Question about Reimbursement of Costs

[Pilotdaddy]

Can someone explain what I'm missing here?

Harv's is saying the correct answer is D...

harvs.JPG (50.02 KiB) Viewed 1343 times

... but how can you be "sharing" costs (401.28(2)(d)(ii)) when you're being reimbursed the entire amount?

[flyingcanuck]

cant be a. because thats making a profit
cant be b. because they werent the passengers
cant be c. because if he gets dropped elsewhere, it would be considered a charter no?

so d. is the least incorrect answer imo..

[Pilotdaddy]

I agree, it's the least incorrect answer. However, it's still incorrect with the way I'm interpreting the rule. I was just curious if I'm interpreting this incorrectly and D was in fact a valid answer.

[photofly]

It doesn’t actually say you can’t be reimbursed the full cost. It’s still for the purpose of sharing.

[Pilotdaddy]

I think what's sticking out in my head is the word "share". If the passenger pays $149 and the pilot pays $1, I guess that's a share... even that doesn't sound particularly legal. Don't costs need to be shared in an equitable manner, especially as a PPL?

Now, if the passenger pays $150 and the pilot pays nothing, I definitely can't see how this can be considered "for the purpose of sharing" as it's the entire amount!

[Conflicting Traffic]

cant be c. because if he gets dropped elsewhere, it would be considered a charter no?

Getting dropped off elsewhere isn't a problem. The issue here is that the pax asked to get dropped off. So the new destination wasn't incidental to the purposes of the flight.

[flyingcanuck]

cant be c. because if he gets dropped elsewhere, it would be considered a charter no?

Getting dropped off elsewhere isn't a problem. The issue here is that the pax asked to get dropped off. So the new destination wasn't incidental to the purposes of the flight.

It isn't a problem to ask to get dropped off, it is when there is money involved

[Bede]

https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... 3/index.do

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

All the answers are wrong. A) could be flight+ "I'll get lunch" B) and D) are functionally equivalent if not legally, and C) is "oh, I'll meet random dude for lunch here, leave without me".

But then again, hours in your logbook are "compensation", if anything I've learned about pro bono glider towing or jumper dumping is true.

[Heliian]

Can someone explain what I'm missing here?

Harv's is saying the correct answer is D...
harvs.JPG

... but how can you be "sharing" costs (401.28(2)(d)(ii)) when you're being reimbursed the entire amount?

I guess the point is that there is no profit and that the pax is just along for the ride. Maybe the dollar amount is a typo?

Sure got ya thinking though and it may have taught you something along the way.

[photofly]

But then again, hours in your logbook are "compensation", if anything I've learned about pro bono glider towing or jumper dumping is true.

The FAA holds that to be true, but I've never seen TC rule on the issue.

[CpnCrunch]

https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... 3/index.do

This guy puts an advert in a newspaper, takes payment for the flight, then posts a video on facebook showing that he shut the engine down in flight and landed on the runway with the engine stopped.

[photofly]

Did you like the bit about the TC inspector secretly recording a telephone conversation with a member of the public about the pilot and trying to introduce that as evidence? Classy.

[digits_]

https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... 3/index.do

This guy puts an advert in a newspaper, takes payment for the flight, then posts a video on facebook showing that he shut the engine down in flight and landed on the runway with the engine stopped.

The flight for hire and the stopped engine were on 2 separate flights.

I'm wondering if he would have gotten fined twice if he did both things on the same flight. Do they generally add up the fines, or only fine you for the most serious contravention?

[digits_]

But then again, hours in your logbook are "compensation", if anything I've learned about pro bono glider towing or jumper dumping is true.

The FAA holds that to be true, but I've never seen TC rule on the issue.

Does that mean that US commercial pilots who love their job are taxed on their happiness, since flying is compensation in itself?

That would explain *so* much.

[photofly]

https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... 3/index.do

This guy puts an advert in a newspaper, takes payment for the flight, then posts a video on facebook showing that he shut the engine down in flight and landed on the runway with the engine stopped.

The flight for hire and the stopped engine were on 2 separate flights.

I'm wondering if he would have gotten fined twice if he did both things on the same flight. Do they generally add up the fines, or only fine you for the most serious contravention?

If it’s the same facts they pick the most serious offence. If separate facts, they will charge you with both.

[Conflicting Traffic]

cant be c. because if he gets dropped elsewhere, it would be considered a charter no?

Getting dropped off elsewhere isn't a problem. The issue here is that the pax asked to get dropped off. So the new destination wasn't incidental to the purposes of the flight.

It isn't a problem to ask to get dropped off, it is when there is money involved

Yes, this is correct. And option (c) included the exchange of money. So the money plus asking makes the flight illegal.

[AirFrame]

But then again, hours in your logbook are "compensation", if anything I've learned about pro bono glider towing or jumper dumping is true.

The FAA holds that to be true, but I've never seen TC rule on the issue.

The gliding club at Hope has specifically asked TC about this, and was told that PPL's may tow gliders, even though the gliders are paying the club for their tows... As long as the PPL's are not paid. I have a significant number of hours towing in their planes. It was a lot of fun, and the only compensation I received was thank-you's from the pilots.

[digits_]

If it’s the same facts they pick the most serious offence. If separate facts, they will charge you with both.

Thanks, good to know!

[digits_]

But then again, hours in your logbook are "compensation", if anything I've learned about pro bono glider towing or jumper dumping is true.

The FAA holds that to be true, but I've never seen TC rule on the issue.

The gliding club at Hope has specifically asked TC about this, and was told that PPL's may tow gliders, even though the gliders are paying the club for their tows... As long as the PPL's are not paid. I have a significant number of hours towing in their planes. It was a lot of fun, and the only compensation I received was thank-you's from the pilots.

Let's hope Swoop doesn't read this.

Uncompensated PPL fos in 3... 2... 1...