|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

09-09-2018, 09:04 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: santa barbara, CA
Posts: 1,682
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner
?Operator? is faa-speak for the person having operational control of the airplane. e.g., the owner. The owner cannot be hired, paid, or otherwise compensated for any use of his airplane involving the carriage of people or cargo. It?s hard to imagine a rental with no person on board being carried somewhere.
|
Not saying you are wrong with respect to FAAs interpretation, but the average joe might reasonably believe that ?operate? means to fly the plane as the PIC, which changes things. At the least, there is lack of clarity here.
Erich
|

09-09-2018, 10:02 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunman, IN
Posts: 2,189
|
|
Mountains
It would seem that, as usual, mountains are being made of mole hills.
All of the aircraft that I have personally owned have had additional named pilots, all of who were covered by the insurance policy...YMMV
Also, the FAA's interpretation is the ONLY one that matters and they can be pretty rigid in their interpretations, especially when it comes to perceived commercial operations...
__________________
Bob
Aerospace Engineer '88
RV-10
Structure - 90% Done
Cabin Top - Aaarrghhh...
EFII System 32 - Done
297 HP Barrett Hung
ShowPlanes Cowl with Skybolts Fitted - Beautiful
Wiring...
Dues+ Paid 2019,...Thanks DR+
|

09-09-2018, 10:10 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireMedic_2009
The only real question is how does the FAA define compensation or hire?
|
The FAA defines/interprets compensation as receiving "ANY" kind of benefit.
This could be in any form of money, time building, experience, etc.
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
|

09-09-2018, 11:22 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 144
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner
Sigh. It seems every month there?s another amateur lawyer.
?Operator? is faa-speak for the person having operational control of the airplane. e.g., the owner. The owner cannot be hired, paid, or otherwise compensated for any use of his airplane involving the carriage of people or cargo. It?s hard to imagine a rental with no person on board being carried somewhere.
But my opinion doesn?t count. Ask the FAA for their interpretation.
|
May I assume by your comment you are a seasoned lawyer and more specifically an FAA atty? Unfortunately for you I did ask the Tampa FSDO office about 2 yrs ago and they didn?t really know. The person I spoke to asked another person in his office and he didn?t know either. And the day before, since it was after 5p, I decided to call the Oakland FSDO office and when he pointed out 91.319(f) I pointed out that it refers to a LSA upon him answering, ?good point, I need to look into it?. I asked an FAA examiner who has since retired and he said the great thing about the FAR?s is it only states what you can?t do and what you have to do. It doesn?t state what you can do. In his opinion he said, ?I don?t see why you can?t rent or lease it out.?.
I think all can agree the term operator isn?t well defined. I can see where operator can mean the owner of the plane and not just the person piloting the plane. If the FAA does mean operator to include the owner of the plane, than they should state it clearly by saying, ?owner and/or operator of the aircraft?. Not to be argumentative but this is definitely a valid argument. The fact is, is each FSDO office can interpret the regs as they see it and unfortunately they are judge and jury.
|

09-09-2018, 11:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by erich weaver
Not saying you are wrong with respect to FAAs interpretation, but the average joe might reasonably believe that ?operate? means to fly the plane as the PIC, which changes things. At the least, there is lack of clarity here.
Erich
|
Ditto. "Operational control" most definitely means PIC in my mind. Even the word "operate" alone is a stretch as a term for the plane's owner; throwing "control" in there makes it obvious. You don't "operate/control" an asset. You "possess/direct" it.
|

09-09-2018, 12:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: D.C.
Posts: 303
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireMedic_2009
May I assume by your comment you are a seasoned lawyer and more specifically an FAA atty? Unfortunately for you I did ask the Tampa FSDO office about 2 yrs ago and they didn?t really know. The person I spoke to asked another person in his office and he didn?t know either. And the day before, since it was after 5p, I decided to call the Oakland FSDO office and when he pointed out 91.319(f) I pointed out that it refers to a LSA upon him answering, ?good point, I need to look into it?. I asked an FAA examiner who has since retired and he said the great thing about the FAR?s is it only states what you can?t do and what you have to do. It doesn?t state what you can do. In his opinion he said, ?I don?t see why you can?t rent or lease it out.?.
I think all can agree the term operator isn?t well defined. I can see where operator can mean the owner of the plane and not just the person piloting the plane. If the FAA does mean operator to include the owner of the plane, than they should state it clearly by saying, ?owner and/or operator of the aircraft?. Not to be argumentative but this is definitely a valid argument. The fact is, is each FSDO office can interpret the regs as they see it and unfortunately they are judge and jury.
|
If it's not in writing with the Feds, it didn't happen. Oh, and its not interpretation without it in writing. The FAA chief counsel typically reserves this right. And on that note, they interpret logging hours as compensation (readily available via google search), and unless specifically noted in the CFR as an exempted commercial op, it isn't.
That said, none of that would stop me from adding a pilot as insured on my policy and letting them have fun in my plane (in fact, I do), I just like them that much!
Back to the topic at hand, this 'Jedi' is not the one the FAA is looking for.
THIS guy is who they are looking for..
https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news...YPKZb3nTieQMJ/
__________________
Paul M.
Fayetteville, NC
Airport Bum
RV-4 / PA28-180
|

09-09-2018, 12:20 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
|
|
Unfortunately, many FAA employees do not fully understand ALL FARs. And their interpretation does not override Official FAA (Washington) interpretation. It's not their fault. The experimental world is a very small part of their job, and therefore has a pretty low priority.
From an FAA designee that works with experimental and light-sport every day, I can assure you that this subject has been bandied around many times over, and FAA (Washington) interpretation is that you may NOT use an experimental amateur-built or experimental light-sport aircraft commercially in any way.
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
|

09-09-2018, 12:27 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireMedic_2009
The fact is, is each FSDO office can interpret the regs as they see it and unfortunately they are judge and jury.
|
Not true! FSDO employees do not have the authority override or interpret regulations.
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
|

09-09-2018, 12:37 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: US
Posts: 2,251
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by markserbu
Ditto. "Operational control" most definitely means PIC in my mind. Even the word "operate" alone is a stretch as a term for the plane's owner; throwing "control" in there makes it obvious. You don't "operate/control" an asset. You "possess/direct" it.
|
Well, FAR 1.1 doesn't define "operator", but it does define "operate":
Quote:
|
Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in ?91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).
|
__________________
2019 Dues paid!
|

09-09-2018, 12:45 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 278
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel
FAA (Washington) interpretation is that you may NOT use an experimental amateur-built or experimental light-sport aircraft commercially in any way.
|
Isn't the eventual resale of an E-AB commercial activity? How about entering a co-ownership agreement after first flight, i.e. a partial sale? How is that different than a rent-to-own agreement in spirit?
__________________
Dan V
'91 Zodiac flying since 2013
RV-14A in progress
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:09 AM.
|