Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

PA46 Malibu N264DB missing in the English Channel

A google on some exact phrases suggests that Bookworm’s text comes from what used to be the FAA Inspector’s Handbook and is now called F-SIMS (Flight Standards Information Management System). It is very old text. Most FAA regs have not changed for decades – no need to because they were mostly drafted very well. In Europe, we have not had the benefit of good lawmaking in aviation…

it does not mean you should just go up and fly a long XC by night

No, but it would affect whether you can be prosecuted for it Or, if you are dead, whether the insurance will pay out.

Practically speaking it is really no worse than flying VFR at night, on a “proper night”.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

JasonC wrote:

I think bookworm’s quote comes from the guide to DPEs.

It’s from FSIMS, which is Order 8900.1, in effect the FAA policy handbook. Order 8900.2 is the guide for DPEs. I would imagine that, like any policy handbook, its words have no legal force (for those outside the FAA).

Autopilot issues in twins moved here

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

On the BBC news just now they showed an interview with someone involved in the signing deal of Sala. He states that he ordered the plane just as he’d “order a taxi”. It was from his “usual provider”, he was to “pay the full cost” and also “Sala was not paying anything”. He did not reveal who he ordered the plane from.

He did imply it was a commercial arrangement and if so the flight would be an illegal charter I think. I don’t think this means necessarily that the pilot was paid or even know the commercial arrangement of the flight. He could, as Timothy suggests, been given the opportunity to fly a famous footballer and jumped at the chance. If he was a heating engineer in his day job I doubt very much he’d need to supplement his income with dodgy pilot fees.

Last Edited by S57 at 28 Feb 22:35
S57
EGBJ, United Kingdom

If he was a heating engineer in his day job I doubt very much he’d need to supplement his income with pilot fees.

That would certainly be true if he was an electrician

He was some sort of “gas fitter”. Don’t know what that is. Could be working for a gas company on the high pressure pipelines, or could be going around testing domestic boilers and issuing the certificates (such as e.g. landlords need), or anything in between.

It is an interesting Q whether it is still Public Transport (on the UK interpretation) if money is paid in respect of the flight but the pilot doesn’t get any of it. AIUI the mere existence of a payment makes it PT. But a good number of failed CAA enforcements over many years have taken place in this “payment getting rather distant” arena… I recall one where the pilot was not paid but his wife was taking the bookings and the payments.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
It is an interesting Q whether it is still Public Transport (on the UK interpretation) if money is paid in respect of the flight but the pilot doesn’t get any of it.

The ubiquitous buzzword is “operator” which may be and often is a person other than the pilot. As the aircraft was of US registry it’s instructive to recall an FAA decision finding, based on statutory and regulatory definitions, that an aircraft owner “operated” an aircraft which had been flown with permission, carelessly and recklessly, by another pilot. In the Matter of: Ramon C. Fenner, 1996 WL 336049, 1996 FAA LEXIS 1224 (FAA Order No. 96-17, 3 May 1996)

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/adjudication/civil_penalty/CaseFile/view/1996/1996-17.pdf

… While
aircraft owners may not be liable for all infractions committed in their aircraft, they
can be held liable for infractions committed by a pilot who had permission to use
their aircraft. The FAA has a statutory duty to protect the public from dangerous
actions. Moreover, holding aircraft owners responsible in cases like this may help
ensure that aircraft owners grant permission to use their aircraft only to persons
they know to be responsible

Later affirmed sub nom. Fenner v FAA, 113 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 1997).

The finding was summarised in an interpretation given 18 Mar 2013 to John L Hancock:

In Fenner, a pilot loaned his airplane to an unidentified pilot who operated
it in a reckless manner. Even though the owner of the airplane was not on board, the
Administrator concluded that the owner had “operated” the airplane in violation of § 91.13,
91.111, and 91.113 because he had given the pilot permission to use the aircraft. This
conclusion was based on the statutory definition of “operate aircraft”2 and the regulatory
definition of “operate.”3

2 “Operate aircraft” or “operation of aircraft” mean using aircraft for the purpose of air navigation, including
“causing or authorizing the operation of aircraft with or without the right of legal control of the aircraft.” 49
U.S.C. § 40102(a)(32).

3 Section 1.1 defines “operate” as "with respect to an 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 an aircraft, with or without the right oflegal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).

The questions posed to the Office of the Chief Counsel by Hancock were:

Does loaning an airplane to a private pilot amount to compensation in violation of §
61.113? Other than a cash payment from one person to another, what constitutes
compensation under §61.113? If your friend flies passengers with whom he does
business without charge, would his desire to obtain future economic benefit from his
passengers in the form of future business constitute "compensation?

Does the owner of a private airplane bear any regulatory responsibility if,
unbeknownst to him, a person borrowing his plane flies passengers or cargo for hire in
violation of §61.113(a)? Does the owner of a private airplane have a duty to monitor a
friend’s use of the airplane so as to ensure the friend does not fly passengers or cargo
for hire in violation of § 61.113(a)

See also In the Matter of: Ronald L. Gatewood (FAA Order No. 2000-1) (3 Feb 2000) (pdf), petition for reconsideration denied, FAA Order No. 2001-1 (16 May 2001) (pdf), petition for review dismissed for lack of prosecution, Gatewood v. FAA, docket no. 01-1308 (DC Cir. 10 Oct 2001).

Last Edited by Qalupalik at 01 Mar 00:10
London, United Kingdom

Some interesting stuff here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47406109

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

AIUI the mere existence of a payment makes it PT.

If I were a lawyer having to defend this, my argument would be that it’s only public transport if it’s available to any member of the public who pitches up and pays the price.

The analogy I would draw is that if I drive your mother-in-law to the airport and you give me a tenner for petrol, that does not make me a taxi driver in the eyes of the law/regulator.

The crux is whether it is a private arrangement or whether I am open to offers for similar arrangements with others. One can further argue that the latter is probably not the case if the only money is to cover costs rather than an actual professional fee. If there is a professional fee then one can forget the PT argument (for the moment) because he doesn’t have a CPL.

EGLM & EGTN

The Daily Trash always gets the dirt and this piece suggests that the passenger was aware of the cost of getting flown.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

this piece suggests that the passenger was aware of the cost of getting flown

It does not show that, it shows that (given how the whole saga was organized in a last minute) money probably did not had the time to exchange hands (not even an explicit agreement on commercial price or cost-sharing), then good luck recovering communications between Sala & McKay, McKay & Henderson, Henderson & Ibbotson, Ibbotson & Sala…

Reminds me of a last minute mission to find a vintage car for a friend wedding, we still don’t know who did pay for one of them (we had two at the end) but we know the driver and the passenger

Last Edited by Ibra at 01 Mar 18:18
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top