Rides in Limited or Experimental aircraft require a "Living History Flight Experience" Exemption, and every year the rules get more stringent. It is migrating dangerously close to -135 maintenance and checkrides.

Was the Collins Foundation B17 operating under that exemption? Might explain the increased restrictions.

Rides in Limited or Experimental aircraft require a "Living History Flight Experience" Exemption, and every year the rules get more stringent. It is migrating dangerously close to -135 maintenance and checkrides.

Doug -

Are you stating that Experimental (Exhibition) registered aircraft require the Living History exemption for any ride to be given to a non-required crew member? Even if it's not in waivered airspace and there is no money nor any other form of compensation for the ride?

I see nothing like that in my Ops Limits. If it's a general statement in the regs, where is this requirement please?

Thanks,

Zeke

Rides in Limited or Experimental aircraft require a "Living History Flight Experience" Exemption, and every year the rules get more stringent. It is migrating dangerously close to -135 maintenance and checkrides.

Doug -

We operate two Experimental Exhibition aircraft. We give rides to friends. However, we take NOTHING in return. No lunch, no fuel, no favors, no nothing. And it's not in waivered airspace where the FAA gets excited about non-essential crew onboard.

Two of us own the aircraft. And I let a third friend fly one of them so long as he gases it to the point where it was when he departed. But I take zero compensation of any conceivable form for the use of the aircraft.

All that said, please verify that it's your understanding that in these circumstances there is no possible violation with respect to giving rides.

I initially responded to your post that made no distinction between giving rides for compensation (however broadly interpreted) versus giving rides to friends. That's what got my attention. And now a little paranoid!

Thanks, Zeke

Good discussion here. We are hoping to find a way to fly one out of a Class D airport under the Bravo where people just get a chance to fly in the plane, not for compensation.

Gosh, there are hundreds of us in Phoenix that have been doing this very thing for 20-30 YEARS without the slightest issue.

I clearly haven’t put as much worry into operating an experiment airplane as maybe I should have? Or actually… fact: it is a non-issue.

Tj
* as respects personal use of a privately owned aircraft in the very traditional hundred dollar hamburger sense.

You are fine.

But giving rides to a sponsor, or the media at an airshow has been seen as compensation even though the aircraft owner received nothing. Also, if you bring an airplane experimental, limited, or standard, to an airshow and get a tank of gas or a hot dog, the FAA has opined that you have to have a commercial certificate. Some have gone so far as to say if a museum lets you fly their airplane, you are receiving flight time which they have tried to define as compensation.

I think it's time to push for some relief from the FAA's ridiculous concerns WRT non-monetary "compensation" in the next Pilot's Bill of Rights legislation attempt.

The original reason that paid compensation became verboten was to eliminate "fly by night" charters and the like so the "certified" operations wouldn't have to compete with the unregulated ones. There's just no way that any pilot or organization is going to compete with a legitimate charter outfit by getting some free gas to bring their airplane to an event or by garnering "goodwill" when taking a friend/client on a free trip.

Lance,

I agree with you and I rail against silly, over-the-top regulation.

That said, there's always some guy out there who takes the latitude we have and abuses it. Stretches it to the limits. And crosses lines. He (or she) is the person who makes it more difficult for the reasonable amongst us.

I have run my company for 22 years. I started out with one simple rule: be smart, safe, and legal and take good care of the customers and the company. Then I had to start making additional rules, one at a time. You can now go through our operations manual and I can usually tell you the person who made each rule necessary. And it is now a substantial book. I hate creating new rules. Among other things I have to enforce them and each and every rule takes away a little bit of autonomy and judgement. Because if you have to write a rule down, you have to make it sufficiently thorough to stop the worst actor. You have to police it. Ugh.

I believe this is how most of the FARs came to be.

Do you remember the debacle with LODAs a couple of years ago. What a cluster... That was driven by ONE person who wanted to skirt by some rules and then he wanted to pick a fight with the FAA. How many people were caught out by that? I was. Big bureaucracies don't do subtle very well. The FAA's response was predictable clumsy. They finally dialed it back but it took a little while. More ugh.

So, as a rule, I don't like lots of rules. I'm very American in that way. I want to use my own judgement, live by that judgement. But, I believe I do understand how the rules come to be.

Zeke

+1

Leldon

Most Exp Exhibition aircraft operating limitation allow flight in or under the Bravo, but they can not land at a Bravo airport. Unless your operating limitations say something different, you should not have a problem.

Most Exp Exhibition aircraft operating limitation allow flight in or under the Bravo, but they can not land at a Bravo airport. Unless your operating limitations say something different, you should not have a problem.

Thanks, that makes sense, I am restoring a plane that was based at a Class D airport before it was totaled, and its letter is old and needs to be updated in many ways. It will be based under the Bravo, possibly at a Class D airport, especially if we can find a way to have folks give rides in it a few times a year.[/quote]

Becareful about updating ops limits. Some of the old one are less restrictive. Work with someone who knows what they are doing.