Does TANSTAAFL apply to this??

[AggieMike88]

Check this one out.....

"Free IFR Flight Instruction"

http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/bfs/4185330345.html

I'm curious as to what the gallery and our resident FAR encyclopedics have to say...

 

[Jim Logajan]

A nice idea, though I suspect a fair number of Angel Flight pilots are already instrument rated. Don't understand the concern over compensation - an Angel Flight pilot is always compensated more for their effort than what they pay out - even when there isn't a CFI on board. Just ask anyone in Whoville.

 

[Jim Logajan]

There we go again trying to use common sense to interpret the rules. Don't think the FAA would let the quid quo pro go without causing a problem.

The Angel Flight aspect is OK because the pilot is paying for everything.
Now take that out of the picture.
If an instructor charges $X/hour for their services, I don't see the issue regardless of the value of any non-negative value of X used. To say otherwise is to insert the FAA into free market valuation of instructor services. That is beyond the authority granted them that allows them to write the regulation in question.

I think the paranoia over the compensation and hire regulation causes some people here to lose their sanity.

 

[Jim Logajan]

The counterargument which I think the FAA Chief Counsel would make is that the provision of the instruction (fair market value estimated by the CFI as $150) is contingent on the trainee providing free air transportation to a third party. That is the quid pro quo which queers the deal. Note that when it comes to compensation, the FAA does not quibble over the minimum amount -- to paraphrase the law on another issue, any payment however slight is sufficient to complete the offense.

Your claim seems to be: anytime a CFI provides instruction below market rate, no matter how small - and as determined by the FAA Chief Counsel - the pilot accepting that instruction is accepting compensation for the flight, which is in violation of the regulations. Is that a fair summary of the argument?

 

[Jim Logajan]

Your claim seems to be: anytime a CFI provides instruction below market rate, no matter how small - and as determined by the FAA Chief Counsel - the pilot accepting that instruction is accepting compensation for the flight, which is in violation of the regulations. Is that a fair summary of the argument?

More or less. The issue is not so much that the CFI is charging below-market rates, but rather that this rate (and the value to the pilot) is contingent on the pilot/trainee providing air transportation to a third party. In that light, it's no different than someone saying "I'll pay $150 per flight to any pilot providing air transport to sick people" -- that's a straight-up charter deal.

So if the passenger is taken out of the scenario, then the pilot would not be considered to be receiving compensation regardless of how little the CFI charges?

Also, I'm wondering what has become of the 61.113(c) pro rata exception in these cases?

 

[Jim Logajan]

It doesn't matter since there is no Common Purpose.

Say again?

The PP's ultimate purpose is to help the indigent passenger.
The CFI's ultimate purpose is to help the indigent passenger.

The PP and CFI could, individually, legally transport the passenger. Both have ceded the destination and departure time to third parties. These circumstances narrow the universe of possible motivations, and therefore purposes, to that of helping the passenger. If the PP was flying Angel Flights prior to seeing and accepting CFI's offer then that would undercut any claim that the PP was motivated only by compensation. Even absent that prior history the FAA would still need to present evidence proving their claim of what motivated the PP.

Once the FAA includes intangibles in determining compensation it cannot pick and choose when and which intangibles it will consider. As I've posted before, it takes a certain level of insanity to be selective in application of some claimed principle.

There is also the matter of political self-destructiveness that the FAA would encounter in the unlikely case it tried to prosecute any such flight; e.g.:

"FAA threatens to pull license of pilot who donated time and money to help girl dying of cancer."

 

[Jim Logajan]

This doesn't support your position since Pt. 135 operators cede the destination and departure time to the customer.

I didn't realize that aspect of the flight would move it under Part 135 and make the pasenger a paying customer. Suddenly there are a lot of regulations that all these Angel Flights are going to be violating that they weren't violating under Part 91. I better stick to computer programming and physics where a simpleton like me can comprehend things.