---------------------------------------------------------- Yak-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 09/10/08: 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:51:45 AM PST US From: "Bill Geipel" Subject: RE: Yak-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:52:31 AM PST US From: "Bill Geipel" Subject: RE: Yak-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:55:07 AM PST US From: "Bill Geipel" Subject: RE: Yak-List: Lamar Clinic 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:20:36 AM PST US Subject: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - another blow to general aviation From: David McGirt 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:35:13 AM PST US From: "Bill Geipel" Subject: RE: Yak-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:01:18 AM PST US Subject: Yak-List: N Number size From: "keithmckinley" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:02:41 AM PST US Subject: Yak-List: TL Electronic COMBINED ENGINE INSTRUMENT TL-3724 From: "keithmckinley" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:24:56 AM PST US From: "A. Dennis Savarese" Subject: Re: Yak-List: 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" Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 12:00 PM Subject: Yak-List: N Number size > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:39:41 AM PST US Subject: Yak-List: Re: N Number size From: "keithmckinley" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:15:32 AM PST US From: "A. Dennis Savarese" Subject: Re: Yak-List: 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 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:41:17 -0400 To: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:21:33 PM PST US Subject: RE: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - another blow to general aviation From: "Bill Mills" 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:10:29 PM PST US Subject: RE: Yak-List: Passenger carrying flights for compensation at airshows - another blow to general aviation From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:55:02 PM PST US From: "A. Dennis Savarese" Subject: Re: Yak-List: 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" 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" > > 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 > Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:41:17 -0400 > To: > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:21:38 PM PST US From: "Roger Kemp MD" Subject: RE: Yak-List: 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" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:53:21 PM PST US From: cjpilot710@aol.com 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:13:33 PM PST US From: jblake207@COMCAST.NET Subject: Re: Yak-List: 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" 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 > Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:41:17 -0400 > To: > 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.
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

> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry 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 beli eve ev ery 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, usi ng the ir 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 provid ing 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 "inte nt".  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 rec eived 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 fu el 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 a sked 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 alcoh ol 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 p lanes 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 m ake/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;&nbs p;&nbs p; 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
 
 
________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 04:13:33 PM PST US From: jblake207@COMCAST.NET Subject: Re: Yak-List: 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" 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 > Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:41:17 -0400 > To: > 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.
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

> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry 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 beli eve ev ery 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, usi ng the ir 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 provid ing 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 "inte nt".  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 rec eived 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 fu el 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 a sked 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 alcoh ol 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 p lanes 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 m ake/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;&nbs p;&nbs p; 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
 
 
________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 05:19:57 PM PST US From: "Robert Langford" Subject: Re: Yak-List: 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" To: 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" > > 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 > Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:41:17 -0400 > To: > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:42:07 PM PST US From: Markus Feyerabend Subject: Re: Yak-List: 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" > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message yak-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Yak-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/yak-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/yak-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.