I thought this was great. I'm guessing 50 bucks an hour for a ride in a 170 isn't going to make the pilot rich? Clearly not his intent, and it's great to see some new blood with such enthusiasm being so willing to share it with others. https://www.postregister.com/farmandran ... 937ac.html

I will be getting in touch with him, and if he get's a line on a fuel system for the Mackay strip, I'll do the crane work to set the tank in place for a bit of diesel. It is a 1.5 hr one way drive after all.

Articles advertising in the paper is a pretty aggressive way to share flight expenses as a private pilot.

gdflys wrote:Articles advertising in the paper is a pretty aggressive way to share flight expenses as a private pilot.

He’s a commercial pilot.

Aryana wrote:

gdflys wrote:Articles advertising in the paper is a pretty aggressive way to share flight expenses as a private pilot.

He’s a commercial pilot.

Makes no difference. Cost sharing applies regardless of certificate level.

He just needs to ensure he’s actually doing “share and share alike”.

A commercial certificate allows the pilot to fly for hire. To fly the airplane for hire requires an operating certificate, with some exceptions, as noted in the regs.

See 91.197 and 119.1 in the regulations if there’s not an equal sharing of costs.

MTV

Just paying their share of the fuel, he won’t (and hasn’t) have (had) issues.

Nothing wrong with sharing the joys of fight and I wish him well. All I meant was he may get more attention than just fellow cost sharing passengers.

Part 91 Commercial Sightseeing Operators

Allowed to continue conducting flights under the operating rules of part 91 within the 25-statute-mile exception, except for flights over national parks, which are generally limited to a total of five per month.
Impact: No change from previous regulations
Must conduct passenger safety briefings on every flight and provide passengers with life preservers for over-water flights. Required briefings include the use of seatbelts, prohibition on smoking, exiting the aircraft, and use of life preservers for over-water flights. Passengers are required to wear the life preservers while in flight if the sightseeing tour is to be conducted beyond the airplane's power-off gliding distance to the shoreline.
Impact: Sightseeing operators who conduct over-water flights beyond the shoreline of an ocean, sea, lake, pond, river, or tidal basin will now have to purchase life preservers at a cost of about $200 per unit and an additional $200 annual maintenance and inspection costs.
Each operator must apply for, and operate in accordance with, a letter of authorization (LOA) issued by the FAA. The LOA application must include the following information:
Name of operator, agent, and any d/b/a under which that operator does business;
Principal business address and mailing address;
Principal place of business (if different from business address);
Name of person responsible for management of the business;
Name of person responsible for aircraft maintenance;
Type of aircraft, registration number(s), and make/model/series; and
An Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program registration.
The operator must comply with the provisions of the letter of authorization received.
Impact: Sightseeing operators could encounter lengthy delays in obtaining LOAs if they wait until close to the September 11, 2007, deadline before sending in their LOA application.
The FAA failed to specify in the final rule what the provisions of the LOA will consist of, which could lead to confusion and problems with some FSDOs.
Any sightseeing operator who has not been complying with the existing drug and alcohol testing requirements will not be able to get an LOA until after they register their drug and alcohol program with the FAA.

I hope it works out for him, though the idea of getting fuel at Mackay strikes me as rather far fetched.

Like a lot of other pilots, my enthusiasm for sharing my love of flying got tempered by observing our civil court system and a society that believes someone else is always at fault for anything that happens. I honestly cannot imagine offering rides to strangers unless I was making enough money to pay for the associated insurance policies, and a healthy profit to compensate me for the time and money I'll end up spending on the lawsuit that's always just around the corner. I'm even particular about which friends I'll allow in my airplane.

I hope that doesn't happen to him, but I sure wouldn't want that sort of legal exposure. One of the first things you learn when you get sued is it doesn't make a lick of difference if the suit has merit: even if you win, you still get punished.

Here’s the phrase that can bite you:

“Each operator must apply for, and operate in accordance with, a letter of authorization (LOA) issued by the FAA“

Mine took 14 months and numerous revisions even though I followed the reg precisely in version 1.

And, they liked me....

In the meantime I did tours as dual instruction flights, since I was a CFI. No requirement for an operating certificate or LOA in that case.

In reference to Hammers point, I sincerely hope he is insured, but it always amazed me how many owners of aircraft have no insurance, not even liability.....

MTV

gdflys wrote:Nothing wrong with sharing the joys of fight and I wish him well. All I meant was he may get more attention than just fellow cost sharing passengers.

It could be construed as holding out; isn't that the term for a commercial pilot advertising their services to the public? Can this apply even if he's a private pilot advertising for the opportunity to go fly for your pro rata share?

Seems a slippery slope.

Holding out is advertising flights without conforming to FAA regulations. When you conform to the regulations it's called putting out.

There was a flight share app a few years back where you could check out local pilots and 'hitch a ride'.
The idea was that passengers would only pay their pro rata share so, it's all good man...
FAA saw different. App died

Hammer wrote:I hope it works out for him, though the idea of getting fuel at Mackay strikes me as rather far fetched.

Like a lot of other pilots, my enthusiasm for sharing my love of flying got tempered by observing our civil court system and a society that believes someone else is always at fault for anything that happens. I honestly cannot imagine offering rides to strangers unless I was making enough money to pay for the associated insurance policies, and a healthy profit to compensate me for the time and money I'll end up spending on the lawsuit that's always just around the corner. I'm even particular about which friends I'll allow in my airplane.

I hope that doesn't happen to him, but I sure wouldn't want that sort of legal exposure. One of the first things you learn when you get sued is it doesn't make a lick of difference if the suit has merit: even if you win, you still get punished.

Mackay is a much better stop then Arco or Challis, at least if your goal is to grab a bite to eat, or get other supplies. 3 minute walk to downtown. Not so much at Arco or Challis. Better scenary too. But, I agree, seems unlikely. None of this matters to me, a ebike riding, mogas burning pilot, I just like Mackay much better then Arco, and a bit better then Challis!