Iditarod Air Force cleared to fly, for now
FAA: Compensation for volunteers runs afoul of commercial flight rules.
Anchorage Daily News

(01/26/09 21:55:27)
With the help of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the Iditarod Trail Committee has convinced the Federal Aviation Administration to allow the all-volunteer Iditarod Air Force to keep flying -- at least for now.

The federal agency had threatened to ground the Air Force for violating commercial flight regulations that prohibit compensation for volunteers. Iditarod pilots are not paid, but do take advantage of fuel, food and sometimes accommodations provided by the race.

Some commercial air taxies have complained to the FAA that this is in violation of federal regulations. The agency last year agreed and was threatening to ground the air force this year. Republican Murkowski, the state's ranking Senator, helped mediate a temporary resolution.

She issued a press release Monday noting the Air Force is getting an exemption, but warning that it will expire in a year. She said she is working "to find a long-term solution.''

A volunteer organization that has flown in support of the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race for more than 20 years, the Iditarod Air Force says most of its pilots would be unable to afford the cost of volunteering to support the race without help with fuel, food and logistics. As Murkowski noted, however, the FAA views most of those things as illegal "cost deferments.''

"I am pleased the FAA has finally recognized the importance of the volunteers in the Iditarod Air Force and found a way for them to operate (this year) while protecting safety and addressing the concerns of commercial carriers,'' she added, but some sort of long-term solution is still needed.

The Iditarod says it would be forced out of business if it were required to pay commercial operators to perform the services of the Air Force volunteers who fly food and fuel to checkpoints, ferry sick and injured dogs, and transport race officials and veterinarians up and down the trail.





Copyright © Tue Jan 27 09:32:03 MST 20091900 The Anchorage Daily News (www.adn.com)

Some commercial air taxies have complained to the FAA that this is in violation of federal regulations.

Sounds like they are under fire from someone else besides the FAA.

They need to make an arrangement with either the Civil Air patrol or an appropriate 501(c)(3) charity organization. There are exceptions already on the books for those..

It's more like getting caught between the FAA and their established "approved" operators. In the end, it's all in the FAA's court, as most
businesses who are required to operate under a particular regulatory
scheme generally tend to want the regulatory agency to offer protection
from those who do not.
Even if the "offenders" are operating charitably.

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:

Some commercial air taxies have complained to the FAA that this is in violation of federal regulations.

Sounds like they are under fire from someone else besides the FAA.

Agreed. The wheels are slow to turn until the phone starts ringing.

Hope they find a permanent solution. It would impossible without the volunteers.

gb

It goes back to "Don't ask, Don't tell". I have no doubt that the FAA has been well aware of this for many years, and frankly, it would certainly appear to be a clear violation of the regs, ie: "sharing expenses".

But, when a 135 operator calls the FAA and squeals "Unfair competition", there really isnt' much the agency can do. I'd bet they are thankful for Murkowski's "intervention", cause now they can say they had to mollify the senator, not our fault. They can't change the rules to satisfy one race.

The CAP can't provide this sort of support, cause it isn't in their charter, and by the way, THAT would REALLY get the 135 folks up in arms, cause then it would be the GOVERNMENT competing with private industry. Oh, yeah, and they'd probably wreck every airplane WE own if they tried it.

I'm not sure the Iditarod is a non profit, so I don't know if they'd qualify in that realm.

Indeed, it is a conundrum.

Greed has a way of coloring people's perceptions.

I sincerely hope that the bitching air taxi's name becomes public at some point.


MTV

The limitations are in 61.113, which basically disallows private pilots from acting as PIC for "compensation or hire" subject to a few exceptions.

The law is already ambiguous for some situations, and the FAA has grossly compounded the problem by fabricating additional rules that aren't even in the law. A good example is the "commonality of purpose" test that was upheld by the NTSB in Administrator v. Carter.

The FAA strikes me as a great example of a government agency run amok. Along with the IRS, they have too much power and not enough oversight. It's a guaranteed recipe for abuse.

If the Iditarod Trail Committee donates fuel towards solving some of the transportation logistics for the race, and the pilot donates his or her time and airplane, it is abusive to declare that the pilot is being compensated. At the end of the day, the pilot has no financial or economic gain, just more wear and tear on his or her airplane.

kevbert wrote:The limitations are in 61.113, which basically disallows private pilots from acting as PIC for "compensation or hire" subject to a few exceptions.

The law is already ambiguous for some situations, and the FAA has grossly compounded the problem by fabricating additional rules that aren't even in the law. A good example is the "commonality of purpose" test that was upheld by the NTSB in Administrator v. Carter.

The FAA strikes me as a great example of a government agency run amok. Along with the IRS, they have too much power and not enough oversight. It's a guaranteed recipe for abuse.

If the Iditarod Trail Committee donates fuel towards solving some of the transportation logistics for the race, and the pilot donates his or her time and airplane, it is abusive to declare that the pilot is being compensated. At the end of the day, the pilot has no financial or economic gain, just more wear and tear on his or her airplane.

You make a good point kevbert.

kevbert,

The FAA has held for many years that one can "share" expenses as a private pilot, or in cases where no holding out for hire is apparent. They've also made it quite clear that this "sharing" must be share and share alike. So, if the Iditarod provides the fuel, as in all the fuel, there is not an equal sharing.

And, I can tell you that this rule and its interpretation is there for well founded reasons. Half the private pilots on the planet would be offering their services for hire if it weren't clearly laid out.

Don't buy it? I know of several pilots who routinely charter their aircraft essentially. No certificate, no insurance, no worries....

The Iditarod, on the other hand, is a pretty well organized event, and the pilots must meet certain standards and qualifications.

As I noted earlier, I'm betting the FAA has been hoping this will just go away, and pursued no further by the greedy air taxi who brought it up.

MTV

Jr.CubBuilder wrote:Couldn't the Itidarod Air Force just use pilots with commercial certificates?

You are a pilot and you want to use your plane for something that the FAA has declared is essentially a commercial operation. Aside from a commercial certificate, is there something else that is generally required for that type of operation? Bueller? Bueller?

Yep. Certainly many of the IAF folks already have a commercial certificate. Unfortunately that is not the only issue.

Jr.CubBuilder wrote:Couldn't the Itidarod Air Force just use pilots with commercial certificates? There's nothing to force them to use some air taxi operation that wants to monopolize the race for themselves is there?

I understand a VFR commercial wouldn't be of much use, but if you had an IFR ticket anyway it wouldn't be that hard to add a commercial rating if you really wanted to fly the Iditarod with your own plane.

Same air force, same planes, same people, it just would give me a little more motivation to get my IFR (which I think I'd want up there anyway) and add a commercial cert.

Am I wrong? Is there some reason they couldn't do the exact same operation with pilots commercial rated?

Doesn't work like that, I'm sure there is someone here who can quote scripture and verse from the FAR's. Basically, commercial part 91 operations are limited to 25 mile radius sightseeing tours with a return to the departing airport. Whole different set of rules and red tape for part 135. Must have drug testing and a LOA from the FAA to even do this. Wouldn't work on the trail.

What I have seen happen is a business leases the aircraft from the owner/pilot and hires him/her to fly it. That is simplifying the actual process, I am sure, but it is legal. Something close to that might work.

gb

Even with the commercial certificate they would have to apply for and receive an operator certificate for a single owner/operator intrastate on-demand air taxi service. If you haven't looked into this process, it can be very time consuming and depending on the condition of your gear can cost some money.

The cost of the insurance alone would preclude that from being a viable option. This is only from research and lots of reading though, and not from experience.

I really hope they work it out though, cause I've read a great deal about the tremendous and vital role the air force plays in this event that is terrific for Alaska's past and present. I made sure to visit the start of the race the first year I lived in Alaska and hoped to one day serve somehow with the air force.

Brett

I really don't think this a hill the FAA wants to die on.....it is a no win situation for them.

UH-60andC-180 wrote:
I really hope they work it out though, cause I've read a great deal about the tremendous and vital role the air force plays in this event that is terrific for Alaska's past and present. I made sure to visit the start of the race the first year I lived in Alaska and hoped to one day serve somehow with the air force.

Brett

The race simply could not exist in its present form without significant air support. If forced to contract to an air taxi outfit(s) it would either need to make many, many fundamental changes to race rules and logistics to reduce the amount of flight time (and expectations of flight time), or increase its budget (and sponsorships)...oh, I don't know, maybe threefold? Or find IAF volunteers who were willing to pony up the bucks to pay for most of their flying themselves, which is a lot to expect.

mtv wrote:kevbert,

The FAA has held for many years that one can "share" expenses as a private pilot, or in cases where no holding out for hire is apparent. They've also made it quite clear that this "sharing" must be share and share alike. So, if the Iditarod provides the fuel, as in all the fuel, there is not an equal sharing.

...

The cost sharing exception is one of only several exceptions to the rule against piloting for compensation or hire.

Specifically, 61.113(d) states
"A private pilot may act as pilot in command of an aircraft used in a passenger-carrying airlift sponsored by a charitable organization ..." and goes on to specify various requirements that must be met.

The Iditarod Trail Committee is a federally recognized charitable organization and operates the Iditarod Air Force under those requirements.

And, if the airlift is "sponsored" by the charitable organization, then they are obviously paying for it, and the regs clearly allow that.

I think that this is clearly a case of selective interpretation of the rules in an effort to be partial to commercial aviation to the detriment of private aviation. I stand by my original point. The FAA is abusing its power.

Uh....the IAF is not engaged in a "passenger-carrying airlift." I'm as sad about this as anyone but I don't think that the Iditarod organization can hang their hat on 61.113 as currently written

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:Uh....the IAF is not engaged in a "passenger-carrying airlift." I'm as sad about this as anyone but I don't think that the Itidarod organization can hang their hat on 61.113 as currently written

Well, if you go to the IAF website, it's clear that their requirements parrot the requirements in the regs for said airlifts. But, you're definitely right, the phrase "passenger-carrying airlift" is not the best description for all of the various things that they do. However, that is certainly one of the things that they do.

Specifically, 61.113(d) states
"A private pilot may act as pilot in command of an aircraft used in a passenger-carrying airlift sponsored by a charitable organization ..." and goes on to specify various requirements that must be met.

The Iditarod Trail Committee is a federally recognized charitable organization and operates the Iditarod Air Force under those requirements.

And, if the airlift is "sponsored" by the charitable organization, then they are obviously paying for it, and the regs clearly allow that.

There ya go. Case closed.

kevbert wrote:

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:Uh....the IAF is not engaged in a "passenger-carrying airlift." I'm as sad about this as anyone but I don't think that the Itidarod organization can hang their hat on 61.113 as currently written

Well, if you go to the IAF website, it's clear that their requirements parrot the requirements in the regs for said airlifts. But, you're definitely right, the phrase "passenger-carrying airlift" is not the best description for all of the various things that they do. However, that is certainly one of the things that they do.

Well, I could set up a website wherein I could parrot the requirements for a part 91 sightseeing outfit, and yet in actuality do something else entirely outside of part 91. Would that be OK?

The purpose of the "charity" in this case is to maintain the historic Iditarod trail. Why do we need the trail? To run the race The real purpose of the Air Force is to support the running the race, not support the preservation of the trail. An indirect benefit to the charity to be sure, but the forums of AOPA are full of failed arguments along this line, and this isn't exactly new ground to the FAA. This wouldn't be an issue if the pilots and owners weren't receiving compensation of fuel etc.

But all this is academic. It would be nice if a solution outside of current FAA interpretation could be found. Hard cases make bad law

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:
Well, I could set up a website wherein I could parrot the requirements for a part 91 sightseeing outfit, and yet in actuality do something else entirely outside of part 91. Would that be OK?

The purpose of the "charity" in this case is to maintain the historic Iditarod trail. Why do we need the trail? To run the race The real purpose of the Air Force is to support the running the race, not support the preservation of the trail. An indirect benefit to the charity to be sure, but the forums of AOPA are full of failed arguments along this line, and this isn't exactly new ground to the FAA. This wouldn't be an issue if the pilots and owners weren't receiving compensation of fuel etc.

But all this is academic. It would be nice if a solution outside of current FAA interpretation could be found. Hard cases make bad law

They aren't doing something "entirely outside" the regs.

They are a bona fide charity. The FARs don't make any reference to whether or not their operations directly or indirectly support their charitable purpose.

They are operating an airlift operation.

Their airlift operation carries passengers.

Ergo, I submit that they are running a "passenger-carrying airlift".

They also carry cargo. That doesn't preclude them from being a passenger-carrying airlift.

When you put mustard and mayonnaise on your ham and cheese sandwich, it's still a ham and cheese sandwich!