Iamthebest_391 0 #1 April 25, 2004 Is a private pilot flying your jump plane? Jumped at a DZ last sunday where the dzo was flying and he is only a private pilot. Is that legal? G. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #2 April 25, 2004 it is only legal if he his flying the jumpers for free, he cannot fly jumpers for money. if busted he could face sanctions from the FAA.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skipro101 0 #3 April 25, 2004 QuoteIs a private pilot flying your jump plane? Jumped at a DZ last sunday where the dzo was flying and he is only a private pilot. Is that legal? G. Actually, there is ...or perhaps better to say..may be....a loophole if the DZ is a club. Last I looked into this...some FAA people say no way..others say technically yes..if its a club.. its a blurry line. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
argon 0 #4 April 25, 2004 He could not be receiving compensation and the jumpers could not have actually paid the dz. If it was a group of friends taking a plane ride with some chosing not to land with same-cool. If not-it is a clear violation of Part 91 FAA regs.*********** Freedom isn't free. Don't forget: Mother Earth is waiting for you--there is a debt you have to pay...... POPS #9329 Commercial Pilot,Instrument MEL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #5 April 25, 2004 The FAA had violated pilots for flying jumpers w/o a commercial license. It is not legal. Jane F. Garvey (FAA) vs. Robert R. Rawlins. Docket SE-14006 August 21, 1997 The private pilot's license was suspeneded for 90 days for flying jumpers. The FAA argued that the DZ, even though it was a club, was being paid. Not all of the jumpers (tandems, students, etc) were members of the club and the club advertised like a business. Even though the pilot was an unpaid volunteer, they were not sharing expenses with the passengers. The shared-expense exception is only valid where the pilot and pasengers share a common purpose in the flight and does not apply to parachutist operations. Bottom line, you must have a commercial license to fly jumpers, even if you are not being paid. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EDYDO 0 #6 April 25, 2004 The key point here is flying for compensation. If the passengers are paying ANYONE more than expense money, then the pilot must have a commercial license. This means that clubs selling tandems and commercial DZ's must have commercial pilots. If you want to take me up in your plane for gas money and you are a private pilot, we can go. Ed CFI Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #7 April 25, 2004 Quote If it was a group of friends taking a plane ride with some chosing not to land with same-cool. The shared-expense exception is only valid where the pilot and pasengers share a common purpose in the flight and does not apply to parachutist operations. According to the FAA, no exception to the shared expense rule if some/all of the passengers are jumper because then they don't "share a common purpose in the flight". The DZO flying jumpers with only a PPL is violating the FAR's. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #8 April 25, 2004 My only question is how do you know he doesn't have a commercial rating? The DZO of Chicagoland is commercially rated, and will occaisionally fly. Also, the late Roger Nelson was also commercially rated, and would fly at his DZ, too. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #9 April 25, 2004 QuoteThe FAA had violated pilots for flying jumpers w/o a commercial license. It is not legal. Jane F. Garvey (FAA) vs. Robert R. Rawlins. Docket SE-14006 August 21, 1997 The private pilot's license was suspeneded for 90 days for flying jumpers. The FAA argued that the DZ, even though it was a club, was being paid. Not all of the jumpers (tandems, students, etc) were members of the club and the club advertised like a business. Even though the pilot was an unpaid volunteer, they were not sharing expenses with the passengers. The shared-expense exception is only valid where the pilot and pasengers share a common purpose in the flight and does not apply to parachutist operations. Bottom line, you must have a commercial license to fly jumpers, even if you are not being paid. Derek What if the pilot pays entirely for the flight from her own pocket? No charge to the jumpers therefore no shared expense exception required. There's no FAR that explicitly prohibits a pp from flying jumpers, just the shared expense rule that makes it unlikely.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #10 April 25, 2004 QuoteWhat if the pilot pays entirely for the flight from her own pocket? I dunno. I haven't seen a case where the FAA got involved in that sort of situation. So I should modify my statement, “Bottom line, you must have a commercial license to fly jumpers, even if you are not being paid.”, to include a disclaimer that this applies if someone is being paid. If the DZO/pilot was not being paid, but the jumpers are paying the DZ, then the pilot needs a commercial license. It isn’t that hared to get a commercial license, basically a PPL check ride w/ tighter standards. This is just another example of DZ’s cutting corners. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tombuch 0 #11 April 25, 2004 The specific regulation is 61.113(a) and is available at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e8de1204833b8f039ad822eb060371c1&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2.5.1.8&idno=14. The key phrase is: Quote§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. (b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. (c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees. The important thing to consider is that nobody can be paying for the flight, and the pilot may not be paid. The FAA also tends to look at if the operation is "holding out to the public," or making the activity available on more than a limited basis. A commercial pilot should be able to discuss the concept of a hold out and how the FAA interprets it to mean services are offered to "more than a few." Some pilots look for gray areas in this regulation, but the FAA does not see much gray. To the FAA, if the operation is collecting any money, the pilot is paid in any way including flight time, or the general public is involved, then the flight requires a commercial pilot.Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #12 April 26, 2004 Tom, Right on the mark! FAA has determined and has "case history" stating that even bartering is compensation so, if a private pilot is trying to build time and fly for free, if there is any exchange of "value" you are busted. Even if you are the owner/pilot of the aircraft. Why not list the DZ and let us know who it is? Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iamthebest_391 0 #13 April 26, 2004 PM me and I'll let you know. I wont put it here dont want a telephone call from his wife................ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EDYDO 0 #15 April 27, 2004 Quote if there is any exchange of "value" you are busted. Even if you are the owner/pilot of the aircraft.Quote I am skeptical about this. I cannot believe there is case history of a violation of a Private Pilot/Aircraft Owner resulting in fine or suspension, when taking up jumpers and truely sharing expenses. By the same token I have a number of jumps where another jumper/pilot and I flew each other and split the cost of a rental plane. I see nothing contrary to the regulations in this either. Ed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sducoach 0 #16 April 27, 2004 Be as "skeptical" as you wish. Did my post say "when taking up jumpers"? No. It said any exchange of value. If the pilot/owner does not pay an "equal" share it is compensation based on equal value. If your buddy paid 12.49 and you paid 12.50, it is in violation. Let me know where I said taking up jumpers. Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EDYDO 0 #17 April 27, 2004 Look at the top of the post, the subject is "Private Pilot Flying Jump plane." Please give me a break with the $12.49/ $12.50 example. There is nothing to support that position. Ed QuoteBe as "skeptical" as you wish. Did my post say "when taking up jumpers"? No. It said any exchange of value. If the pilot/owner does not pay an "equal" share it is compensation based on equal value. If your buddy paid 12.49 and you paid 12.50, it is in violation. Let me know where I said taking up jumpers. Blues, J.E. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sducoach 0 #18 April 27, 2004 Read Tom's post, read the regs. See ya! J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EDYDO 0 #19 April 27, 2004 OK, I did. It says pro rata share. Posts like yours scare people unnecessarily into staying on the ground in cases when they can make jumps that are perfectly legal. Ed QuoteRead Tom's post, read the regs. See ya! J.E. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rw2go 0 #20 April 27, 2004 POst like yours are just to argue. Get real. Justin edit: If you would read all the posts and seek the circumstances that they have been suspended you would see the case history. Post like his scare people! Only ones like you!Fly Brother Fly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EDYDO 0 #21 April 27, 2004 Welcome to the thread. I believe J.E. is one of your instructors and is a friend of yours. Ed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rw2go 0 #22 April 27, 2004 Never been in one of JE classes. Never Jumped with him. Only know him by he rep. which is a good one in Arkansas even though he is in Missouri. I know two guys who went through his courses which are hard but fare. Unlike some others I know who are a cake walk. So again, don't think so much. You make yourself look silly when you do. By the way, Your check is in the mail. Trust me. I am the government. JustinFly Brother Fly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #23 April 27, 2004 QuoteI am skeptical about this. I cannot believe there is case history of a violation of a Private Pilot/Aircraft Owner resulting in fine or suspension, when taking up jumpers and truely sharing expenses. By the same token I have a number of jumps where another jumper/pilot and I flew each other and split the cost of a rental plane. I see nothing contrary to the regulations in this either. "The shared-expense exception is only valid where the pilot and pasengers share a common purpose in the flight" Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pilotdave 0 #24 April 27, 2004 Quote"The shared-expense exception is only valid where the pilot and pasengers share a common purpose in the flight" That's such strange wording (no surprise coming from the FAA). I mean, the purpose of the flight would be to get up high so the jumper can leave the plane safely. The only time the passengers and pilot don't have a common purpose in the flight is a hijacking. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 20 #25 April 27, 2004 Or a common purpose to to move the pilot and passengers from point A to point B. Like on a normal flight. Flying jumpers is not the same purpose as what the pilot has. Jumpers want to exit, the pilot wants to land the plane and fly again.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
sducoach 0 #16 April 27, 2004 Be as "skeptical" as you wish. Did my post say "when taking up jumpers"? No. It said any exchange of value. If the pilot/owner does not pay an "equal" share it is compensation based on equal value. If your buddy paid 12.49 and you paid 12.50, it is in violation. Let me know where I said taking up jumpers. Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EDYDO 0 #17 April 27, 2004 Look at the top of the post, the subject is "Private Pilot Flying Jump plane." Please give me a break with the $12.49/ $12.50 example. There is nothing to support that position. Ed QuoteBe as "skeptical" as you wish. Did my post say "when taking up jumpers"? No. It said any exchange of value. If the pilot/owner does not pay an "equal" share it is compensation based on equal value. If your buddy paid 12.49 and you paid 12.50, it is in violation. Let me know where I said taking up jumpers. Blues, J.E. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #18 April 27, 2004 Read Tom's post, read the regs. See ya! J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EDYDO 0 #19 April 27, 2004 OK, I did. It says pro rata share. Posts like yours scare people unnecessarily into staying on the ground in cases when they can make jumps that are perfectly legal. Ed QuoteRead Tom's post, read the regs. See ya! J.E. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rw2go 0 #20 April 27, 2004 POst like yours are just to argue. Get real. Justin edit: If you would read all the posts and seek the circumstances that they have been suspended you would see the case history. Post like his scare people! Only ones like you!Fly Brother Fly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EDYDO 0 #21 April 27, 2004 Welcome to the thread. I believe J.E. is one of your instructors and is a friend of yours. Ed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rw2go 0 #22 April 27, 2004 Never been in one of JE classes. Never Jumped with him. Only know him by he rep. which is a good one in Arkansas even though he is in Missouri. I know two guys who went through his courses which are hard but fare. Unlike some others I know who are a cake walk. So again, don't think so much. You make yourself look silly when you do. By the way, Your check is in the mail. Trust me. I am the government. JustinFly Brother Fly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #23 April 27, 2004 QuoteI am skeptical about this. I cannot believe there is case history of a violation of a Private Pilot/Aircraft Owner resulting in fine or suspension, when taking up jumpers and truely sharing expenses. By the same token I have a number of jumps where another jumper/pilot and I flew each other and split the cost of a rental plane. I see nothing contrary to the regulations in this either. "The shared-expense exception is only valid where the pilot and pasengers share a common purpose in the flight" Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #24 April 27, 2004 Quote"The shared-expense exception is only valid where the pilot and pasengers share a common purpose in the flight" That's such strange wording (no surprise coming from the FAA). I mean, the purpose of the flight would be to get up high so the jumper can leave the plane safely. The only time the passengers and pilot don't have a common purpose in the flight is a hijacking. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #25 April 27, 2004 Or a common purpose to to move the pilot and passengers from point A to point B. Like on a normal flight. Flying jumpers is not the same purpose as what the pilot has. Jumpers want to exit, the pilot wants to land the plane and fly again.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
