Originally Posted by
LeadSled
Folks,
It is worth noting that there are some fundamental differences between the US and Australian regulations in this area.
In the above, the hire pilot would have to have a CPL, even though the operation would be Part 91 private. FAA General Counsel takes such a narrow minded view of the regulations that say , if a pilot with a historic aircraft goes to an airshow, to even accept a can of coke and a hamburger, they must have a CPL ----- BUT ---- NONE of that position is based on risk assessment or "safety", but simply the rule that says that to receive compensation of any kind as a pilot, no matter how indirect, the said pilot must have a least a CPL.
So, it in no way relates to the position CASA is taking on Angel Flight.
Operations that can be conducted under Part 91 as Private operations are far broader than AU, for example aerial photography ---- is private, there is no Aerial Work in the US system.
Tootle pip!!
Gosh. So the FAA now takes the view that the transportation of the owner of an aircraft is an activity for which the pilot has to have a CPL? If so, it seems that the FAA may have caught CASA disease!