessed this event. The T-28 group is up in arms, and working to get NATA
& EAA Warbirds involved.
DM
------ Forwarded Message
From: Becky Luther <blutherva@yahoo.com>
Subject: [t-28-flyers] Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
airshows - another blow to general aviation
Guys and Gals,
I wanted to share an encounter I had with the FAA this past weekend. I know
there has been discussion on this topic previously.
I flew the T-28 to an airshow in North Carolina this past weekend. The
airshow was providing fuel for our flight down and back and for some flybys.
I had agreed to give some sponsor or VIP rides.
After my first VIP ride, I was approached by the Greensboro FAA inspector
for the airshow. He asked to see my credentials and then my LOA. I told
him I no longer needed an LOA but had an authorization on my certificate to
fly the T-28.
He then proceeded to inform me that I needed an LOA (Letter of
Authorization) to carry any passenger for compensation and that the pilot
(s) operating the aircraft needed to be on a drug and alcohol program. He
asked if the airshow was providing me any fuel. I told him indeed they were
as that was common practice when a pilot agreed to bring an aircraft to an
airshow for static or flybys.
He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for
compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was receiving
compensation. Since I did not have an LOA or an approved drug and alcohol
program approved by the FAA , I was in violation of 91.417. Being on a drug
and alcohol program for a Part 135 operation that did not include the T-28
did not cover me. I needed a specific program for this operation.
He told me he had mentioned this requirement to the airshow director prior
to the show.
I then told him that probably most airshow aircraft across the country and
at this airshow were probably in violation of this regulation. He told me
was checking everyone's paperwork at the airshow. Needless to say there were
some disappointed VIPS.
I asked him if I was in trouble. He told me he had not seen me give any
rides so therefore was not in violation of the regs. I assured him I had no
intention of giving any rides.
Of course this created havoc with all the other pilots in the same
situation. Not many of us have the LOA'S or approved drug program to give
rides on our planes when we are receiving any type of compensation.
Gordon asked if there was any problem giving a friend a ride during the
airshow at our expense. The inspector was not amused. I guess we would
have to prove we did not receive fuel for the flight.
Slowly, they are legislating us out of the sky.
Sec. 91.147
[Passenger carrying flights for compensation or hire.]
[Each Operator conducting passenger-carrying flights for compensation or
hire must meet the following requirements unless all flights are conducted
under Sec. 91.146.
(a) For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,
Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights in
an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance with Sec.
Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that begin and
end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute mile radius of
that airport.
(b) An Operator must comply with the safety provisions of part 136, subpart
A of this chapter, and apply for and receive a Letter of Authorization from
the Flight Standards District Office nearest to its principal place of
business by September 11, 2007.
(c) Each application for a Letter of Authorization must include the
following information:
(1) Name of Operator, agent, and any d/b/a (doing-business-as) under which
that Operator does business;
(2) Principal business address and mailing address;
(3) Principal place of business (if different from business address);
(4) Name of person responsible for management of the business;
(5) Name of person responsible for aircraft maintenance;
(6) Type of aircraft, registration number(s), and make/model/series; and
(7) An Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program registration.
(d) The Operator must register and implement its drug and alcohol testing
programs in accordance with part 121, appendices I and J, of this chapter.
(e) The Operator must comply with the provisions of the Letter of
Authorization received.]
Amdt. 91-295, Effective 3/15/07
Becky Luther
blutherva@yahoo.com
__._,_.___
------ End of Forwarded Message
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hello,
Just had my local FSDO check me out and issue my new SAC an OL's. Very smooth and
they couldn't have been nicer!
There was some question about the N Number size which is currently 2 inches. They
seemed to indicate there needed to be a special circumstance to have that size.
They also mentioned an EAA reference and/or letter about the smaller size.
Before I go to the EAA does anyone have any info regarding this? The aircraft
has a 1982 data plate and the same N-Numbers have been there with the previous
two owners.
Thanks,
Keith
ps Dennis thanks for the memo on the 300 mile exclusion. The Feds were appreciative
of having the copy.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 3630#203630
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | TL Electronic COMBINED ENGINE INSTRUMENT TL-3724 |
Anyone have any experience with this company/product? Good or bad?
http://www.tl-elektronic.com/redir.php?version=big&goto=/kontakty_en.php&id
Keith
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 3631#203631
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N Number size |
FAR 45.22, paragraph (b) and (b)(1) provides for 2" registration numbers
for EXHIBITION category airplanes.
b) A small U.S.-registered aircraft built at least 30 years ago or a
U.S.-registered aircraft for which an experimental certificate has been
issued under =A721.191(d) or 21.191(g) for operation as an exhibition
aircraft or as an amateur-built aircraft and which has the same external
configuration as an aircraft built at least 30 years ago may be operated
without displaying marks in accordance with =A7=A745.21 and 45.23
through 45.33 if:
(1) It displays in accordance with =A745.21(c) marks at least 2 inches
high on each side of the fuselage or vertical tail surface consisting of
the Roman capital letter =93N=94 followed by:
(i) The U.S. registration number of the aircraft; or
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:00 PM
Subject: Yak-List: N Number size
<keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
>
> Hello,
>
> Just had my local FSDO check me out and issue my new SAC an OL's. Very
smooth and they couldn't have been nicer!
>
> There was some question about the N Number size which is currently 2
inches. They seemed to indicate there needed to be a special
circumstance to have that size. They also mentioned an EAA reference
and/or letter about the smaller size. Before I go to the EAA does anyone
have any info regarding this? The aircraft has a 1982 data plate and the
same N-Numbers have been there with the previous two owners.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Keith
>
> ps Dennis thanks for the memo on the 300 mile exclusion. The Feds were
appreciative of having the copy.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 3630#203630
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N Number size |
Hi Dennis,
I found the reference just after I posted. Thanks very much for responding!
Keith
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 3641#203641
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows |
- another blow to general aviation
Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - another blow
to general aviationLet's look at the possibility of the operation being
conducted (ie: VIP flights) under 91.146 instead of 91.147. 91.146
says:
=A7 91.146 Passenger-carrying flights for the benefit of a charitable,
nonprofit, or community event.
The definition of "community event" I think is the key to possibly
getting around this. Quote - "
Community event means an event that raises funds for the benefit of any
local or community cause that is not a charitable event or non-profit
event.
As long as the local FAA Inspector THINKS we are carrying passengers for
compensation or hire ie: 91.147, they can violate the operator and the
burden of proof then falls on the operator to prove he was operating
under 91.146. Guilty until proven innocent. Event coordinators could
help the operators if 1-they understood the meaning of FARs 91.147 and
91.146 and 2- they could document the event was raising funds for a
local or community cause as defined in 91.146.
Makes for an interesting discussion anyway.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: David McGirt
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:19 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
airshows - another blow to general aviation
This is a message from the T-28 forum, but applies to our group as
well. The Red Thunder Airshow team was performing at this same event,
and witnessed this event. The T-28 group is up in arms, and working to
get NATA & EAA Warbirds involved.
DM
------ Forwarded Message
From: Becky Luther <blutherva@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:41:17 -0400
To: <t-28-flyers@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [t-28-flyers] Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
airshows - another blow to general aviation
Guys and Gals,
I wanted to share an encounter I had with the FAA this past weekend.
I know there has been discussion on this topic previously.
I flew the T-28 to an airshow in North Carolina this past weekend.
The airshow was providing fuel for our flight down and back and for some
flybys. I had agreed to give some sponsor or VIP rides.
After my first VIP ride, I was approached by the Greensboro FAA
inspector for the airshow. He asked to see my credentials and then my
LOA. I told him I no longer needed an LOA but had an authorization on
my certificate to fly the T-28.
He then proceeded to inform me that I needed an LOA (Letter of
Authorization) to carry any passenger for compensation and that the
pilot (s) operating the aircraft needed to be on a drug and alcohol
program. He asked if the airshow was providing me any fuel. I told him
indeed they were as that was common practice when a pilot agreed to
bring an aircraft to an airshow for static or flybys.
He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for
compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was
receiving compensation. Since I did not have an LOA or an approved drug
and alcohol program approved by the FAA , I was in violation of 91.417.
Being on a drug and alcohol program for a Part 135 operation that did
not include the T-28 did not cover me. I needed a specific program for
this operation.
He told me he had mentioned this requirement to the airshow director
prior to the show.
I then told him that probably most airshow aircraft across the country
and at this airshow were probably in violation of this regulation. He
told me was checking everyone=92s paperwork at the airshow. Needless to
say there were some disappointed VIPS.
I asked him if I was in trouble. He told me he had not seen me give
any rides so therefore was not in violation of the regs. I assured him
I had no intention of giving any rides.
Of course this created havoc with all the other pilots in the same
situation. Not many of us have the LOA=92S or approved drug program to
give rides on our planes when we are receiving any type of compensation.
Gordon asked if there was any problem giving a friend a ride during
the airshow at our expense. The inspector was not amused. I guess we
would have to prove we did not receive fuel for the flight.
Slowly, they are legislating us out of the sky.
Sec. 91.147
[Passenger carrying flights for compensation or hire.]
[Each Operator conducting passenger-carrying flights for compensation
or hire must meet the following requirements unless all flights are
conducted under Sec. 91.146.
(a) For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,
Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights
in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance with
Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that
begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute
mile radius of that airport.
(b) An Operator must comply with the safety provisions of part 136,
subpart A of this chapter, and apply for and receive a Letter of
Authorization from the Flight Standards District Office nearest to its
principal place of business by September 11, 2007.
(c) Each application for a Letter of Authorization must include the
following information:
(1) Name of Operator, agent, and any d/b/a (doing-business-as) under
which that Operator does business;
(2) Principal business address and mailing address;
(3) Principal place of business (if different from business address);
(4) Name of person responsible for management of the business;
(5) Name of person responsible for aircraft maintenance;
(6) Type of aircraft, registration number(s), and make/model/series;
and
(7) An Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program registration.
(d) The Operator must register and implement its drug and alcohol
testing programs in accordance with part 121, appendices I and J, of
this chapter.
(e) The Operator must comply with the provisions of the Letter of
Authorization received.]
Amdt. 91-295, Effective 3/15/07
Becky Luther
blutherva@yahoo.com
__._,_.___
------ End of Forwarded Message
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows |
- another blow to general aviation
For those of us in the experimental category, part 146
still won't apply, as the FAR's clearly state that the
experimental category can not take on passengers for hire
or compensation. I believe the argument is really aroun
d the definition of "compensation". Seems to me that
you would have to leave with something (some profit?) in
order to be compensated for whatever.......in this case,
it is not compensation....but rather consumption. We are
not leaving these events with anything as a result of
taking a passenger for a ride........
I guess this is where the battle truly begins between
the lawyers and the FAA........ the definition of compensa
tion and coupling that with us "giving" rides to VIP's.
So, if I arrived at an air show with "my" fuel onboa
rd, gave a few rides, played static display for a few
days........ and then for that static display, they filled
my tank. Who dictates "when" I received the compensa
tion and for what purpose?
Bill Mills
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-serve
r@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compen
sation at airshows - another blow to general aviation
Let's look at the possibility of the operation being con
ducted (ie: VIP flights) under 91.146 instead of 91.147.
91.146 says:
=A7 91.146 Passenger-carrying flights for the benefit
of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event.
The definition of "community event" I think is the key
to possibly getting around this. Quote - "
Community event means an event that raises funds for the
benefit of any local or community cause that is not
a charitable event or non-profit event.
As long as the local FAA Inspector THINKS we are carry
ing passengers for compensation or hire ie: 91.147, they
can violate the operator and the burden of proof then
falls on the operator to prove he was operating under
91.146. Guilty until proven innocent. Event coordinators
could help the operators if 1-they understood the meani
ng of FARs 91.147 and 91.146 and 2- they could documen
t the event was raising funds for a local or community
cause as defined in 91.146.
Makes for an interesting discussion anyway.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: David McGirt <mailto:david@mcgirt.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:19 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensat
ion at airshows - another blow to general aviation
This is a message from the T-28 forum, but applies
to our group as well. The Red Thunder Airshow team
was performing at this same event, and witnessed this
event. The T-28 group is up in arms, and working to
get NATA & EAA Warbirds involved.
DM
------ Forwarded Message
From: Becky Luther <blutherva@yahoo.com>
Subject: [t-28-flyers] Passenger carrying flights for compe
nsation at airshows - another blow to general aviation
Guys and Gals,
I wanted to share an encounter I had with the FAA
this past weekend. I know there has been discussion o
n this topic previously.
I flew the T-28 to an airshow in North Carolina thi
s past weekend. The airshow was providing fuel for
our flight down and back and for some flybys. I had
agreed to give some sponsor or VIP rides.
After my first VIP ride, I was approached by the Gr
eensboro FAA inspector for the airshow. He asked to s
ee my credentials and then my LOA. I told him I n
o longer needed an LOA but had an authorization on my
certificate to fly the T-28.
He then proceeded to inform me that I needed an LOA
(Letter of Authorization) to carry any passenger for co
mpensation and that the pilot (s) operating the aircraft
needed to be on a drug and alcohol program. He aske
d if the airshow was providing me any fuel. I told
him indeed they were as that was common practice when
a pilot agreed to bring an aircraft to an airshow for
static or flybys.
He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying fli
ghts for compensation or hire, (See below) As I was re
ceiving fuel, I was receiving compensation. Since I did
not have an LOA or an approved drug and alcohol pro
gram approved by the FAA , I was in violation of 91.
417. Being on a drug and alcohol program for a Part
135 operation that did not include the T-28 did not
cover me. I needed a specific program for this operat
ion.
He told me he had mentioned this requirement to the
airshow director prior to the show.
I then told him that probably most airshow aircraft a
cross the country and at this airshow were probably in
violation of this regulation. He told me was checking ev
eryone's paperwork at the airshow. Needless to say there
were some disappointed VIPS.
I asked him if I was in trouble. He told me he
had not seen me give any rides so therefore was not
in violation of the regs. I assured him I had no
intention of giving any rides.
Of course this created havoc with all the other pilot
s in the same situation. Not many of us have the LOA
'S or approved drug program to give rides on our plane
s when we are receiving any type of compensation.
Gordon asked if there was any problem giving a friend
a ride during the airshow at our expense. The insp
ector was not amused. I guess we would have to prov
e we did not receive fuel for the flight.
Slowly, they are legislating us out of the sky.
Sec. 91.147
[Passenger carrying flights for compensation or hire.]
[Each Operator conducting passenger-carrying flights for co
mpensation or hire must meet the following requirements un
less all flights are conducted under Sec. 91.146.
(a) For the purposes of this section and for drug a
nd alcohol testing, Operator means any person conducting n
onstop passenger-carrying flights in an airplane or helicopt
er for compensation or hire in accordance with Sec. Sec.
119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter th
at begin and end at the same airport and are conducted
within a 25-statute mile radius of that airport.
(b) An Operator must comply with the safety provisions
of part 136, subpart A of this chapter, and apply for
and receive a Letter of Authorization from the Flight St
andards District Office nearest to its principal place of
business by September 11, 2007.
(c) Each application for a Letter of Authorization must
include the following information:
(1) Name of Operator, agent, and any d/b/a (doing-busin
ess-as) under which that Operator does business;
(2) Principal business address and mailing address;
(3) Principal place of business (if different from busi
ness address);
(4) Name of person responsible for management of the
business;
(5) Name of person responsible for aircraft maintenance;
(6) Type of aircraft, registration number(s), and make/mo
del/series; and
(7) An Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program r
egistration.
(d) The Operator must register and implement its drug
and alcohol testing programs in accordance with part 121,
appendices I and J, of this chapter.
(e) The Operator must comply with the provisions of t
he Letter of Authorization received.]
Amdt. 91-295, Effective 3/15/07
Becky Luther
blutherva@yahoo.com
__._,_.___
------ End of Forwarded Message
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com
/c
,
RUMS -
ms!
Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
This e-mail message and any documents accompanying this e-
mail transmission contain proprietary information of Bell Mi
croproducts or one or more of its subsidiaries, the cont
ents of which may be legal
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows |
- another blow to general aviation
This kind of makes the RPA rule that you must hold a Commercial Pilots
license kind of overcome by events does it not? Point being, if flying
at an air show can be considered a commercial operation, there are a lot
of other rules that come into play, which this incident emphasizes.
Thus, the Commercial Ticket can only used as a means of demonstrated
proficiency, which very little to any pertains to formation flying IMHO.
:-) Sorry, just my personal opinion.
But... This remains a very interesting situation. And having dealt with
Greensboro myself, I can believe every word told in the story here.
Well, I am no legal expert, but..... Let's look at the way this rule is
written:
"For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,
Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights
in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance with
Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that
begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute
mile radius of that airport."
Now let's look at what the FAA is claiming:
"He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for
compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was
receiving compensation."
It seems to me that instead of challenging the FAA, it would be better
to beat them at their own game, using their own rules. How? They
contend that receiving fuel is in fact a method of "compensation" for
carrying passengers at the Air Show. If you stop and think about it,
there are MANY ways they could twist the rules to make everyone's life
miserable over an issue like this. Examples on that later.
Possible Solution: There is a POSSIBLE answer to this that to me appears
to be quite simple. One needs to completely eliminate the matter of
fuel being used as proof of "compensation" for carrying passengers.
Make it to where the FAA can not make the claim that they are making.
Two ways to do this:
1. Accept no fuel or special favor of any kind what-so-ever. That
pretty much solves the problem completely.
2. Accept every special favor that you can get, BUT... And this is the
tricky part.... Have the person providing you this fuel or special favor
sign a legal document to wit:
As an example for myself getting fuel at an air show:
"The fuel being provided by; airport fuel official or authority, or air
show person, etc. etc to Mr. Bitterlich is not in any way meant or
designed to act as compensation or as method to hire Mr. Bitterlich in
any way for any passenger carrying flights made by Mr. Bitterlich's
aircraft at this airport The fuel being provided to Mr. Bitterlich is a
courtesy and is a gesture of our good will for him agreeing to allow
people to come see and photograph his aircraft at our event and was
never a pre-requisite for his arrival or participation in this air show
or any flights he made during it."
Let me explain why I suggest this. Any lawyer in the world would agree
that the hardest thing to prove is "intent". The FAA is ASSUMING
"intent" as to the reason you were given the free fuel. If you can
remove the factor of INTENT, by having a clear and legal document,
signed by all parties present, that the INTENT of the free fuel was not
an INCENTIVE, but was instead a "gesture of good will", then the FAA
could still violate you (something they can always do, no matter what
you say!) but when you go to court they will have to claim and then
PROVE that you received the fuel as an incentive, and/or for
compensation, when you have a signed document by all parties involved
clearly specifying that this was NOT the case! The fact that such a
letter was drafted and signed by all parties shows direct and clear
legal intent to provide clear and positive proof contrary to that very
thought!
Further, if you carefully document every person who received free fuel
and did NOT carry a passenger at ALL at ANY TIME during the event, you
now have legal proof that THESE people got the exact same thing (or
things) that you got, and obviously did not get that fuel to carry
passengers since they never flew any and still received the exact same
amount of fuel as you did or LESS.
Take it one step further, with a form letter that you sign and give to
the event manager that says: "I was given free fuel at this event as a
gesture of good will and assume no obligation to perform any service
what-so-ever, now or in the future for said free fuel".
So.....
1. You have a letter saying the fuel was a gesture of good will and not
for compensation or hire in ANY way.
2. He has a letter from you saying the same thing.
3. You have a list of other aircraft that got fuel and never carried
anyone anywhere during the event.
The FAA can STILL claim anything they want, but stop and consider...
They could claim that you received not only fuel, but things like: "A
better tie down location... For compensation.... Better security on your
aircraft... For compensation.... A free tea shirt... For
compensation....a FREE LUNCH OR FREE COFFEE... For compensation. The
list is endless. The trick is to prove that they are being trivial,
biased, and are showing prejudicial behavior. So another suggestion,
always carry a personal digital recorder with you when you do stuff like
this. Be ready and waiting to record every single word said to you and
your reply. Folks, I work for the U.S. Govt., and I carry one with me
EVERYWHERE. It has saved my rear end at work, and at Highway Patrol
Traffic Stops, you name it.
I do not know whether the above will cover your ass completely or not,
but it sure will go a LONG ways towards doing so as compared to having
nothing other than your personal opinion to offer when you get violated.
It would be interesting to have an FAA official claim that you received
free fuel as compensation for giving rides in your aircraft, and you
replying: "Really Sir? Can you prove that?" And he will probably
reply with: "Can you prove that you didn't?" Looking him directly in
the eye and saying: "Actually Sir, yes I can" .... You have to
treasure moments like that.....
Mark Bitterlich
P.s. Curious what a lawyer will say.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McGirt
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:20 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
airshows - another blow to general aviation
This is a message from the T-28 forum, but applies to our group as well.
The Red Thunder Airshow team was performing at this same event, and
witnessed this event. The T-28 group is up in arms, and working to get
NATA & EAA Warbirds involved.
DM
------ Forwarded Message
From: Becky Luther <blutherva@yahoo.com>
Subject: [t-28-flyers] Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
airshows - another blow to general aviation
Guys and Gals,
I wanted to share an encounter I had with the FAA this past weekend. I
know there has been discussion on this topic previously.
I flew the T-28 to an airshow in North Carolina this past weekend. The
airshow was providing fuel for our flight down and back and for some
flybys. I had agreed to give some sponsor or VIP rides.
After my first VIP ride, I was approached by the Greensboro FAA
inspector for the airshow. He asked to see my credentials and then my
LOA. I told him I no longer needed an LOA but had an authorization on
my certificate to fly the T-28.
He then proceeded to inform me that I needed an LOA (Letter of
Authorization) to carry any passenger for compensation and that the
pilot (s) operating the aircraft needed to be on a drug and alcohol
program. He asked if the airshow was providing me any fuel. I told him
indeed they were as that was common practice when a pilot agreed to
bring an aircraft to an airshow for static or flybys.
He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for
compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was
receiving compensation. Since I did not have an LOA or an approved drug
and alcohol program approved by the FAA , I was in violation of 91.417.
Being on a drug and alcohol program for a Part 135 operation that did
not include the T-28 did not cover me. I needed a specific program for
this operation.
He told me he had mentioned this requirement to the airshow director
prior to the show.
I then told him that probably most airshow aircraft across the country
and at this airshow were probably in violation of this regulation. He
told me was checking everyone's paperwork at the airshow. Needless to
say there were some disappointed VIPS.
I asked him if I was in trouble. He told me he had not seen me give any
rides so therefore was not in violation of the regs. I assured him I
had no intention of giving any rides.
Of course this created havoc with all the other pilots in the same
situation. Not many of us have the LOA'S or approved drug program to
give rides on our planes when we are receiving any type of compensation.
Gordon asked if there was any problem giving a friend a ride during the
airshow at our expense. The inspector was not amused. I guess we would
have to prove we did not receive fuel for the flight.
Slowly, they are legislating us out of the sky.
Sec. 91.147
[Passenger carrying flights for compensation or hire.]
[Each Operator conducting passenger-carrying flights for compensation or
hire must meet the following requirements unless all flights are
conducted under Sec. 91.146.
(a) For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,
Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights
in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance with
Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that
begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute
mile radius of that airport.
(b) An Operator must comply with the safety provisions of part 136,
subpart A of this chapter, and apply for and receive a Letter of
Authorization from the Flight Standards District Office nearest to its
principal place of business by September 11, 2007.
(c) Each application for a Letter of Authorization must include the
following information:
(1) Name of Operator, agent, and any d/b/a (doing-business-as) under
which that Operator does business;
(2) Principal business address and mailing address;
(3) Principal place of business (if different from business address);
(4) Name of person responsible for management of the business;
(5) Name of person responsible for aircraft maintenance;
(6) Type of aircraft, registration number(s), and make/model/series; and
(7) An Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program registration.
(d) The Operator must register and implement its drug and alcohol
testing programs in accordance with part 121, appendices I and J, of
this chapter.
(e) The Operator must comply with the provisions of the Letter of
Authorization received.]
Amdt. 91-295, Effective 3/15/07
Becky Luther
blutherva@yahoo.com
__._,_.___
------ End of Forwarded Message
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows |
- another blow to general aviation
Mark,
I like your approach. Interestingly enough, when researching Sec.
119.1(e)(2), as referenced in 91.147, it clearly states "having a
standard airworthiness certificate", that immediately eliminates Sec.
119.1 (e)(2). Next is Sec 135.1(a)(5) which says "Nonstop Commercial
Air Tour flights conducted for compensation or hire in accordance with
=A7119.1(e)(2). Since 119.1 (e)(2) is not applicable, that makes 135.1
(a)(5) not applicable as well. Finally, 121.1 (d) says, "(d) Nonstop
Commercial Air Tours conducted for compensation or hire in accordance
with =A7119.1(e)(2) of this chapter must comply with drug and alcohol
requirements". Again, not applicable.
Since 91.147 refers to 119.1 (e)(2) which has been determine as not
applicable (the standard airworthiness certificate requirement) that
would make 91.147 also not applicable to the situation.
The situation then defaults to commercial operation of an experimental
aircraft.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
airshows - another blow to general aviation
Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> This kind of makes the RPA rule that you must hold a Commercial Pilots
> license kind of overcome by events does it not? Point being, if
flying
> at an air show can be considered a commercial operation, there are a
lot
> of other rules that come into play, which this incident emphasizes.
> Thus, the Commercial Ticket can only used as a means of demonstrated
> proficiency, which very little to any pertains to formation flying
IMHO.
> :-) Sorry, just my personal opinion.
>
> But... This remains a very interesting situation. And having dealt
with
> Greensboro myself, I can believe every word told in the story here.
>
> Well, I am no legal expert, but..... Let's look at the way this rule
is
> written:
>
> "For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,
> Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying
flights
> in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance
with
> Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that
> begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a
25-statute
> mile radius of that airport."
>
> Now let's look at what the FAA is claiming:
>
> "He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for
> compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was
> receiving compensation."
>
> It seems to me that instead of challenging the FAA, it would be better
> to beat them at their own game, using their own rules. How? They
> contend that receiving fuel is in fact a method of "compensation" for
> carrying passengers at the Air Show. If you stop and think about it,
> there are MANY ways they could twist the rules to make everyone's life
> miserable over an issue like this. Examples on that later.
>
> Possible Solution: There is a POSSIBLE answer to this that to me
appears
> to be quite simple. One needs to completely eliminate the matter of
> fuel being used as proof of "compensation" for carrying passengers.
> Make it to where the FAA can not make the claim that they are making.
>
> Two ways to do this:
>
> 1. Accept no fuel or special favor of any kind what-so-ever. That
> pretty much solves the problem completely.
>
> 2. Accept every special favor that you can get, BUT... And this is the
> tricky part.... Have the person providing you this fuel or special
favor
> sign a legal document to wit:
>
>
> As an example for myself getting fuel at an air show:
>
> "The fuel being provided by; airport fuel official or authority, or
air
> show person, etc. etc to Mr. Bitterlich is not in any way meant or
> designed to act as compensation or as method to hire Mr. Bitterlich in
> any way for any passenger carrying flights made by Mr. Bitterlich's
> aircraft at this airport The fuel being provided to Mr. Bitterlich is
a
> courtesy and is a gesture of our good will for him agreeing to allow
> people to come see and photograph his aircraft at our event and was
> never a pre-requisite for his arrival or participation in this air
show
> or any flights he made during it."
>
> Let me explain why I suggest this. Any lawyer in the world would
agree
> that the hardest thing to prove is "intent". The FAA is ASSUMING
> "intent" as to the reason you were given the free fuel. If you can
> remove the factor of INTENT, by having a clear and legal document,
> signed by all parties present, that the INTENT of the free fuel was
not
> an INCENTIVE, but was instead a "gesture of good will", then the FAA
> could still violate you (something they can always do, no matter what
> you say!) but when you go to court they will have to claim and then
> PROVE that you received the fuel as an incentive, and/or for
> compensation, when you have a signed document by all parties involved
> clearly specifying that this was NOT the case! The fact that such a
> letter was drafted and signed by all parties shows direct and clear
> legal intent to provide clear and positive proof contrary to that very
> thought!
>
> Further, if you carefully document every person who received free fuel
> and did NOT carry a passenger at ALL at ANY TIME during the event, you
> now have legal proof that THESE people got the exact same thing (or
> things) that you got, and obviously did not get that fuel to carry
> passengers since they never flew any and still received the exact same
> amount of fuel as you did or LESS.
>
> Take it one step further, with a form letter that you sign and give to
> the event manager that says: "I was given free fuel at this event as
a
> gesture of good will and assume no obligation to perform any service
> what-so-ever, now or in the future for said free fuel".
>
> So.....
>
> 1. You have a letter saying the fuel was a gesture of good will and
not
> for compensation or hire in ANY way.
> 2. He has a letter from you saying the same thing.
> 3. You have a list of other aircraft that got fuel and never carried
> anyone anywhere during the event.
>
>
> The FAA can STILL claim anything they want, but stop and consider...
> They could claim that you received not only fuel, but things like: "A
> better tie down location... For compensation.... Better security on
your
> aircraft... For compensation.... A free tea shirt... For
> compensation....a FREE LUNCH OR FREE COFFEE... For compensation. The
> list is endless. The trick is to prove that they are being trivial,
> biased, and are showing prejudicial behavior. So another suggestion,
> always carry a personal digital recorder with you when you do stuff
like
> this. Be ready and waiting to record every single word said to you
and
> your reply. Folks, I work for the U.S. Govt., and I carry one with me
> EVERYWHERE. It has saved my rear end at work, and at Highway Patrol
> Traffic Stops, you name it.
>
> I do not know whether the above will cover your ass completely or not,
> but it sure will go a LONG ways towards doing so as compared to having
> nothing other than your personal opinion to offer when you get
violated.
>
>
> It would be interesting to have an FAA official claim that you
received
> free fuel as compensation for giving rides in your aircraft, and you
> replying: "Really Sir? Can you prove that?" And he will probably
> reply with: "Can you prove that you didn't?" Looking him directly in
> the eye and saying: "Actually Sir, yes I can" .... You have to
> treasure moments like that.....
>
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
> P.s. Curious what a lawyer will say.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McGirt
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:20 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
> airshows - another blow to general aviation
>
> This is a message from the T-28 forum, but applies to our group as
well.
> The Red Thunder Airshow team was performing at this same event, and
> witnessed this event. The T-28 group is up in arms, and working to
get
> NATA & EAA Warbirds involved.
>
> DM
>
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Becky Luther <blutherva@yahoo.com>
> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:41:17 -0400
> To: <t-28-flyers@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [t-28-flyers] Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
> airshows - another blow to general aviation
>
> Guys and Gals,
>
> I wanted to share an encounter I had with the FAA this past weekend.
I
> know there has been discussion on this topic previously.
>
> I flew the T-28 to an airshow in North Carolina this past weekend.
The
> airshow was providing fuel for our flight down and back and for some
> flybys. I had agreed to give some sponsor or VIP rides.
>
> After my first VIP ride, I was approached by the Greensboro FAA
> inspector for the airshow. He asked to see my credentials and then my
> LOA. I told him I no longer needed an LOA but had an authorization on
> my certificate to fly the T-28.
>
> He then proceeded to inform me that I needed an LOA (Letter of
> Authorization) to carry any passenger for compensation and that the
> pilot (s) operating the aircraft needed to be on a drug and alcohol
> program. He asked if the airshow was providing me any fuel. I told
him
> indeed they were as that was common practice when a pilot agreed to
> bring an aircraft to an airshow for static or flybys.
>
> He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for
> compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was
> receiving compensation. Since I did not have an LOA or an approved
drug
> and alcohol program approved by the FAA , I was in violation of
91.417.
> Being on a drug and alcohol program for a Part 135 operation that did
> not include the T-28 did not cover me. I needed a specific program
for
> this operation.
>
> He told me he had mentioned this requirement to the airshow director
> prior to the show.
>
> I then told him that probably most airshow aircraft across the country
> and at this airshow were probably in violation of this regulation. He
> told me was checking everyone's paperwork at the airshow. Needless to
> say there were some disappointed VIPS.
>
> I asked him if I was in trouble. He told me he had not seen me give
any
> rides so therefore was not in violation of the regs. I assured him I
> had no intention of giving any rides.
>
> Of course this created havoc with all the other pilots in the same
> situation. Not many of us have the LOA'S or approved drug program to
> give rides on our planes when we are receiving any type of
compensation.
>
> Gordon asked if there was any problem giving a friend a ride during
the
> airshow at our expense. The inspector was not amused. I guess we
would
> have to prove we did not receive fuel for the flight.
>
> Slowly, they are legislating us out of the sky.
>
>
>
> Sec. 91.147
>
> [Passenger carrying flights for compensation or hire.]
>
>
> [Each Operator conducting passenger-carrying flights for compensation
or
> hire must meet the following requirements unless all flights are
> conducted under Sec. 91.146.
> (a) For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,
> Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying
flights
> in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance
with
> Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that
> begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a
25-statute
> mile radius of that airport.
> (b) An Operator must comply with the safety provisions of part 136,
> subpart A of this chapter, and apply for and receive a Letter of
> Authorization from the Flight Standards District Office nearest to its
> principal place of business by September 11, 2007.
> (c) Each application for a Letter of Authorization must include the
> following information:
> (1) Name of Operator, agent, and any d/b/a (doing-business-as) under
> which that Operator does business;
> (2) Principal business address and mailing address;
> (3) Principal place of business (if different from business address);
> (4) Name of person responsible for management of the business;
> (5) Name of person responsible for aircraft maintenance;
> (6) Type of aircraft, registration number(s), and make/model/series;
and
> (7) An Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program registration.
> (d) The Operator must register and implement its drug and alcohol
> testing programs in accordance with part 121, appendices I and J, of
> this chapter.
> (e) The Operator must comply with the provisions of the Letter of
> Authorization received.]
>
>
>
> Amdt. 91-295, Effective 3/15/07
>
>
>
>
> Becky Luther
> blutherva@yahoo.com
>
> __._,_.___
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows |
- another blow to general aviation
Screw this BS..take a single seater and accept no fuel. Then what's the FSDO
to do.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G
CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:10 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
airshows - another blow to general aviation
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
This kind of makes the RPA rule that you must hold a Commercial Pilots
license kind of overcome by events does it not? Point being, if flying
at an air show can be considered a commercial operation, there are a lot
of other rules that come into play, which this incident emphasizes.
Thus, the Commercial Ticket can only used as a means of demonstrated
proficiency, which very little to any pertains to formation flying IMHO.
:-) Sorry, just my personal opinion.
But... This remains a very interesting situation. And having dealt with
Greensboro myself, I can believe every word told in the story here.
Well, I am no legal expert, but..... Let's look at the way this rule is
written:
"For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,
Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights
in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance with
Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that
begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute
mile radius of that airport."
Now let's look at what the FAA is claiming:
"He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for
compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was
receiving compensation."
It seems to me that instead of challenging the FAA, it would be better
to beat them at their own game, using their own rules. How? They
contend that receiving fuel is in fact a method of "compensation" for
carrying passengers at the Air Show. If you stop and think about it,
there are MANY ways they could twist the rules to make everyone's life
miserable over an issue like this. Examples on that later.
Possible Solution: There is a POSSIBLE answer to this that to me appears
to be quite simple. One needs to completely eliminate the matter of
fuel being used as proof of "compensation" for carrying passengers.
Make it to where the FAA can not make the claim that they are making.
Two ways to do this:
1. Accept no fuel or special favor of any kind what-so-ever. That
pretty much solves the problem completely.
2. Accept every special favor that you can get, BUT... And this is the
tricky part.... Have the person providing you this fuel or special favor
sign a legal document to wit:
As an example for myself getting fuel at an air show:
"The fuel being provided by; airport fuel official or authority, or air
show person, etc. etc to Mr. Bitterlich is not in any way meant or
designed to act as compensation or as method to hire Mr. Bitterlich in
any way for any passenger carrying flights made by Mr. Bitterlich's
aircraft at this airport The fuel being provided to Mr. Bitterlich is a
courtesy and is a gesture of our good will for him agreeing to allow
people to come see and photograph his aircraft at our event and was
never a pre-requisite for his arrival or participation in this air show
or any flights he made during it."
Let me explain why I suggest this. Any lawyer in the world would agree
that the hardest thing to prove is "intent". The FAA is ASSUMING
"intent" as to the reason you were given the free fuel. If you can
remove the factor of INTENT, by having a clear and legal document,
signed by all parties present, that the INTENT of the free fuel was not
an INCENTIVE, but was instead a "gesture of good will", then the FAA
could still violate you (something they can always do, no matter what
you say!) but when you go to court they will have to claim and then
PROVE that you received the fuel as an incentive, and/or for
compensation, when you have a signed document by all parties involved
clearly specifying that this was NOT the case! The fact that such a
letter was drafted and signed by all parties shows direct and clear
legal intent to provide clear and positive proof contrary to that very
thought!
Further, if you carefully document every person who received free fuel
and did NOT carry a passenger at ALL at ANY TIME during the event, you
now have legal proof that THESE people got the exact same thing (or
things) that you got, and obviously did not get that fuel to carry
passengers since they never flew any and still received the exact same
amount of fuel as you did or LESS.
Take it one step further, with a form letter that you sign and give to
the event manager that says: "I was given free fuel at this event as a
gesture of good will and assume no obligation to perform any service
what-so-ever, now or in the future for said free fuel".
So.....
1. You have a letter saying the fuel was a gesture of good will and not
for compensation or hire in ANY way.
2. He has a letter from you saying the same thing.
3. You have a list of other aircraft that got fuel and never carried
anyone anywhere during the event.
The FAA can STILL claim anything they want, but stop and consider...
They could claim that you received not only fuel, but things like: "A
better tie down location... For compensation.... Better security on your
aircraft... For compensation.... A free tea shirt... For
compensation....a FREE LUNCH OR FREE COFFEE... For compensation. The
list is endless. The trick is to prove that they are being trivial,
biased, and are showing prejudicial behavior. So another suggestion,
always carry a personal digital recorder with you when you do stuff like
this. Be ready and waiting to record every single word said to you and
your reply. Folks, I work for the U.S. Govt., and I carry one with me
EVERYWHERE. It has saved my rear end at work, and at Highway Patrol
Traffic Stops, you name it.
I do not know whether the above will cover your ass completely or not,
but it sure will go a LONG ways towards doing so as compared to having
nothing other than your personal opinion to offer when you get violated.
It would be interesting to have an FAA official claim that you received
free fuel as compensation for giving rides in your aircraft, and you
replying: "Really Sir? Can you prove that?" And he will probably
reply with: "Can you prove that you didn't?" Looking him directly in
the eye and saying: "Actually Sir, yes I can" .... You have to
treasure moments like that.....
Mark Bitterlich
P.s. Curious what a lawyer will say.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McGirt
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:20 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
airshows - another blow to general aviation
This is a message from the T-28 forum, but applies to our group as well.
The Red Thunder Airshow team was performing at this same event, and
witnessed this event. The T-28 group is up in arms, and working to get
NATA & EAA Warbirds involved.
DM
------ Forwarded Message
From: Becky Luther <blutherva@yahoo.com>
Subject: [t-28-flyers] Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
airshows - another blow to general aviation
Guys and Gals,
I wanted to share an encounter I had with the FAA this past weekend. I
know there has been discussion on this topic previously.
I flew the T-28 to an airshow in North Carolina this past weekend. The
airshow was providing fuel for our flight down and back and for some
flybys. I had agreed to give some sponsor or VIP rides.
After my first VIP ride, I was approached by the Greensboro FAA
inspector for the airshow. He asked to see my credentials and then my
LOA. I told him I no longer needed an LOA but had an authorization on
my certificate to fly the T-28.
He then proceeded to inform me that I needed an LOA (Letter of
Authorization) to carry any passenger for compensation and that the
pilot (s) operating the aircraft needed to be on a drug and alcohol
program. He asked if the airshow was providing me any fuel. I told him
indeed they were as that was common practice when a pilot agreed to
bring an aircraft to an airshow for static or flybys.
He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for
compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was
receiving compensation. Since I did not have an LOA or an approved drug
and alcohol program approved by the FAA , I was in violation of 91.417.
Being on a drug and alcohol program for a Part 135 operation that did
not include the T-28 did not cover me. I needed a specific program for
this operation.
He told me he had mentioned this requirement to the airshow director
prior to the show.
I then told him that probably most airshow aircraft across the country
and at this airshow were probably in violation of this regulation. He
told me was checking everyone's paperwork at the airshow. Needless to
say there were some disappointed VIPS.
I asked him if I was in trouble. He told me he had not seen me give any
rides so therefore was not in violation of the regs. I assured him I
had no intention of giving any rides.
Of course this created havoc with all the other pilots in the same
situation. Not many of us have the LOA'S or approved drug program to
give rides on our planes when we are receiving any type of compensation.
Gordon asked if there was any problem giving a friend a ride during the
airshow at our expense. The inspector was not amused. I guess we would
have to prove we did not receive fuel for the flight.
Slowly, they are legislating us out of the sky.
Sec. 91.147
[Passenger carrying flights for compensation or hire.]
[Each Operator conducting passenger-carrying flights for compensation or
hire must meet the following requirements unless all flights are
conducted under Sec. 91.146.
(a) For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,
Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights
in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance with
Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that
begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute
mile radius of that airport.
(b) An Operator must comply with the safety provisions of part 136,
subpart A of this chapter, and apply for and receive a Letter of
Authorization from the Flight Standards District Office nearest to its
principal place of business by September 11, 2007.
(c) Each application for a Letter of Authorization must include the
following information:
(1) Name of Operator, agent, and any d/b/a (doing-business-as) under
which that Operator does business;
(2) Principal business address and mailing address;
(3) Principal place of business (if different from business address);
(4) Name of person responsible for management of the business;
(5) Name of person responsible for aircraft maintenance;
(6) Type of aircraft, registration number(s), and make/model/series; and
(7) An Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program registration.
(d) The Operator must register and implement its drug and alcohol
testing programs in accordance with part 121, appendices I and J, of
this chapter.
(e) The Operator must comply with the provisions of the Letter of
Authorization received.]
Amdt. 91-295, Effective 3/15/07
Becky Luther
blutherva@yahoo.com
__._,_.___
------ End of Forwarded Message
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows |
- anoth...
In a message dated 9/10/2008 4:56:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net writes:
I saw this happen some years ago at TICO. A private pilot who was flying a
S-51 in the show, was approached by the FAA about receiving any compensatio
n
and was going to write him up. The pilot pointed out that he didn't receiv
e
any fuel, but the FAA guy pointed to the sandwiches and drinks in the pilot
briefing tent and said that was "compensation". I forget who stepped forwa
rd
but this fellow was quick to point out to the Fed, that 'everybody" was
eating in the tent, ground crews, re-enactors, secretaries, airboss, EVEN t
he FAA!
At that point the Fed dropped it.
On another note. A big CB rumbled though an hour or so ago. I was working
in the hangar and it immediately cooled off everything. When it cleared, I
soon hear the F-18 high over head. I live under a MOA and at times things
get
pretty busy around here. As I stood in front of my hangar watching them
high over head, a Blackhawk came bust'n over the trees at less than 200' -
balls
to the wall. This has been going on for several days now. Our airpark is
a check point of a low altitude training route. So this happens often -
sometimes late at night. We even had an Apache land here once when he got
a chip
light in his tail rotor. If I happen to be out in front of the hangar, I
wave like crazy and often get the flash of a landing light or a wave from t
he
door man.
God! I do love it so!
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
Mark,
I like your approach. Interestingly enough, when researching Sec.
119.1(e)(2), as referenced in 91.147, it clearly states "having a standard
airworthiness certificate", that immediately eliminates Sec. 119.1 (e)(2).
Next is Sec
135.1(a)(5) which says "Nonstop Commercial Air Tour flights conducted for
compensation or hire in accordance with =A7119.1(e)(2). Since 119.1 (e)(2)
is not
applicable, that makes 135.1 (a)(5) not applicable as well. Finally, 121.1
(d) says, "(d) Nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted for compensation or
hire in accordance with =A7119.1(e)(2) of this chapter must comply with dru
g and
alcohol requirements". Again, not applicable.
Since 91.147 refers to 119.1 (e)(2) which has been determine as not
applicable (the standard airworthiness certificate requirement) that would
make
91.147 also not applicable to the situation.
The situation then defaults to commercial operation of an experimental
aircraft.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<_mark.bitterlich@navy.mil_ (mailto:mark.bitterlich@navy.mil) >
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
airshows - another blow to general aviation
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E" <_mark.bitterlich@navy.mil_ (mailto:mark.bitterlich@navy.mil)
>
>
> This kind of makes the RPA rule that you must hold a Commercial Pilots
> license kind of overcome by events does it not? Point being, if flying
> at an air show can be considered a commercial operation, there are a lot
> of other rules that come into play, which this incident emphasizes.
> Thus, the Commercial Ticket can only used as a means of demonstrated
> proficiency, which very little to any pertains to formation flying IMHO.
> :-) Sorry, just my personal opinion.
>
> But... This remains a very interesting situation. And having dealt with
> Greensboro myself, I can believe every word told in the story here.
>
> Well, I am no legal expert, but..... Let's look at the way this rule is
> written:
>
> "For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,
> Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights
> in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance with
> Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that
> begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute
> mile radius of that airport."
>
> Now let's look at what the FAA is claiming:
>
> "He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for
> compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was
> receiving compensation."
>
> It seems to me that instead of challenging the FAA, it would be better
> to beat them at their own game, using their own rules. How? They
> contend that receiving fuel is in fact a method of "compensation" for
> carrying passengers at the Air Show. If you stop and think about it,
> there are MANY ways they could twist the rules to make everyone's life
> miserable over an issue like this. Examples on that later.
>
> Possible Solution: There is a POSSIBLE answer to this that to me appears
> to be quite simple. One needs to completely eliminate the matter of
> fuel being used as proof of "compensation" for carrying passengers.
> Make it to where the FAA can not make the claim that they are making.
>
> Two ways to do this:
>
> 1. Accept no fuel or special favor of any kind what-so-ever. That
> pretty much solves the problem completely.
>
> 2. Accept every special favor that you can get, BUT... And this is the
> tricky part.... Have the person providing you this fuel or special favor
> sign a legal document to wit:
>
>
> As an example for myself getting fuel at an air show:
>
> "The fuel being provided by; airport fuel official or authority, or air
> show person, etc. etc to Mr. Bitterlich is not in any way meant or
> designed to act as compensation or as method to hire Mr. Bitterlich in
> any way for any passenger carrying flights made by Mr. Bitterlich's
> aircraft at this airport The fuel being provided to Mr. Bitterlich is a
> courtesy and is a gesture of our good will for him agreeing to allow
> people to come see and photograph his aircraft at our event and was
> never a pre-requisite for his arrival or participation in this air show
> or any flights he made during it."
>
> Let me explain why I suggest this. Any lawyer in the world would agree
> that the hardest thing to prove is "intent". The FAA is ASSUMING
> "intent" as to the reason you were given the free fuel. If you can
> remove the factor of INTENT, by having a clear and legal document,
> signed by all parties present, that the INTENT of the free fuel was not
> an INCENTIVE, but was instead a "gesture of good will", then the FAA
> could still violate you (something they can always do, no matter what
> you say!) but when you go to court they will have to claim and then
> PROVE that you received the fuel as an incentive, and/or for
> compensation, when you have a signed document by all parties involved
> clearly specifying that this was NOT the case! The fact that such a
> letter was drafted and signed by all parties shows direct and clear
> legal intent to provide clear and positive proof contrary to that very
> thought!
>
> Further, if you carefully document every person who received free fuel
> and did NOT carry a passenger at ALL at ANY TIME during the event, you
> now have legal proof that THESE people got the exact same thing (or
> things) that you got, and obviously did not get that fuel to carry
> passengers since they never flew any and still received the exact same
> amount of fuel as you did or LESS.
>
> Take it one step further, with a form letter that you sign and give to
> the event manager that says: "I was given free fuel at this event as a
> gesture of good will and assume no obligation to perform any service
> what-so-ever, now or in the future for said free fuel".
>
> So.....
>
> 1. You have a letter saying the fuel was a gesture of good will and not
> for compensation or hire in ANY way.
> 2. He has a letter from you saying the same thing.
> 3. You have a list of other aircraft that got fuel and never carried
> anyone anywhere during the event.
>
>
> The FAA can STILL claim anything they want, but stop and consider...
> They could claim that you received not only fuel, but things like: "A
> better tie down location... For compensation.... Better security on your
> aircraft... For compensation.... A free tea shirt... For
> compensation....a FREE LUNCH OR FREE COFFEE... For compensation. The
> list is endless. The trick is to prove that they are being trivial,
> biased, and are showing prejudicial behavior. So another suggestion,
> always carry a personal digital recorder with you when you do stuff like
> this. Be ready and waiting to record every single word said to you and
> your reply. Folks, I work for the U.S. Govt., and I carry one with me
> EVERYWHERE. It has saved my rear end at work, and at Highway Patrol
> Traffic Stops, you name it.
>
> I do not know whether the above will cover your ass completely or not,
> but it sure will go a LONG ways towards doing so as compared to having
> nothing other than your personal opinion to offer when you get violated.
>
>
> It would be interesting to have an FAA official claim that you received
> free fuel as compensation for giving rides in your aircraft, and you
> replying: "Really Sir? Can you prove that?" And he will probably
> reply with: "Can you prove that you didn't?" Looking him directly in
> the eye and saying: "Actually Sir, yes I can" .... You have to
> treasure moments like that.....
>
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
> P.s. Curious what a lawyer will say.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: _owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com_
(mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com)
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McGirt
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:20 AM
> To: _yak-list@matronics.com_ (mailto:yak-list@matronics.com)
> Subject: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
> airshows - another blow to general aviation
>
> This is a message from the T-28 forum, but applies to our group as well.
> The Red Thunder Airshow team was performing at this same event, and
> witnessed this event. The T-28 group is up in arms, and working to get
> NATA & EAA Warbirds involved.
>
> DM
>
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Becky Luther <_blutherva@yahoo.com_ (mailto:blutherva@yahoo.com) >
> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:41:17 -0400
> To: <_t-28-flyers@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:t-28-flyers@yahoogroups.com) >
> Subject: [t-28-flyers] Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
> airshows - another blow to general aviation
>
> Guys and Gals,
>
> I wanted to share an encounter I had with the FAA this past weekend. I
> know there has been discussion on this topic previously.
>
> I flew the T-28 to an airshow in North Carolina this past weekend. The
> airshow was providing fuel for our flight down and back and for some
> flybys. I had agreed to give some sponsor or VIP rides.
>
> After my first VIP ride, I was approached by the Greensboro FAA
> inspector for the airshow. He asked to see my credentials and then my
> LOA. I told him I no longer needed an LOA but had an authorization on
> my certificate to fly the T-28.
>
> He then proceeded to inform me that I needed an LOA (Letter of
> Authorization) to carry any passenger for compensation and that the
> pilot (s) operating the aircraft needed to be on a drug and alcohol
> program. He asked if the airshow was providing me any fuel. I told him
> indeed they were as that was common practice when a pilot agreed to
> bring an aircraft to an airshow for static or flybys.
>
> He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for
> compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was
> receiving compensation. Since I did not have an LOA or an approved drug
> and alcohol program approved by the FAA , I was in violation of 91.417.
> Being on a drug and alcohol program for a Part 135 operation that did
> not include the T-28 did not cover me. I needed a specific program for
> this operation.
>
> He told me he had mentioned this requirement to the airshow director
> prior to the show.
>
> I then told him that probably most airshow aircraft across the country
> and at this airshow were probably in violation of this regulation. He
> told me was checking everyone's paperwork at the airshow. Needless to
> say there were some disappointed VIPS.
>
> I asked him if I was in trouble. He told me he had not seen me give any
> rides so therefore was not in violation of the regs. I assured him I
> had no intention of giving any rides.
>
> Of course this created havoc with all the other pilots in the same
> situation. Not many of us have the LOA'S or approved drug program to
> give rides on our planes when we are receiving any type of compensation.
>
> Gordon asked if there was any problem giving a friend a ride during the
> airshow at our expense. The inspector was not amused. I guess we would
> have to prove we did not receive fuel for the flight.
>
> Slowly, they are legislating us out of the sky.
>
>
>
> Sec. 91.147
>
> [Passenger carrying flights for compensation or hire.]
>
>
> [Each Operator conducting passenger-carrying flights for compensation or
> hire must meet the following requirements unless all flights are
> conducted under Sec. 91.146.
> (a) For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,
> Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights
> in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance with
> Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that
> begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute
> mile radius of that airport.
> (b) An Operator must comply with the safety provisions of part 136,
> subpart A of this chapter, and apply for and receive a Letter of
> Authorization from the Flight Standards District Office nearest to its
> principal place of business by September 11, 2007.
> (c) Each application for a Letter of Authorization must include the
> following information:
> (1) Name of Operator, agent, and any d/b/a (doing-business-as) under
> which that Operator does business;
> (2) Principal business address and mailing address;
> (3) Principal place of business (if different from business address);
> (4) Name of person responsible for management of the business;
> (5) Name of person responsible for aircraft maintenance;
> (6) Type of aircraft, registration number(s), and make/model/series; and
> (7) An Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program registration.
> (d) The Operator must register and implement its drug and alcohol
> testing programs in accordance with part 121, appendices I and J, of
> this chapter.
> (e) The Operator must comply with the provisions of the Letter of
> Authorization received.]
>
>
>
> Amdt. 91-295, Effective 3/15/07
>
>
>
>
> Becky Luther
> _blutherva@yahoo.com_ (mailto:blutherva@yahoo.com)
>
> __._,_.___
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
>
> ==========
> Yak-List Email browse
> Photoshare, and much
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?Yak-List
> ==========
> bsp; via the
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> bsp; - generous support!
> bsp;
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/cont
ribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows |
- anoth...
Go Army! Beat Navy!!
-------------- Original message --------------
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
In a message dated 9/10/2008 4:56:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net
writes:
I saw this happen some years ago at TICO. A private pilot who was flying a S-51
in the show, was approached by the FAA about receiving any compensation and
was going to write him up. The pilot pointed out that he didn't receive any fuel,
but the FAA guy pointed to the sandwiches and drinks in the pilot briefing
tent and said that was "compensation". I forget who stepped forward but this
fellow was quick to point out to the Fed, that 'everybody" was eating in the
tent, ground crews, re-enactors, secretaries, airboss, EVEN the FAA! At that
point the Fed dropped it.
On another note. A big CB rumbled though an hour or so ago. I was working in
the hangar and it immediately cooled off everything. When it cleared, I soon
hear the F-18 high over head. I live under a MOA and at times things get pretty
busy around here. As I stood in front of my hangar watching them high over
head, a Blackhawk came bust'n over the trees at less than 200' - balls to the
wall. This has been going on for several days now. Our airpark is a check point
of a low altitude training route. So this happens often - sometimes late
at night. We even had an Apache land here once when he got a chip light in his
tail rotor. If I happen to be out in front of the hangar, I wave like crazy
and often get the flash of a landing light or a wave from the door man.
God! I do love it so!
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
Mark,
I like your approach. Interestingly enough, when researching Sec. 119.1(e)(2),
as referenced in 91.147, it clearly states "having a standard airworthiness certificate",
that immediately eliminates Sec. 119.1 (e)(2). Next is Sec 135.1(a)(5)
which says "Nonstop Commercial Air Tour flights conducted for compensation
or hire in accordance with 119.1(e)(2). Since 119.1 (e)(2) is not applicable,
that makes 135.1 (a)(5) not applicable as well. Finally, 121.1 (d) says,
"(d) Nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted for compensation or hire in accordance
with 119.1(e)(2) of this chapter must comply with drug and alcohol requirements".
Again, not applicable.
Since 91.147 refers to 119.1 (e)(2) which has been determine as not applicable
(the standard airworthiness certificate requirement) that would make 91.147 also
not applicable to the situation.
The situation then defaults to commercial operation of an experimental aircraft.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows
- another blow to general aviation
>
> This kind of makes the RPA rule that you must hold a Commercial Pilots
> license kind of overcome by events does it not? Point being, if flying
> at an air show can be considered a commercial operation, there are a lot
> of other rules that come into play, which this incident emphasizes.
> Thus, the Commercial Ticket can only used as a means of demonstrated
> proficiency, which very little to any pertains to formation flying IMHO.
> :-) Sorry, just my personal opinion.
>
> But... This remains a very interesting situation. And having dealt with
> Greensboro myself, I can believe every word told in the story here.
>
> Well, I am no legal expert, but..... Let's look at the way this rule is
> written:
>
> "For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,
> Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights
> in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance with
> Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that
> begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute
> mile radius of that airport."
>
> Now let's look at what the FAA is claiming:
>
> "He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for
> compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was
> receiving compensation."
>
> It seems to me that instead of challenging the FAA, it would be better
> to beat them at their own game, using their own rules. How? They
> contend that receiving fuel is in fact a method of "compensation" for
> carrying passengers at the Air Show. If you stop and think about it,
> there are MANY ways they could twist the rules to make everyone's life
> miserable over an issue like this. Examples on that later.
>
> Possible Solution: There is a POSSIBLE answer to this that to me appears
> to be quite simple. One needs to completely eliminate the matter of
> fuel being used as proof of "compensation" for carrying passengers.
> Make it to where the FAA can not make the claim that they are making.
>
> Two ways to do this:
>
> 1. Accept no fuel or special favor of any kind what-so-ever. That
> pretty much solves the problem completely.
>
> 2. Accept every special favor that you can get, BUT... And this is the
> tricky part.... Have the person providing you this fuel or special favor
> sign a legal document to wit:
>
>
> As an example for myself getting fuel at an air show:
>
> "The fuel being provided by; airport fuel official or authority, or air
> show person, etc. etc to Mr. Bitterlich is not in any way meant or
> designed to act as compensation or as method to hire Mr. Bitterlich in
> any way for any passenger carrying flights made by Mr. Bitterlich's
> aircraft at this airport The fuel being provided to Mr. Bitterlich is a
> courtesy and is a gesture of our good will for him agreeing to allow
> people to come see and photograph his aircraft at our event and was
> never a pre-requisite for his arrival or participation in this air show
> or any flights he made during it."
>
> Let me explain why I suggest this. Any lawyer in the world would agree
> that the hardest thing to prove is "intent". The FAA is ASSUMING
> "intent" as to the reason you were given the free fuel. If you can
> remove the factor of INTENT, by having a clear and legal document,
> signed by all parties present, that the INTENT of the free fuel was not
> an INCENTIVE, but was instead a "gesture of good will", then the FAA
> could still violate you (something they can always do, no matter what
> you say!) but when you go to court they will have to claim and then
> PROVE that you received the fuel as an incentive, and/or for
> compensation, when you have a signed document by all parties involved
> clearly specifying that this was NOT the case! The fact that such a
> letter was drafted and signed by all parties shows direct and clear
> legal intent to provide clear and positive proof contrary to that very
> thought!
>
> Further, if you carefully document every person who received free fuel
> and did NOT carry a passenger at ALL at ANY TIME during the event, you
> now have legal proof that THESE people got the exact same thing (or
> things) that you got, and obviously did not get that fuel to carry
> passengers since they never flew any and still received the exact same
> amount of fuel as you did or LESS.
>
> Take it one step further, with a form letter that you sign and give to
> the event manager that says: "I was given free fuel at this event as a
> gesture of good will and assume no obligation to perform any service
> what-so-ever, now or in the future for said free fuel".
>
> So.....
>
> 1. You have a letter saying the fuel was a gesture of good will and not
> for compensation or hire in ANY way.
> 2. He has a letter from you saying the same thing.
> 3. You have a list of other aircraft that got fuel and never carried
> anyone anywhere during the event.
>
>
> The FAA can STILL claim anything they want, but stop and consider...
> They could claim that you received not only fuel, but things like: "A
> better tie down location... For compensation.... Better security on your
> aircraft... For compensation.... A free tea shirt... For
> compensation....a FREE LUNCH OR FREE COFFEE... For compensation. The
> list is endless. The trick is to prove that they are being trivial,
> biased, and are showing prejudicial behavior. So another suggestion,
> always carry a personal digital recorder with you when you do stuff like
> this. Be ready and waiting to record every single word said to you and
> your reply. Folks, I work for the U.S. Govt., and I carry one with me
> EVERYWHERE. It has saved my rear end at work, and at Highway Patrol
> Traffic Stops, you name it.
>
> I do not know whether the above will cover your ass completely or not,
> but it sure will go a LONG ways towards doing so as compared to having
> nothing other than your personal opinion to offer when you get violated.
>
>
> It would be interesting to have an FAA official claim that you received
> free fuel as compensation for giving rides in your aircraft, and you
> replying: "Really Sir? Can you prove that?" And he will probably
> reply with: "Can you prove that you didn't?" Looking him directly in
> the eye and saying: "Actually Sir, yes I can" .... You have to
> treasure moments like that.....
>
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
> P.s. Curious what a lawyer will say.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McGirt
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:20 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
> airshows - another blow to general aviation
>
> This is a message from the T-28 forum, but applies to our group as well.
> The Red Thunder Airshow team was performing at this same event, and
> witnessed this event. The T-28 group is up in arms, and working to get
> NATA & EAA Warbirds involved.
>
> DM
>
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Becky Luther <blutherva@yahoo.com>
> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:41:17 -0400
> To: <t-28-flyers@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [t-28-flyers] Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
> airshows - another blow to general aviation
>
> Guys and Gals,
>
> I wanted to share an encounter I had with the FAA this past weekend. I
> know there has been discussion on this topic previously.
>
> I flew the T-28 to an airshow in North Carolina this past weekend. The
> airshow was providing fuel for our flight down and back and for some
> flybys. I had agreed to give some sponsor or VIP rides.
>
> After my first VIP ride, I was approached by the Greensboro FAA
> inspector for the airshow. He asked to see my credentials and then my
> LOA. I told him I no longer needed an LOA but had an authorization on
> my certificate to fly the T-28.
>
> He then proceeded to inform me that I needed an LOA (Letter of
> Authorization) to carry any passenger for compensation and that the
> pilot (s) operating the aircraft needed to be on a drug and alcohol
> program. He asked if the airshow was providing me any fuel. I told him
> indeed they were as that was common practice when a pilot agreed to
> bring an aircraft to an airshow for static or flybys.
>
> He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for
> compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was
> receiving compensation. Since I did not have an LOA or an approved drug
> and alcohol program approved by the FAA , I was in violation of 91.417.
> Being on a drug and alcohol program for a Part 135 operation that did
> not include the T-28 did not cover me. I needed a specific program for
> this operation.
>
> He told me he had mentioned this requirement to the airshow director
> prior to the show.
>
> I then told him that probably most airshow aircraft across the country
> and at this airshow were probably in violation of this regulation. He
> told me was checking everyone's paperwork at the airshow. Needless to
> say there were some disappointed VIPS.
>
> I asked him if I was in trouble. He told me he had not seen me give any
> rides so therefore was not in violation of the regs. I assured him I
> had no intention of giving any rides.
>
> Of course this created havoc with all the other pilots in the same
> situation. Not many of us have the LOA'S or approved drug program to
> give rides on our planes when we are receiving any type of compensation.
>
> Gordon asked if there was any problem giving a friend a ride during the
> airshow at our expense. The inspector was not amused. I guess we would
> have to prove we did not receive fuel for the flight.
>
> Slowly, they are legislating us out of the sky.
>
>
>
> Sec. 91.147
>
> [Passenger carrying flights for compensation or hire.]
>
>
> [Each Operator conducting passenger-carrying flights for compensation or
> hire must meet the following requirements unless all flights are
> conducted under Sec. 91.146.
> (a) For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,
> Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights
> in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance with
> Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that
> begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute
> mile radius of that airport.
> (b) An Operator must comply with the safety provisions of part 136,
> subpart A of this chapter, and apply for and receive a Letter of
> Authorization from the Flight Standards District Office nearest to its
> principal place of business by September 11, 2007.
> (c) Each application for a Letter of Authorization must include the
> following information:
> (1) Name of Operator, agent, and any d/b/a (doing-business-as) under
> which that Operator does business;
> (2) Principal business address and mailing address;
> (3) Principal place of business (if different from business address);
> (4) Name of person responsible for management of the business;
> (5) Name of person responsible for aircraft maintenance;
> (6) Type of aircraft, registration number(s), and make/model/series; and
> (7) An Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program registration.
> (d) The Operator must register and implement its drug and alcohol
> testing programs in accordance with part 121, appendices I and J, of
> this chapter.
> (e) The Operator must comply with the provisions of the Letter of
> Authorization received.]
>
>
>
> Amdt. 91-295, Effective 3/15/07
>
>
>
>
> Becky Luther
> blutherva@yahoo.com
>
> __._,_.___
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
>
> ==========
> Yak-List Email browse
> Photoshare, and much href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> ==========
> bsp; via the href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> bsp; - generous support!
> bsp; href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall
trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
<html><body>
<DIV>Go Army! Beat Navy!!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: cjpilot710@aol.com
<BR>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3243" name=GENERATOR><FONT id=role_document face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 9/10/2008 4:56:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net
writes:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I saw this happen some years ago at TICO. A private pilot who was flying
a S-51 in the show, was approached by the FAA about receiving any compensation
and was going to write him up. The pilot pointed out that he didn't
receive any fuel, but the FAA guy pointed to the sandwiches and drinks in the
pilot briefing tent and said that was "compensation". I forget who stepped
forward but this fellow was quick to point out to the Fed, that 'everybody"
was eating in the tent, ground crews, re-enactors, secretaries, airboss, EVEN
the FAA! At that point the Fed dropped it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On another note. A big CB rumbled though an hour or so ago. I
was working in the hangar and it immediately cooled off everything. When
it cleared, I soon hear the F-18 high over head. I live under a MOA
and at times things get pretty busy around here. As I stood in front
of my hangar watching them high over head, a Blackhawk came bust'n over
the trees at less than 200' - balls to the wall. This has been going
on for several days now. Our airpark is a check point of a low
altitude training route. So this happens often - sometimes late at night.
We even had an Apache land here once when he got a chip light in his
tail rotor. If I happen to be out in front of the hangar, I wave like
crazy and often get the flash of a landing light or a wave from the door man.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>God! I do love it so!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Jim "Pappy" Goolsby</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Mark,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I like your approach. Interestingly enough, when researching
Sec. 119.1(e)(2), as referenced in 91.147, it clearly states "having a <U>standard
airworthiness certificate</U>", that immediately eliminates Sec. 119.1
(e)(2). Next is Sec 135.1(a)(5) which says "Nonstop Commercial Air Tour
flights conducted for compensation or hire <U>in accordance with 119.1(e)(2).</U>
Since 119.1 (e)(2) is not applicable, that makes 135.1 (a)(5) not
applicable as well. Finally, 121.1 (d) says, "(d) Nonstop Commercial Air
Tours conducted for compensation or hire <U>in accordance with 119.1(e)(2)</U>
of this chapter must comply with drug and alcohol requirements". Again,
not applicable.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Since 91.147 refers to 119.1 (e)(2) which has been determine
as not applicable (the standard airworthiness certificate requirement) that would
make 91.147 also not applicable to the situation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The situation then defaults to commercial operation of an
experimental aircraft.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Dennis</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=2>From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <</FONT><A title=mailto:mark.bitterlich@navy.mil href="mailto:mark.bitterlich@navy.mil"><FONT size=2>mark.bitterlich@navy.mil</FONT></A><FONT size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>To: <</FONT><A title=mailto:yak-list@matronics.com href="mailto:yak-list@matronics.com"><FONT size=2>yak-list@matronics.com</FONT></A><FONT size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:09 PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Subject: RE: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation
at airshows - another blow to general aviation</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT size=2>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <</FONT><A title=mailto:mark.bitterlich@navy.mil href="mailto:mark.bitterlich@navy.mil"><FONT size=2>mark.bitterlich@navy.mil</FONT></A><FONT size=2>><BR>> <BR>> This kind of makes the RPA rule that you must hold a Commercial Pilots<BR>> license kind of overcome by events does it not? Point being, if flying<BR>> at an air show can be considered a commercial operation, there are a lot<BR>> of other rules that come into play, which this incident emphasizes.<BR>> Thus, the Commercial Ticket can only used as a means of demonstrated<BR>> proficiency, which very little to any pertains to formation flying IMHO.<BR>> :-) Sorry, just my personal opinion. <BR>> <BR>> But... This remains a very interesting situation. And having dealt with<BR>> Greensboro myself, I can beli
eve ev
ery word told in the story here. <BR>> <BR>> Well, I am no legal
expert, but..... Let's look at the way this rule is<BR>> written:
<BR>> <BR>> "For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol
testing,<BR>> Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying
flights<BR>> in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance
with<BR>> Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this
chapter that<BR>> begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within
a 25-statute<BR>> mile radius of that airport."<BR>> <BR>> Now let's
look at what the FAA is claiming: <BR>> <BR>> "He referenced FAR
91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for<BR>> compensation or hire,
(See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was<BR>> receiving compensation."<BR>>
<BR>> It seems to me that instead of challenging the FAA, it would
be better<BR>> to beat them at their own game, usi
ng the
ir own rules. How? They<BR>> contend that receiving fuel is in fact
a method of "compensation" for<BR>> carrying passengers at the Air Show.
If you stop and think about it,<BR>> there are MANY ways they could twist
the rules to make everyone's life<BR>> miserable over an issue like this.
Examples on that later. <BR>> <BR>> Possible Solution: There
is a POSSIBLE answer to this that to me appears<BR>> to be quite simple.
One needs to completely eliminate the matter of<BR>> fuel being used as
proof of "compensation" for carrying passengers.<BR>> Make it to where the
FAA can not make the claim that they are making.<BR>> <BR>> Two ways to
do this: <BR>> <BR>> 1. Accept no fuel or special favor of any kind what-so-ever.
That<BR>> pretty much solves the problem completely.
<BR>> <BR>> 2. Accept every special favor that you can get, BUT... And
this is the<BR>> tricky part.... Have the person
provid
ing you this fuel or special favor<BR>> sign a legal document to wit:<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> As an example for myself getting fuel at an air show:
<BR>> <BR>> "The fuel being provided by; airport fuel official or authority,
or air<BR>> show person, etc. etc to Mr. Bitterlich is not in any way
meant or<BR>> designed to act as compensation or as method to hire Mr. Bitterlich
in<BR>> any way for any passenger carrying flights made by Mr. Bitterlich's<BR>>
aircraft at this airport The fuel being provided to Mr.
Bitterlich is a<BR>> courtesy and is a gesture of our good will for him agreeing
to allow<BR>> people to come see and photograph his aircraft at our
event and was<BR>> never a pre-requisite for his arrival or participation
in this air show<BR>> or any flights he made during it." <BR>>
<BR>> Let me explain why I suggest this. Any lawyer in the world would
agree<BR>> that the hardest thing to prove is
"inte
nt". The FAA is ASSUMING<BR>> "intent" as to the reason you were given
the free fuel. If you can<BR>> remove the factor of INTENT, by having
a clear and legal document,<BR>> signed by all parties present, that the
INTENT of the free fuel was not<BR>> an INCENTIVE, but was instead a "gesture
of good will", then the FAA<BR>> could still violate you (something they
can always do, no matter what<BR>> you say!) but when you go to court they
will have to claim and then<BR>> PROVE that you received the fuel as an incentive,
and/or for<BR>> compensation, when you have a signed document by all
parties involved<BR>> clearly specifying that this was NOT the case!
The fact that such a<BR>> letter was drafted and signed by all parties shows
direct and clear<BR>> legal intent to provide clear and positive proof
contrary to that very<BR>> thought! <BR>> <BR>> Further,
if you carefully document every person who rec
eived
free fuel<BR>> and did NOT carry a passenger at ALL at ANY TIME during the event,
you<BR>> now have legal proof that THESE people got the exact same thing
(or<BR>> things) that you got, and obviously did not get that fuel to carry<BR>>
passengers since they never flew any and still received the exact
same<BR>> amount of fuel as you did or LESS. <BR>> <BR>> Take
it one step further, with a form letter that you sign and give to<BR>> the
event manager that says: "I was given free fuel at this event as a<BR>>
gesture of good will and assume no obligation to perform any service<BR>>
what-so-ever, now or in the future for said free fuel". <BR>> <BR>>
So.....<BR>> <BR>> 1. You have a letter saying the fuel was a
gesture of good will and not<BR>> for compensation or hire in ANY way. <BR>>
2. He has a letter from you saying the same thing. <BR>> 3.
You have a list of other aircraft that got fu
el and
never carried<BR>> anyone anywhere during the event. <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> The FAA can STILL claim anything they want, but stop and consider...<BR>>
They could claim that you received not only fuel, but things like:
"A<BR>> better tie down location... For compensation.... Better security
on your<BR>> aircraft... For compensation.... A free tea shirt... For<BR>>
compensation....a FREE LUNCH OR FREE COFFEE... For compensation. The<BR>>
list is endless. The trick is to prove that they are being trivial,<BR>>
biased, and are showing prejudicial behavior. So another
suggestion,<BR>> always carry a personal digital recorder with you when you
do stuff like<BR>> this. Be ready and waiting to record every single
word said to you and<BR>> your reply. Folks, I work for the U.S. Govt.,
and I carry one with me<BR>> EVERYWHERE. It has saved my rear end
at work, and at Highway Patrol<BR>> Traffic Stops
, you
name it. <BR>> <BR>> I do not know whether the above will cover your ass completely or not,<BR>> but it sure will go a LONG ways towards doing so as compared to having<BR>> nothing other than your personal opinion to offer when you get violated.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> It would be interesting to have an FAA official claim that you received<BR>> free fuel as compensation for giving rides in your aircraft, and you<BR>> replying: "Really Sir? Can you prove that?" And he will probably<BR>> reply with: "Can you prove that you didn't?" Looking him directly in<BR>> the eye and saying: "Actually Sir, yes I can" .... You have to<BR>> treasure moments like that..... <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Mark Bitterlich<BR>> <BR>> P.s. Curious what a lawyer will say. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: </FONT><A title=mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.c
om hre
f="mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com"><FONT size=2>owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McGirt<BR>> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:20 AM<BR>> To: </FONT><A title=mailto:yak-list@matronics.com href="mailto:yak-list@matronics.com"><FONT size=2>yak-list@matronics.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2>> Subject: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at<BR>> airshows - another blow to general aviation<BR>> <BR>> This is a message from the T-28 forum, but applies to our group as well.<BR>> The Red Thunder Airshow team was performing at this same event, and<BR>> witnessed this event. The T-28 group is up in arms, and working to get<BR>> NATA & EAA Warbirds involved.<BR>> <BR>> DM<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ------ Forwarded Message<BR>> From: Becky Luther <</FONT><A title=mailto:blutherva@yahoo.com href="mailto:bluthe
rva@ya
hoo.com"><FONT size=2>blutherva@yahoo.com</FONT></A><FONT size=2>><BR>> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:41:17 -0400<BR>> To: <</FONT><A title=mailto:t-28-flyers@yahoogroups.com href="mailto:t-28-flyers@yahoogroups.com"><FONT size=2>t-28-flyers@yahoogroups.com</FONT></A><FONT size=2>><BR>> Subject: [t-28-flyers] Passenger carrying flights for compensation at<BR>> airshows - another blow to general aviation<BR>> <BR>> Guys and Gals,<BR>> <BR>> I wanted to share an encounter I had with the FAA this past weekend. I<BR>> know there has been discussion on this topic previously.<BR>> <BR>> I flew the T-28 to an airshow in North Carolina this past weekend. The<BR>> airshow was providing fuel for our flight down and back and for some<BR>> flybys. I had agreed to give some sponsor or VIP rides.<BR>> <BR>> After my first VIP ride, I was approached by the Greensboro FAA<BR>> inspector for the airshow. 
; He a
sked to see my credentials and then my<BR>> LOA. I told him I no longer
needed an LOA but had an authorization on<BR>> my certificate to fly the
T-28. <BR>> <BR>> He then proceeded to inform me that I needed
an LOA (Letter of<BR>> Authorization) to carry any passenger for compensation
and that the<BR>> pilot (s) operating the aircraft needed to be on a drug
and alcohol<BR>> program. He asked if the airshow was providing me
any fuel. I told him<BR>> indeed they were as that was common practice
when a pilot agreed to<BR>> bring an aircraft to an airshow for static
or flybys.<BR>> <BR>> He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger
carrying flights for<BR>> compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving
fuel, I was<BR>> receiving compensation. Since I did not have an
LOA or an approved drug<BR>> and alcohol program approved by the FAA , I was
in violation of 91.417.<BR>> Being on a drug and
alcoh
ol program for a Part 135 operation that did<BR>> not include the T-28 did not
cover me. I needed a specific program for<BR>> this operation.<BR>> <BR>>
He told me he had mentioned this requirement to the airshow
director<BR>> prior to the show.<BR>> <BR>> I then told him that
probably most airshow aircraft across the country<BR>> and at this airshow
were probably in violation of this regulation. He<BR>> told me was checking
everyone's paperwork at the airshow. Needless to<BR>> say there were some
disappointed VIPS.<BR>> <BR>> I asked him if I was in trouble.
He told me he had not seen me give any<BR>> rides so therefore was not
in violation of the regs. I assured him I<BR>> had no intention of giving
any rides.<BR>> <BR>> Of course this created havoc with all the
other pilots in the same<BR>> situation. Not many of us have the LOA'S or
approved drug program to<BR>> give rides on our p
lanes
when we are receiving any type of compensation.<BR>> <BR>> Gordon asked
if there was any problem giving a friend a ride during the<BR>> airshow
at our expense. The inspector was not amused. I guess we would<BR>>
have to prove we did not receive fuel for the flight.<BR>> <BR>>
Slowly, they are legislating us out of the sky. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Sec. 91.147<BR>> <BR>> [Passenger carrying flights
for compensation or hire.]<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> [Each Operator conducting
passenger-carrying flights for compensation or<BR>> hire must meet the
following requirements unless all flights are<BR>> conducted under Sec. 91.146.<BR>>
(a) For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,<BR>>
Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying
flights<BR>> in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance
with<BR>> Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(
5), or
121.1(d), of this chapter that<BR>> begin and end at the same airport and are
conducted within a 25-statute<BR>> mile radius of that airport.<BR>>
(b) An Operator must comply with the safety provisions of part 136,<BR>> subpart
A of this chapter, and apply for and receive a Letter of<BR>> Authorization
from the Flight Standards District Office nearest to its<BR>> principal
place of business by September 11, 2007.<BR>> (c) Each application for
a Letter of Authorization must include the<BR>> following information:<BR>>
(1) Name of Operator, agent, and any d/b/a (doing-business-as) under<BR>>
which that Operator does business;<BR>> (2) Principal business address and
mailing address;<BR>> (3) Principal place of business (if different from
business address);<BR>> (4) Name of person responsible for management of the
business;<BR>> (5) Name of person responsible for aircraft maintenance;<BR>>
(6) Type of aircraft, registration number(s),
and m
ake/model/series; and<BR>> (7) An Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program registration.<BR>> (d) The Operator must register and implement its drug and alcohol<BR>> testing programs in accordance with part 121, appendices I and J, of<BR>> this chapter.<BR>> (e) The Operator must comply with the provisions of the Letter of<BR>> Authorization received.]<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Amdt. 91-295, Effective 3/15/07 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Becky Luther<BR>> </FONT><A title=mailto:blutherva@yahoo.com href="mailto:blutherva@yahoo.com"><FONT size=2>blutherva@yahoo.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2>> <BR>> __._,_.___<BR>> ------ End of Forwarded Message<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ===========<BR>> Yak-List Email browse<BR>> Photoshare, and much href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List"><FONT size=2>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2>> ===========<BR>> bsp;&nbs
p;&nbs
p; via the href="http://forums.matronics.com"><FONT size=2>http://forums.matronics.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2>> ===========<BR>> bsp; - generous support!<BR>> bsp; href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution"><FONT size=2>http://www.matronics.com/contribution</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2>> ===========<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>></FONT> <PRE><B><FONT face="courier new,courier" color=#000000 size=2>
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List</A>
.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com</A>
://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution</A>
</FONT></B></PRE></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT style="FONT: 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF; COLOR: black">
<HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">
Psssst...Have you heard the news? <A title=http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014 href="http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014" target=_blank>There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com</A>.</FONT></DIV><PRE><B><FONT face="courier new,courier" size=2 color000000?>
</B></FONT></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows |
- anoth...
Go Army! Beat Navy!!
-------------- Original message --------------
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
In a message dated 9/10/2008 4:56:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net
writes:
I saw this happen some years ago at TICO. A private pilot who was flying a S-51
in the show, was approached by the FAA about receiving any compensation and
was going to write him up. The pilot pointed out that he didn't receive any fuel,
but the FAA guy pointed to the sandwiches and drinks in the pilot briefing
tent and said that was "compensation". I forget who stepped forward but this
fellow was quick to point out to the Fed, that 'everybody" was eating in the
tent, ground crews, re-enactors, secretaries, airboss, EVEN the FAA! At that
point the Fed dropped it.
On another note. A big CB rumbled though an hour or so ago. I was working in
the hangar and it immediately cooled off everything. When it cleared, I soon
hear the F-18 high over head. I live under a MOA and at times things get pretty
busy around here. As I stood in front of my hangar watching them high over
head, a Blackhawk came bust'n over the trees at less than 200' - balls to the
wall. This has been going on for several days now. Our airpark is a check point
of a low altitude training route. So this happens often - sometimes late
at night. We even had an Apache land here once when he got a chip light in his
tail rotor. If I happen to be out in front of the hangar, I wave like crazy
and often get the flash of a landing light or a wave from the door man.
God! I do love it so!
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
Mark,
I like your approach. Interestingly enough, when researching Sec. 119.1(e)(2),
as referenced in 91.147, it clearly states "having a standard airworthiness certificate",
that immediately eliminates Sec. 119.1 (e)(2). Next is Sec 135.1(a)(5)
which says "Nonstop Commercial Air Tour flights conducted for compensation
or hire in accordance with 119.1(e)(2). Since 119.1 (e)(2) is not applicable,
that makes 135.1 (a)(5) not applicable as well. Finally, 121.1 (d) says,
"(d) Nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted for compensation or hire in accordance
with 119.1(e)(2) of this chapter must comply with drug and alcohol requirements".
Again, not applicable.
Since 91.147 refers to 119.1 (e)(2) which has been determine as not applicable
(the standard airworthiness certificate requirement) that would make 91.147 also
not applicable to the situation.
The situation then defaults to commercial operation of an experimental aircraft.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows
- another blow to general aviation
>
> This kind of makes the RPA rule that you must hold a Commercial Pilots
> license kind of overcome by events does it not? Point being, if flying
> at an air show can be considered a commercial operation, there are a lot
> of other rules that come into play, which this incident emphasizes.
> Thus, the Commercial Ticket can only used as a means of demonstrated
> proficiency, which very little to any pertains to formation flying IMHO.
> :-) Sorry, just my personal opinion.
>
> But... This remains a very interesting situation. And having dealt with
> Greensboro myself, I can believe every word told in the story here.
>
> Well, I am no legal expert, but..... Let's look at the way this rule is
> written:
>
> "For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,
> Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights
> in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance with
> Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that
> begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute
> mile radius of that airport."
>
> Now let's look at what the FAA is claiming:
>
> "He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for
> compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was
> receiving compensation."
>
> It seems to me that instead of challenging the FAA, it would be better
> to beat them at their own game, using their own rules. How? They
> contend that receiving fuel is in fact a method of "compensation" for
> carrying passengers at the Air Show. If you stop and think about it,
> there are MANY ways they could twist the rules to make everyone's life
> miserable over an issue like this. Examples on that later.
>
> Possible Solution: There is a POSSIBLE answer to this that to me appears
> to be quite simple. One needs to completely eliminate the matter of
> fuel being used as proof of "compensation" for carrying passengers.
> Make it to where the FAA can not make the claim that they are making.
>
> Two ways to do this:
>
> 1. Accept no fuel or special favor of any kind what-so-ever. That
> pretty much solves the problem completely.
>
> 2. Accept every special favor that you can get, BUT... And this is the
> tricky part.... Have the person providing you this fuel or special favor
> sign a legal document to wit:
>
>
> As an example for myself getting fuel at an air show:
>
> "The fuel being provided by; airport fuel official or authority, or air
> show person, etc. etc to Mr. Bitterlich is not in any way meant or
> designed to act as compensation or as method to hire Mr. Bitterlich in
> any way for any passenger carrying flights made by Mr. Bitterlich's
> aircraft at this airport The fuel being provided to Mr. Bitterlich is a
> courtesy and is a gesture of our good will for him agreeing to allow
> people to come see and photograph his aircraft at our event and was
> never a pre-requisite for his arrival or participation in this air show
> or any flights he made during it."
>
> Let me explain why I suggest this. Any lawyer in the world would agree
> that the hardest thing to prove is "intent". The FAA is ASSUMING
> "intent" as to the reason you were given the free fuel. If you can
> remove the factor of INTENT, by having a clear and legal document,
> signed by all parties present, that the INTENT of the free fuel was not
> an INCENTIVE, but was instead a "gesture of good will", then the FAA
> could still violate you (something they can always do, no matter what
> you say!) but when you go to court they will have to claim and then
> PROVE that you received the fuel as an incentive, and/or for
> compensation, when you have a signed document by all parties involved
> clearly specifying that this was NOT the case! The fact that such a
> letter was drafted and signed by all parties shows direct and clear
> legal intent to provide clear and positive proof contrary to that very
> thought!
>
> Further, if you carefully document every person who received free fuel
> and did NOT carry a passenger at ALL at ANY TIME during the event, you
> now have legal proof that THESE people got the exact same thing (or
> things) that you got, and obviously did not get that fuel to carry
> passengers since they never flew any and still received the exact same
> amount of fuel as you did or LESS.
>
> Take it one step further, with a form letter that you sign and give to
> the event manager that says: "I was given free fuel at this event as a
> gesture of good will and assume no obligation to perform any service
> what-so-ever, now or in the future for said free fuel".
>
> So.....
>
> 1. You have a letter saying the fuel was a gesture of good will and not
> for compensation or hire in ANY way.
> 2. He has a letter from you saying the same thing.
> 3. You have a list of other aircraft that got fuel and never carried
> anyone anywhere during the event.
>
>
> The FAA can STILL claim anything they want, but stop and consider...
> They could claim that you received not only fuel, but things like: "A
> better tie down location... For compensation.... Better security on your
> aircraft... For compensation.... A free tea shirt... For
> compensation....a FREE LUNCH OR FREE COFFEE... For compensation. The
> list is endless. The trick is to prove that they are being trivial,
> biased, and are showing prejudicial behavior. So another suggestion,
> always carry a personal digital recorder with you when you do stuff like
> this. Be ready and waiting to record every single word said to you and
> your reply. Folks, I work for the U.S. Govt., and I carry one with me
> EVERYWHERE. It has saved my rear end at work, and at Highway Patrol
> Traffic Stops, you name it.
>
> I do not know whether the above will cover your ass completely or not,
> but it sure will go a LONG ways towards doing so as compared to having
> nothing other than your personal opinion to offer when you get violated.
>
>
> It would be interesting to have an FAA official claim that you received
> free fuel as compensation for giving rides in your aircraft, and you
> replying: "Really Sir? Can you prove that?" And he will probably
> reply with: "Can you prove that you didn't?" Looking him directly in
> the eye and saying: "Actually Sir, yes I can" .... You have to
> treasure moments like that.....
>
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
> P.s. Curious what a lawyer will say.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McGirt
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:20 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
> airshows - another blow to general aviation
>
> This is a message from the T-28 forum, but applies to our group as well.
> The Red Thunder Airshow team was performing at this same event, and
> witnessed this event. The T-28 group is up in arms, and working to get
> NATA & EAA Warbirds involved.
>
> DM
>
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Becky Luther <blutherva@yahoo.com>
> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:41:17 -0400
> To: <t-28-flyers@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [t-28-flyers] Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
> airshows - another blow to general aviation
>
> Guys and Gals,
>
> I wanted to share an encounter I had with the FAA this past weekend. I
> know there has been discussion on this topic previously.
>
> I flew the T-28 to an airshow in North Carolina this past weekend. The
> airshow was providing fuel for our flight down and back and for some
> flybys. I had agreed to give some sponsor or VIP rides.
>
> After my first VIP ride, I was approached by the Greensboro FAA
> inspector for the airshow. He asked to see my credentials and then my
> LOA. I told him I no longer needed an LOA but had an authorization on
> my certificate to fly the T-28.
>
> He then proceeded to inform me that I needed an LOA (Letter of
> Authorization) to carry any passenger for compensation and that the
> pilot (s) operating the aircraft needed to be on a drug and alcohol
> program. He asked if the airshow was providing me any fuel. I told him
> indeed they were as that was common practice when a pilot agreed to
> bring an aircraft to an airshow for static or flybys.
>
> He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for
> compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was
> receiving compensation. Since I did not have an LOA or an approved drug
> and alcohol program approved by the FAA , I was in violation of 91.417.
> Being on a drug and alcohol program for a Part 135 operation that did
> not include the T-28 did not cover me. I needed a specific program for
> this operation.
>
> He told me he had mentioned this requirement to the airshow director
> prior to the show.
>
> I then told him that probably most airshow aircraft across the country
> and at this airshow were probably in violation of this regulation. He
> told me was checking everyone's paperwork at the airshow. Needless to
> say there were some disappointed VIPS.
>
> I asked him if I was in trouble. He told me he had not seen me give any
> rides so therefore was not in violation of the regs. I assured him I
> had no intention of giving any rides.
>
> Of course this created havoc with all the other pilots in the same
> situation. Not many of us have the LOA'S or approved drug program to
> give rides on our planes when we are receiving any type of compensation.
>
> Gordon asked if there was any problem giving a friend a ride during the
> airshow at our expense. The inspector was not amused. I guess we would
> have to prove we did not receive fuel for the flight.
>
> Slowly, they are legislating us out of the sky.
>
>
>
> Sec. 91.147
>
> [Passenger carrying flights for compensation or hire.]
>
>
> [Each Operator conducting passenger-carrying flights for compensation or
> hire must meet the following requirements unless all flights are
> conducted under Sec. 91.146.
> (a) For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,
> Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying flights
> in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance with
> Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter that
> begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25-statute
> mile radius of that airport.
> (b) An Operator must comply with the safety provisions of part 136,
> subpart A of this chapter, and apply for and receive a Letter of
> Authorization from the Flight Standards District Office nearest to its
> principal place of business by September 11, 2007.
> (c) Each application for a Letter of Authorization must include the
> following information:
> (1) Name of Operator, agent, and any d/b/a (doing-business-as) under
> which that Operator does business;
> (2) Principal business address and mailing address;
> (3) Principal place of business (if different from business address);
> (4) Name of person responsible for management of the business;
> (5) Name of person responsible for aircraft maintenance;
> (6) Type of aircraft, registration number(s), and make/model/series; and
> (7) An Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program registration.
> (d) The Operator must register and implement its drug and alcohol
> testing programs in accordance with part 121, appendices I and J, of
> this chapter.
> (e) The Operator must comply with the provisions of the Letter of
> Authorization received.]
>
>
>
> Amdt. 91-295, Effective 3/15/07
>
>
>
>
> Becky Luther
> blutherva@yahoo.com
>
> __._,_.___
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
>
> ==========
> Yak-List Email browse
> Photoshare, and much href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> ==========
> bsp; via the href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> bsp; - generous support!
> bsp; href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall
trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
<html><body>
<DIV>Go Army! Beat Navy!!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: cjpilot710@aol.com
<BR>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3243" name=GENERATOR><FONT id=role_document face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 9/10/2008 4:56:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net
writes:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I saw this happen some years ago at TICO. A private pilot who was flying
a S-51 in the show, was approached by the FAA about receiving any compensation
and was going to write him up. The pilot pointed out that he didn't
receive any fuel, but the FAA guy pointed to the sandwiches and drinks in the
pilot briefing tent and said that was "compensation". I forget who stepped
forward but this fellow was quick to point out to the Fed, that 'everybody"
was eating in the tent, ground crews, re-enactors, secretaries, airboss, EVEN
the FAA! At that point the Fed dropped it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On another note. A big CB rumbled though an hour or so ago. I
was working in the hangar and it immediately cooled off everything. When
it cleared, I soon hear the F-18 high over head. I live under a MOA
and at times things get pretty busy around here. As I stood in front
of my hangar watching them high over head, a Blackhawk came bust'n over
the trees at less than 200' - balls to the wall. This has been going
on for several days now. Our airpark is a check point of a low
altitude training route. So this happens often - sometimes late at night.
We even had an Apache land here once when he got a chip light in his
tail rotor. If I happen to be out in front of the hangar, I wave like
crazy and often get the flash of a landing light or a wave from the door man.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>God! I do love it so!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Jim "Pappy" Goolsby</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Mark,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I like your approach. Interestingly enough, when researching
Sec. 119.1(e)(2), as referenced in 91.147, it clearly states "having a <U>standard
airworthiness certificate</U>", that immediately eliminates Sec. 119.1
(e)(2). Next is Sec 135.1(a)(5) which says "Nonstop Commercial Air Tour
flights conducted for compensation or hire <U>in accordance with 119.1(e)(2).</U>
Since 119.1 (e)(2) is not applicable, that makes 135.1 (a)(5) not
applicable as well. Finally, 121.1 (d) says, "(d) Nonstop Commercial Air
Tours conducted for compensation or hire <U>in accordance with 119.1(e)(2)</U>
of this chapter must comply with drug and alcohol requirements". Again,
not applicable.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Since 91.147 refers to 119.1 (e)(2) which has been determine
as not applicable (the standard airworthiness certificate requirement) that would
make 91.147 also not applicable to the situation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The situation then defaults to commercial operation of an
experimental aircraft.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Dennis</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=2>From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <</FONT><A title=mailto:mark.bitterlich@navy.mil href="mailto:mark.bitterlich@navy.mil"><FONT size=2>mark.bitterlich@navy.mil</FONT></A><FONT size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>To: <</FONT><A title=mailto:yak-list@matronics.com href="mailto:yak-list@matronics.com"><FONT size=2>yak-list@matronics.com</FONT></A><FONT size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:09 PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Subject: RE: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation
at airshows - another blow to general aviation</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT size=2>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <</FONT><A title=mailto:mark.bitterlich@navy.mil href="mailto:mark.bitterlich@navy.mil"><FONT size=2>mark.bitterlich@navy.mil</FONT></A><FONT size=2>><BR>> <BR>> This kind of makes the RPA rule that you must hold a Commercial Pilots<BR>> license kind of overcome by events does it not? Point being, if flying<BR>> at an air show can be considered a commercial operation, there are a lot<BR>> of other rules that come into play, which this incident emphasizes.<BR>> Thus, the Commercial Ticket can only used as a means of demonstrated<BR>> proficiency, which very little to any pertains to formation flying IMHO.<BR>> :-) Sorry, just my personal opinion. <BR>> <BR>> But... This remains a very interesting situation. And having dealt with<BR>> Greensboro myself, I can beli
eve ev
ery word told in the story here. <BR>> <BR>> Well, I am no legal
expert, but..... Let's look at the way this rule is<BR>> written:
<BR>> <BR>> "For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol
testing,<BR>> Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying
flights<BR>> in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance
with<BR>> Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this
chapter that<BR>> begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within
a 25-statute<BR>> mile radius of that airport."<BR>> <BR>> Now let's
look at what the FAA is claiming: <BR>> <BR>> "He referenced FAR
91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for<BR>> compensation or hire,
(See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was<BR>> receiving compensation."<BR>>
<BR>> It seems to me that instead of challenging the FAA, it would
be better<BR>> to beat them at their own game, usi
ng the
ir own rules. How? They<BR>> contend that receiving fuel is in fact
a method of "compensation" for<BR>> carrying passengers at the Air Show.
If you stop and think about it,<BR>> there are MANY ways they could twist
the rules to make everyone's life<BR>> miserable over an issue like this.
Examples on that later. <BR>> <BR>> Possible Solution: There
is a POSSIBLE answer to this that to me appears<BR>> to be quite simple.
One needs to completely eliminate the matter of<BR>> fuel being used as
proof of "compensation" for carrying passengers.<BR>> Make it to where the
FAA can not make the claim that they are making.<BR>> <BR>> Two ways to
do this: <BR>> <BR>> 1. Accept no fuel or special favor of any kind what-so-ever.
That<BR>> pretty much solves the problem completely.
<BR>> <BR>> 2. Accept every special favor that you can get, BUT... And
this is the<BR>> tricky part.... Have the person
provid
ing you this fuel or special favor<BR>> sign a legal document to wit:<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> As an example for myself getting fuel at an air show:
<BR>> <BR>> "The fuel being provided by; airport fuel official or authority,
or air<BR>> show person, etc. etc to Mr. Bitterlich is not in any way
meant or<BR>> designed to act as compensation or as method to hire Mr. Bitterlich
in<BR>> any way for any passenger carrying flights made by Mr. Bitterlich's<BR>>
aircraft at this airport The fuel being provided to Mr.
Bitterlich is a<BR>> courtesy and is a gesture of our good will for him agreeing
to allow<BR>> people to come see and photograph his aircraft at our
event and was<BR>> never a pre-requisite for his arrival or participation
in this air show<BR>> or any flights he made during it." <BR>>
<BR>> Let me explain why I suggest this. Any lawyer in the world would
agree<BR>> that the hardest thing to prove is
"inte
nt". The FAA is ASSUMING<BR>> "intent" as to the reason you were given
the free fuel. If you can<BR>> remove the factor of INTENT, by having
a clear and legal document,<BR>> signed by all parties present, that the
INTENT of the free fuel was not<BR>> an INCENTIVE, but was instead a "gesture
of good will", then the FAA<BR>> could still violate you (something they
can always do, no matter what<BR>> you say!) but when you go to court they
will have to claim and then<BR>> PROVE that you received the fuel as an incentive,
and/or for<BR>> compensation, when you have a signed document by all
parties involved<BR>> clearly specifying that this was NOT the case!
The fact that such a<BR>> letter was drafted and signed by all parties shows
direct and clear<BR>> legal intent to provide clear and positive proof
contrary to that very<BR>> thought! <BR>> <BR>> Further,
if you carefully document every person who rec
eived
free fuel<BR>> and did NOT carry a passenger at ALL at ANY TIME during the event,
you<BR>> now have legal proof that THESE people got the exact same thing
(or<BR>> things) that you got, and obviously did not get that fuel to carry<BR>>
passengers since they never flew any and still received the exact
same<BR>> amount of fuel as you did or LESS. <BR>> <BR>> Take
it one step further, with a form letter that you sign and give to<BR>> the
event manager that says: "I was given free fuel at this event as a<BR>>
gesture of good will and assume no obligation to perform any service<BR>>
what-so-ever, now or in the future for said free fuel". <BR>> <BR>>
So.....<BR>> <BR>> 1. You have a letter saying the fuel was a
gesture of good will and not<BR>> for compensation or hire in ANY way. <BR>>
2. He has a letter from you saying the same thing. <BR>> 3.
You have a list of other aircraft that got fu
el and
never carried<BR>> anyone anywhere during the event. <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> The FAA can STILL claim anything they want, but stop and consider...<BR>>
They could claim that you received not only fuel, but things like:
"A<BR>> better tie down location... For compensation.... Better security
on your<BR>> aircraft... For compensation.... A free tea shirt... For<BR>>
compensation....a FREE LUNCH OR FREE COFFEE... For compensation. The<BR>>
list is endless. The trick is to prove that they are being trivial,<BR>>
biased, and are showing prejudicial behavior. So another
suggestion,<BR>> always carry a personal digital recorder with you when you
do stuff like<BR>> this. Be ready and waiting to record every single
word said to you and<BR>> your reply. Folks, I work for the U.S. Govt.,
and I carry one with me<BR>> EVERYWHERE. It has saved my rear end
at work, and at Highway Patrol<BR>> Traffic Stops
, you
name it. <BR>> <BR>> I do not know whether the above will cover your ass completely or not,<BR>> but it sure will go a LONG ways towards doing so as compared to having<BR>> nothing other than your personal opinion to offer when you get violated.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> It would be interesting to have an FAA official claim that you received<BR>> free fuel as compensation for giving rides in your aircraft, and you<BR>> replying: "Really Sir? Can you prove that?" And he will probably<BR>> reply with: "Can you prove that you didn't?" Looking him directly in<BR>> the eye and saying: "Actually Sir, yes I can" .... You have to<BR>> treasure moments like that..... <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Mark Bitterlich<BR>> <BR>> P.s. Curious what a lawyer will say. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: </FONT><A title=mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.c
om hre
f="mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com"><FONT size=2>owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McGirt<BR>> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:20 AM<BR>> To: </FONT><A title=mailto:yak-list@matronics.com href="mailto:yak-list@matronics.com"><FONT size=2>yak-list@matronics.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2>> Subject: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at<BR>> airshows - another blow to general aviation<BR>> <BR>> This is a message from the T-28 forum, but applies to our group as well.<BR>> The Red Thunder Airshow team was performing at this same event, and<BR>> witnessed this event. The T-28 group is up in arms, and working to get<BR>> NATA & EAA Warbirds involved.<BR>> <BR>> DM<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ------ Forwarded Message<BR>> From: Becky Luther <</FONT><A title=mailto:blutherva@yahoo.com href="mailto:bluthe
rva@ya
hoo.com"><FONT size=2>blutherva@yahoo.com</FONT></A><FONT size=2>><BR>> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:41:17 -0400<BR>> To: <</FONT><A title=mailto:t-28-flyers@yahoogroups.com href="mailto:t-28-flyers@yahoogroups.com"><FONT size=2>t-28-flyers@yahoogroups.com</FONT></A><FONT size=2>><BR>> Subject: [t-28-flyers] Passenger carrying flights for compensation at<BR>> airshows - another blow to general aviation<BR>> <BR>> Guys and Gals,<BR>> <BR>> I wanted to share an encounter I had with the FAA this past weekend. I<BR>> know there has been discussion on this topic previously.<BR>> <BR>> I flew the T-28 to an airshow in North Carolina this past weekend. The<BR>> airshow was providing fuel for our flight down and back and for some<BR>> flybys. I had agreed to give some sponsor or VIP rides.<BR>> <BR>> After my first VIP ride, I was approached by the Greensboro FAA<BR>> inspector for the airshow. 
; He a
sked to see my credentials and then my<BR>> LOA. I told him I no longer
needed an LOA but had an authorization on<BR>> my certificate to fly the
T-28. <BR>> <BR>> He then proceeded to inform me that I needed
an LOA (Letter of<BR>> Authorization) to carry any passenger for compensation
and that the<BR>> pilot (s) operating the aircraft needed to be on a drug
and alcohol<BR>> program. He asked if the airshow was providing me
any fuel. I told him<BR>> indeed they were as that was common practice
when a pilot agreed to<BR>> bring an aircraft to an airshow for static
or flybys.<BR>> <BR>> He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger
carrying flights for<BR>> compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving
fuel, I was<BR>> receiving compensation. Since I did not have an
LOA or an approved drug<BR>> and alcohol program approved by the FAA , I was
in violation of 91.417.<BR>> Being on a drug and
alcoh
ol program for a Part 135 operation that did<BR>> not include the T-28 did not
cover me. I needed a specific program for<BR>> this operation.<BR>> <BR>>
He told me he had mentioned this requirement to the airshow
director<BR>> prior to the show.<BR>> <BR>> I then told him that
probably most airshow aircraft across the country<BR>> and at this airshow
were probably in violation of this regulation. He<BR>> told me was checking
everyone's paperwork at the airshow. Needless to<BR>> say there were some
disappointed VIPS.<BR>> <BR>> I asked him if I was in trouble.
He told me he had not seen me give any<BR>> rides so therefore was not
in violation of the regs. I assured him I<BR>> had no intention of giving
any rides.<BR>> <BR>> Of course this created havoc with all the
other pilots in the same<BR>> situation. Not many of us have the LOA'S or
approved drug program to<BR>> give rides on our p
lanes
when we are receiving any type of compensation.<BR>> <BR>> Gordon asked
if there was any problem giving a friend a ride during the<BR>> airshow
at our expense. The inspector was not amused. I guess we would<BR>>
have to prove we did not receive fuel for the flight.<BR>> <BR>>
Slowly, they are legislating us out of the sky. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Sec. 91.147<BR>> <BR>> [Passenger carrying flights
for compensation or hire.]<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> [Each Operator conducting
passenger-carrying flights for compensation or<BR>> hire must meet the
following requirements unless all flights are<BR>> conducted under Sec. 91.146.<BR>>
(a) For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol testing,<BR>>
Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying
flights<BR>> in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in accordance
with<BR>> Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(
5), or
121.1(d), of this chapter that<BR>> begin and end at the same airport and are
conducted within a 25-statute<BR>> mile radius of that airport.<BR>>
(b) An Operator must comply with the safety provisions of part 136,<BR>> subpart
A of this chapter, and apply for and receive a Letter of<BR>> Authorization
from the Flight Standards District Office nearest to its<BR>> principal
place of business by September 11, 2007.<BR>> (c) Each application for
a Letter of Authorization must include the<BR>> following information:<BR>>
(1) Name of Operator, agent, and any d/b/a (doing-business-as) under<BR>>
which that Operator does business;<BR>> (2) Principal business address and
mailing address;<BR>> (3) Principal place of business (if different from
business address);<BR>> (4) Name of person responsible for management of the
business;<BR>> (5) Name of person responsible for aircraft maintenance;<BR>>
(6) Type of aircraft, registration number(s),
and m
ake/model/series; and<BR>> (7) An Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program registration.<BR>> (d) The Operator must register and implement its drug and alcohol<BR>> testing programs in accordance with part 121, appendices I and J, of<BR>> this chapter.<BR>> (e) The Operator must comply with the provisions of the Letter of<BR>> Authorization received.]<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Amdt. 91-295, Effective 3/15/07 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Becky Luther<BR>> </FONT><A title=mailto:blutherva@yahoo.com href="mailto:blutherva@yahoo.com"><FONT size=2>blutherva@yahoo.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2>> <BR>> __._,_.___<BR>> ------ End of Forwarded Message<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ===========<BR>> Yak-List Email browse<BR>> Photoshare, and much href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List"><FONT size=2>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2>> ===========<BR>> bsp;&nbs
p;&nbs
p; via the href="http://forums.matronics.com"><FONT size=2>http://forums.matronics.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2>> ===========<BR>> bsp; - generous support!<BR>> bsp; href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution"><FONT size=2>http://www.matronics.com/contribution</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2>> ===========<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>></FONT> <PRE><B><FONT face="courier new,courier" color=#000000 size=2>
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List</A>
.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com</A>
://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution</A>
</FONT></B></PRE></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT style="FONT: 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF; COLOR: black">
<HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">
Psssst...Have you heard the news? <A title=http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014 href="http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014" target=_blank>There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com</A>.</FONT></DIV><PRE><B><FONT face="courier new,courier" size=2 color000000?>
</B></FONT></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows |
- anoth...
Hey Pappy:
Sounds as if you are still alive. I also love it so, spent the entire
day replacing a Cyl on my YAK. Not comlpaining mind you. Actually I
needed something to do. Are we the luckiest SOB's in this world, or what
? i appreciated the Info you sent out on 08/05/08, Hey we did our best
under the conditions handed us, we should not dwell on it.
Hope your family is doing well Jim, really how long do yu think we can
continue doing this?
Lefty
----- Original Message -----
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
airshows - anoth...
In a message dated 9/10/2008 4:56:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net writes:
I saw this happen some years ago at TICO. A private pilot who was
flying a S-51 in the show, was approached by the FAA about receiving any
compensation and was going to write him up. The pilot pointed out that
he didn't receive any fuel, but the FAA guy pointed to the sandwiches
and drinks in the pilot briefing tent and said that was "compensation".
I forget who stepped forward but this fellow was quick to point out to
the Fed, that 'everybody" was eating in the tent, ground crews,
re-enactors, secretaries, airboss, EVEN the FAA! At that point the Fed
dropped it.
On another note. A big CB rumbled though an hour or so ago. I was
working in the hangar and it immediately cooled off everything. When it
cleared, I soon hear the F-18 high over head. I live under a MOA and at
times things get pretty busy around here. As I stood in front of my
hangar watching them high over head, a Blackhawk came bust'n over the
trees at less than 200' - balls to the wall. This has been going on for
several days now. Our airpark is a check point of a low altitude
training route. So this happens often - sometimes late at night. We
even had an Apache land here once when he got a chip light in his tail
rotor. If I happen to be out in front of the hangar, I wave like crazy
and often get the flash of a landing light or a wave from the door man.
God! I do love it so!
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
Mark,
I like your approach. Interestingly enough, when researching Sec.
119.1(e)(2), as referenced in 91.147, it clearly states "having a
standard airworthiness certificate", that immediately eliminates Sec.
119.1 (e)(2). Next is Sec 135.1(a)(5) which says "Nonstop Commercial
Air Tour flights conducted for compensation or hire in accordance with
=A7119.1(e)(2). Since 119.1 (e)(2) is not applicable, that makes 135.1
(a)(5) not applicable as well. Finally, 121.1 (d) says, "(d) Nonstop
Commercial Air Tours conducted for compensation or hire in accordance
with =A7119.1(e)(2) of this chapter must comply with drug and alcohol
requirements". Again, not applicable.
Since 91.147 refers to 119.1 (e)(2) which has been determine as not
applicable (the standard airworthiness certificate requirement) that
would make 91.147 also not applicable to the situation.
The situation then defaults to commercial operation of an
experimental aircraft.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation
at airshows - another blow to general aviation
Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> This kind of makes the RPA rule that you must hold a Commercial
Pilots
> license kind of overcome by events does it not? Point being, if
flying
> at an air show can be considered a commercial operation, there are
a lot
> of other rules that come into play, which this incident
emphasizes.
> Thus, the Commercial Ticket can only used as a means of
demonstrated
> proficiency, which very little to any pertains to formation flying
IMHO.
> :-) Sorry, just my personal opinion.
>
> But... This remains a very interesting situation. And having
dealt with
> Greensboro myself, I can believe every word told in the story
here.
>
> Well, I am no legal expert, but..... Let's look at the way this
rule is
> written:
>
> "For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol
testing,
> Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying
flights
> in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in
accordance with
> Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter
that
> begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a
25-statute
> mile radius of that airport."
>
> Now let's look at what the FAA is claiming:
>
> "He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for
> compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was
> receiving compensation."
>
> It seems to me that instead of challenging the FAA, it would be
better
> to beat them at their own game, using their own rules. How? They
> contend that receiving fuel is in fact a method of "compensation"
for
> carrying passengers at the Air Show. If you stop and think about
it,
> there are MANY ways they could twist the rules to make everyone's
life
> miserable over an issue like this. Examples on that later.
>
> Possible Solution: There is a POSSIBLE answer to this that to me
appears
> to be quite simple. One needs to completely eliminate the matter
of
> fuel being used as proof of "compensation" for carrying
passengers.
> Make it to where the FAA can not make the claim that they are
making.
>
> Two ways to do this:
>
> 1. Accept no fuel or special favor of any kind what-so-ever. That
> pretty much solves the problem completely.
>
> 2. Accept every special favor that you can get, BUT... And this is
the
> tricky part.... Have the person providing you this fuel or special
favor
> sign a legal document to wit:
>
>
> As an example for myself getting fuel at an air show:
>
> "The fuel being provided by; airport fuel official or authority,
or air
> show person, etc. etc to Mr. Bitterlich is not in any way meant or
> designed to act as compensation or as method to hire Mr.
Bitterlich in
> any way for any passenger carrying flights made by Mr.
Bitterlich's
> aircraft at this airport The fuel being provided to Mr.
Bitterlich is a
> courtesy and is a gesture of our good will for him agreeing to
allow
> people to come see and photograph his aircraft at our event and
was
> never a pre-requisite for his arrival or participation in this air
show
> or any flights he made during it."
>
> Let me explain why I suggest this. Any lawyer in the world would
agree
> that the hardest thing to prove is "intent". The FAA is ASSUMING
> "intent" as to the reason you were given the free fuel. If you
can
> remove the factor of INTENT, by having a clear and legal document,
> signed by all parties present, that the INTENT of the free fuel
was not
> an INCENTIVE, but was instead a "gesture of good will", then the
FAA
> could still violate you (something they can always do, no matter
what
> you say!) but when you go to court they will have to claim and
then
> PROVE that you received the fuel as an incentive, and/or for
> compensation, when you have a signed document by all parties
involved
> clearly specifying that this was NOT the case! The fact that such
a
> letter was drafted and signed by all parties shows direct and
clear
> legal intent to provide clear and positive proof contrary to that
very
> thought!
>
> Further, if you carefully document every person who received free
fuel
> and did NOT carry a passenger at ALL at ANY TIME during the event,
you
> now have legal proof that THESE people got the exact same thing
(or
> things) that you got, and obviously did not get that fuel to carry
> passengers since they never flew any and still received the exact
same
> amount of fuel as you did or LESS.
>
> Take it one step further, with a form letter that you sign and
give to
> the event manager that says: "I was given free fuel at this event
as a
> gesture of good will and assume no obligation to perform any
service
> what-so-ever, now or in the future for said free fuel".
>
> So.....
>
> 1. You have a letter saying the fuel was a gesture of good will
and not
> for compensation or hire in ANY way.
> 2. He has a letter from you saying the same thing.
> 3. You have a list of other aircraft that got fuel and never
carried
> anyone anywhere during the event.
>
>
> The FAA can STILL claim anything they want, but stop and
consider...
> They could claim that you received not only fuel, but things like:
"A
> better tie down location... For compensation.... Better security
on your
> aircraft... For compensation.... A free tea shirt... For
> compensation....a FREE LUNCH OR FREE COFFEE... For compensation.
The
> list is endless. The trick is to prove that they are being
trivial,
> biased, and are showing prejudicial behavior. So another
suggestion,
> always carry a personal digital recorder with you when you do
stuff like
> this. Be ready and waiting to record every single word said to
you and
> your reply. Folks, I work for the U.S. Govt., and I carry one
with me
> EVERYWHERE. It has saved my rear end at work, and at Highway
Patrol
> Traffic Stops, you name it.
>
> I do not know whether the above will cover your ass completely or
not,
> but it sure will go a LONG ways towards doing so as compared to
having
> nothing other than your personal opinion to offer when you get
violated.
>
>
> It would be interesting to have an FAA official claim that you
received
> free fuel as compensation for giving rides in your aircraft, and
you
> replying: "Really Sir? Can you prove that?" And he will
probably
> reply with: "Can you prove that you didn't?" Looking him
directly in
> the eye and saying: "Actually Sir, yes I can" .... You have to
> treasure moments like that.....
>
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
> P.s. Curious what a lawyer will say.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
McGirt
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:20 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at
> airshows - another blow to general aviation
>
> This is a message from the T-28 forum, but applies to our group as
well.
> The Red Thunder Airshow team was performing at this same event,
and
> witnessed this event. The T-28 group is up in arms, and working
to get
> NATA & EAA Warbirds involved.
>
> DM
>
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Becky Luther <blutherva@yahoo.com>
> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:41:17 -0400
> To: <t-28-flyers@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [t-28-flyers] Passenger carrying flights for compensation
at
> airshows - another blow to general aviation
>
> Guys and Gals,
>
> I wanted to share an encounter I had with the FAA this past
weekend. I
> know there has been discussion on this topic previously.
>
> I flew the T-28 to an airshow in North Carolina this past weekend.
The
> airshow was providing fuel for our flight down and back and for
some
> flybys. I had agreed to give some sponsor or VIP rides.
>
> After my first VIP ride, I was approached by the Greensboro FAA
> inspector for the airshow. He asked to see my credentials and
then my
> LOA. I told him I no longer needed an LOA but had an
authorization on
> my certificate to fly the T-28.
>
> He then proceeded to inform me that I needed an LOA (Letter of
> Authorization) to carry any passenger for compensation and that
the
> pilot (s) operating the aircraft needed to be on a drug and
alcohol
> program. He asked if the airshow was providing me any fuel. I
told him
> indeed they were as that was common practice when a pilot agreed
to
> bring an aircraft to an airshow for static or flybys.
>
> He referenced FAR 91-147 regarding passenger carrying flights for
> compensation or hire, (See below) As I was receiving fuel, I was
> receiving compensation. Since I did not have an LOA or an
approved drug
> and alcohol program approved by the FAA , I was in violation of
91.417.
> Being on a drug and alcohol program for a Part 135 operation that
did
> not include the T-28 did not cover me. I needed a specific
program for
> this operation.
>
> He told me he had mentioned this requirement to the airshow
director
> prior to the show.
>
> I then told him that probably most airshow aircraft across the
country
> and at this airshow were probably in violation of this regulation.
He
> told me was checking everyone's paperwork at the airshow. Needless
to
> say there were some disappointed VIPS.
>
> I asked him if I was in trouble. He told me he had not seen me
give any
> rides so therefore was not in violation of the regs. I assured
him I
> had no intention of giving any rides.
>
> Of course this created havoc with all the other pilots in the same
> situation. Not many of us have the LOA'S or approved drug program
to
> give rides on our planes when we are receiving any type of
compensation.
>
> Gordon asked if there was any problem giving a friend a ride
during the
> airshow at our expense. The inspector was not amused. I guess we
would
> have to prove we did not receive fuel for the flight.
>
> Slowly, they are legislating us out of the sky.
>
>
>
> Sec. 91.147
>
> [Passenger carrying flights for compensation or hire.]
>
>
> [Each Operator conducting passenger-carrying flights for
compensation or
> hire must meet the following requirements unless all flights are
> conducted under Sec. 91.146.
> (a) For the purposes of this section and for drug and alcohol
testing,
> Operator means any person conducting nonstop passenger-carrying
flights
> in an airplane or helicopter for compensation or hire in
accordance with
> Sec. Sec. 119.1(e)(2), 135.1(a)(5), or 121.1(d), of this chapter
that
> begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a
25-statute
> mile radius of that airport.
> (b) An Operator must comply with the safety provisions of part
136,
> subpart A of this chapter, and apply for and receive a Letter of
> Authorization from the Flight Standards District Office nearest to
its
> principal place of business by September 11, 2007.
> (c) Each application for a Letter of Authorization must include
the
> following information:
> (1) Name of Operator, agent, and any d/b/a (doing-business-as)
under
> which that Operator does business;
> (2) Principal business address and mailing address;
> (3) Principal place of business (if different from business
address);
> (4) Name of person responsible for management of the business;
> (5) Name of person responsible for aircraft maintenance;
> (6) Type of aircraft, registration number(s), and
make/model/series; and
> (7) An Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program
registration.
> (d) The Operator must register and implement its drug and alcohol
> testing programs in accordance with part 121, appendices I and J,
of
> this chapter.
> (e) The Operator must comply with the provisions of the Letter of
> Authorization received.]
>
>
>
> Amdt. 91-295, Effective 3/15/07
>
>
>
>
> Becky Luther
> blutherva@yahoo.com
>
> __._,_.___
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
>
> ==========
> Yak-List Email browse
> Photoshare, and much
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> ==========
> bsp; via the
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> bsp; - generous support!
> bsp;
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
> ==========
>
>
>
>
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com
/Navigator?Yak-List
.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the
latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG.
9/10/2008 6:00 AM
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: TL Electronic COMBINED ENGINE INSTRUMENT TL-3724 |
Keith,
We have the g-meter TL-3424 in our glider since about three years. No problems
so far, cheaper, more robust and more accurate than mechanical g-meters. I had
significant RF-noise in the radio after installation tough, but a couple of capacitors
and coils solved that. Were very happy with it.
Regards,
Markus
> -----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley@townisp.com>
> Gesendet: 10.09.08 19:12:24
> An: yak-list@matronics.com
> Betreff: Yak-List: TL Electronic COMBINED ENGINE INSTRUMENT TL-3724
>
> Anyone have any experience with this company/product? Good or bad?
>
> http://www.tl-elektronic.com/redir.php?version=big&goto=/kontakty_en.php&id
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 3631#203631
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|