My understanding is that the FCC mostly abdicated oversight of domestic aviation radio...as long as the radio complies with FAA aviation standards and is used properly in support of aviation, anyone can do it.

But the issue is not whether he violated FCC rules...the issue is whether talking on the radio and possessing a pilot cert would cause the FAA to decide that he was acting as a crewmember. I think they are likely to take that view. The problem with the FARs and the FAA is that it's all administrative law, not criminal law...kind of like parking tickets.

Since there's no jail time and the max fine is *relatively* low ($50K ?) that burden of proof is lower and the FAA has more freedom to "interpret" loosely or poorly worded FARs. The appeals court is the NTSB..and they historically backed the FAA most of the time. The "Pilots Bill of Rights" has actually made the process somewhat more fair to pilots, but fundamentally the burden of proof and interpretation still seems much lower than with criminal or even civil law.

Ahhhhhhhh. The days when I could stroll up to the tower cab in Cabo San Lucas & clear arriving air carriers for takeoffs & landings are long gone.....

Actually the FBO chicks are not authorized to transmit over the radios. They would be required to have a restricted radio operators license for that.

In accordance to ICAO, aircraft are required to have a radio station license and it's operator (i.e. pilot) is required to have a radio operators license. Some time in the 90's the FCC decided that on the basis of aircraft airworthiness certification and pilot certification they would no longer require the issuance of the two different licenses.

Is "talking on the radio" part of the duties and responsibilities of a "crew member"?

Yes.

Is "talking on the radio" using the privileges of your certificate?

Yes.

Should you have been in the seat? (trained?; current?; receiving instruction?; 91?; 135?; etc.)

Only you can honestly answer that and, if the answer is no this problem you've gotten three threads going on will most likely get worse before it gets better.

Can you site any such case?

Yoda -

Get a billing agreement before CITING any case law!

I am awaiting FAR citations, court cases, AIM references, etc, to disprove my position.

I can cite, but won't. Sorry Michael, the footwork is up to you; you have a computer. Employ an aviation attorney.

We are talking FAA not ICAO. Last I checked, the FAA is the official governing body of US aviation.

I think Yoda2 has given the pertinent and correct information.

Sounds like Michael9000's situation is a bit more complex than he initially let on. Still haven't resolved whether this flight is part 91 or part 135 which is likely to have a bearing. He did say there was a passenger in the back, which means that calling it an instructional flight is not likely to hold much water.

Obviously the FAA is building a case that Michael9000 was operating as a crewmember when he wasn't qualified to do so. They are going to look at the totality of evidence, and what we know is at a) he was sitting in right seat; b) he didn't pay for the flight; c) he was talking on the radio (one of the duties normally associated with acting as a crewmember); d) the flight was carrying passenger(s) probably for hire; and e) the PIC listed him as "nonrevenue crew" on his NTSB report.

Not looking too good up to this point.

The closest analogy I can come up with is from the 121 world. If I was sitting on the jumpseat sleeping and that flight had an incident I would expect the FAA to ask me a few questions since I was there and potentially witnessed it. And I would likely have to prove that I had the correct credentials to be sitting there. But would be unlikely to be violated since I had no duties to perform, not even required to be paying attention. If; however, I jumped in and started talking on the radio or running QRH procedures then I would expect to be treated the same as any other crewmember during the subsequent investigation.