Here's an interesting method of building hours.

System Message · Post by **System Message** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:54 am

I don't believe Bob can be convicted here. If Bob is not charged there can be no conviction. If Bob is charged then his cost of the possible fine and the cost of the defence of that fine is the direct result of the flight and therefore he has paid his share of the expenses. For the judge to say guilty would mean that he is not guilty.

Dagwood · Post by **Dagwood** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:21 am

kamikaze wrote:"Bob, wanna fly to Vegas with me in my Cirrus?"

So if Bob offers to pay for fuel, is that illegal?"

If he pays for ALL the fuel and other direct costs, yes it is illegal. If he pays only HIS SHARE of the fuel and other direct costs, then no.

You are correct. If the cirrus is going to Vegas anyway, a pax can come along and chip in the cost. It is wrong when the passengers can choose their time and route of the trip. It's extra wrong when this service is advertised on-line.

(ii) is for the purpose of sharing costs for fuel, oil and fees

Note the CARs do not say who the costs are shared among. It could be argued that the costs are shared among the passengers only, or between the passengers and pilot. Also, it does not specify how much each share must be.

KK7 · Post by **KK7** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:32 pm

You are correct. If the cirrus is going to Vegas anyway, a pax can come along and chip in the cost. It is wrong when the passengers can choose their time and route of the trip. It's extra wrong when this service is advertised on-line.

In this example, the purpose of the trip was to go to Vegas. But what if the purpose was not to get to a destination? For example lets say I need to go up flying to remain current. Here are a few scenarios, which ones are legal and not legal?

A) I say to my friend "Jim" who always wanted to go flying but never got the chance, "Would you like to go flying with my in my Cirrus tomorrow night and share the costs with me?"

B) Same as above, but "Jim" says "I can't tomorrow night, but what about the night after?"

C) Same as A), but "Jim" says "Can we fly over my house?"

D) B) and C) combined.

In my mind the spirit of the regulation is respected, as Jim is obviously not paying me any reward for taking him up, he's a friend that wants to come along and pay his share of the costs. But is it breaking the word of the regulation?

C-GGGQ · Post by **C-GGGQ** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:39 am

I don't believe the above examples are in violation of definitely the spirit or likely the letter of the law.

YOWza · Post by **YOWza** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:37 am

Basically if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, TC is gonna try and nail you for it

Then maybe we should let TC worry about it. There's a lot worse things happening in this industry that need their attention. Some PPL trying to get flight time definitely does not deserve the same attention, for example, an FTU operating an unregistered aircraft deserves.

kamikaze · Post by **kamikaze** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:46 pm

A) I say to my friend "Jim" who always wanted to go flying but never got the chance, "Would you like to go flying with my in my Cirrus tomorrow night and share the costs with me?

B) Same as above, but "Jim" says "I can't tomorrow night, but what about the night after?"

C) Same as A), but "Jim" says "Can we fly over my house?"

D) B) and C) combined.

A) OK, so long as you were planning on going flying anyways, basically. If you go flying specifically for his benefit then not OK, because his presence is no longer "incidental". Of course, no one could really prove this one way or the other, so you're OK.

For me the question is often, I wanan go fly, but I don't feel like doing it *alone*, so I won't go fly alone, and I will go fly if someone comes with me. I figure that's legal enough, although some real tight ass could argue the passenger's presence is no longer "incidental". I figure those odds are very much in my favour though ...

I think by the tuime you get to D through, you're in a much grayer area. It could easily look like you're flying clearly for his benefit. You're doing it when he wants, and going where he wants.

kamikaze · Post by **kamikaze** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:52 pm

Basically, intent is 9 10ths of the law.

If you go flying with the intent to accomodate a passenger in terms of when and where, that could be deemed problematic.

If you happen to go flying, a bored buddy calls you, and you say hey, wanna come along? Can you chip in for the fuel? then that's 100% legal.

If while flying you decide to go overfly his house, and it wasn't planned, you're A-OK.

If you plan BEFORE flying to do it for him, when he wants, and go where he wants, that looks terribly like he's getting a service from you. At least share the costs. As someone pointed out, the rules don't say the sahre has to be equal either

If he pays all the direct costs, you've defintiely broken both the letter and the spirit of the reg.

So long as you resist playing amateur air taxi, you're generally probably OK.

I'd say advertising a flight, even if sharing the costs, really brings the passenger out of the "incidental to the flight" category. He's not incidental, he's the whole reason the flight is happening!

Pratt X 3 · Post by **Pratt X 3** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:12 am

Here's the latest one: http://ontario.kijiji.ca/c-services-oth ... Z310890959

CFR · Post by **CFR** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:48 am

Pratt X 3 wrote:Here's the latest one: http://ontario.kijiji.ca/c-services-oth ... Z310890959

"... ace_flyboy@hotmail.com"

SeptRepair · Post by **SeptRepair** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:52 am

What if Bob would love to see that C-172 fly. He has never seen one fly before so asks if he can sponsor the aircraft to go flying. The owner of the aircraft says well next Thursday I'm not busy so I can go flying that day. Bob pays the money to see the aircraft fly. Owner says hey would you like to come along since its your money? Legal or not?

Dagwood · Post by **Dagwood** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:02 am

A facebook picture of ace_flyboy is here: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=521865366

GoinNowhereFast · Post by **GoinNowhereFast** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 5:28 pm

When young Jimmy get his fresh PPL, and takes Ma and Pa for a flight in the 172. Ma and Pa pay for the flight. Is that illegal?

The flight wouldn't have happened without Ma and Pa
Reward is that 1.0 in the logbook

FL_CH · Post by **FL_CH** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 5:36 pm

How's the flight itself a reward for a flight? Is execution of PPL privileges a reward? I would think it'd need to be more material than that

cdnpilot77 · Post by **cdnpilot77** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 6:55 pm

Pratt X 3 wrote:Here's the latest one: http://ontario.kijiji.ca/c-services-oth ... Z310890959

Gone already!

Dagwood · Post by **Dagwood** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:28 pm

I was going to say I am glad these "services" disappear soon after we post them here. However, it appears Ace Flyboy has just changed the link:

http://toronto.kijiji.ca/c-services-tra ... Z310888206

Kilo-Kilo · Post by **Kilo-Kilo** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:00 pm

Before it is unlisted,

Fly with a safe, knowledgeable, and experienced pilot around

1) the CN Tower and city of Toronto and/or
2) the Niagara Falls and city of St. Catherine's.

Whether it is a romantic flight or simply a scenic tour you will enjoy this flight. Just carry a bottle of water, some snacks, and your camera.

The aircraft can carry 3 passengers and the cost is $45 per person. The reason why the price is low is to just help me pay for gas and an excuse for me to go flying.

Email me at ace_flyboy@hotmail.com or Call my cell at 647 390 0160.

Thanks

The excuse to go flying part of the ad makes it non-incidental.

-Are you taking advertising notes flyboy?

Feel free to call his cellular everybody.

old_man · Post by **old_man** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 2:07 am

Toronto to Niagara Falls eh? I hope he provides his passengers...errr incidental guests with life vests for the transit.

Blakey · Post by **Blakey** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:46 pm

Kijiji seems to be aswarm with tempting offers these days!

http://ontario.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell ... Z335310556

http://ontario.kijiji.ca/c-services-oth ... Z340167809

I particularily like the photo in the second one that appears to have been taken from within restricted airspace!

North Shore · Post by **North Shore** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 4:36 pm

Well, #1 above appears to be a discovery flight. #2, not so much...

Blakey · Post by **Blakey** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 4:41 pm

North Shore wrote:Well, #1 above appears to be a discovery flight. #2, not so much...

Well, it IS presented that way but it's a strange FTU that advertizes discovery flights but doesn't mention their name in the ad and gives only the pilot's home phone number. The "Gift Certificate" is a nice touch too.

Beefitarian · Post by **Beefitarian** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:31 pm

Blakey wrote:Kijiji seems to be aswarm with tempting offers these days!

http://ontario.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell ... Z335310556

http://ontario.kijiji.ca/c-services-oth ... Z340167809

I particularily like the photo in the second one that appears to have been taken from within restricted airspace!

The one of the cessna on a road?

Blakey · Post by **Blakey** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:39 pm

The airspace above Parliment Hill is a No-Fly zone up to 1500' AGL. That increases to 3000' AGL Feb 1, 2012.

Beefitarian · Post by **Beefitarian** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:41 pm

Ah, nice.

624 · Post by **624** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:39 pm

702, 703 ops, blah, blah, blah... This is terrible news. Throw the mofo in jail.

On a side note, Found out thanks to the original post Deep Purple is touring, and through Canada.

624 · Post by **624** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:23 pm

error code 1003

Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.

Re: Here's an interesting method of building hours.