Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner
It?s clear that MyCool is interpreting the law the way he likes; here?s how the FAA interprets it:
91.319(a) talks about the OPERATOR. In plain language, that is the owner.
91.319(2) says the owner may not be paid for having his airplane used to fly people or cargo.
If you rent an EAB, you are paying the operator (owner) to fly people (yourself). This is expressly forbidden.
|
First, I'd like to thank Sam for not killing this thread. I've found that when opinions get thrown around, even about stuff that should already be clear, I can often learn something new about a tangent that pops up during the discussion.
Now, to the splitting of hairs.
To the quoted passage above: (Note that I'm not claiming it's legal to rent a homebuilt.) The last statement does not parse, from an FARs standpoint. If you substitute 'certificated aircraft' for 'EAB', it would mean that renting a certificated aircraft is also illegal, unless it's being operated under a charter certificate (Part 135?). Now, if I *paid the owner* to fly me, I'd be paying *him* to fly people.
If I pay the owner of an FBO that rents certified aircraft to fly me somewhere in his rental plane, it's illegal (that becomes a part 135 operation, which he isn't set up to do). But if I rent his rental plane to fly myself, it's legal because I'm not paying the owner (operator) to transport me.
I'm not writing this just to stir the pot; I see a significant difference between renting and paying to transport people/cargo. Am I wrong?
Charlie