I own my airplane.

A friend needs to go somewhere, but is not a pilot.

He can legally use my aircraft without me in it if :

1. He hires an appropriately rated commercial pilot...and

2. Pays all "direct" operating costs for the flight (gas, oil, landing
fees)...and

3. He does not pay me anything.

Yes/No/Other ?

Stuart

"Stuart King" wrote
> 3. He does not pay me anything.

He can even pay you to lease the airplane.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:44:05 GMT, "Stuart King"
> wrote:

>I own my airplane.
>
>A friend needs to go somewhere, but is not a pilot.
>
>He can legally use my aircraft without me in it if :
>
>1. He hires an appropriately rated commercial pilot...and
>
>2. Pays all "direct" operating costs for the flight (gas, oil, landing
>fees)...and
>
>3. He does not pay me anything.
>
>Yes/No/Other ?
>
>Stuart
>

To answer your follow up question, he cannot pay you to fly it for him
nor can you fly it for free if he pays you to lease it. Further based
upon an FAA decision (involving flying a mechanic for an ambulance
service) you cannot lease it for free and fly it for free if he needs
it for his business.

RM,
I believe this would be illegal, it would make the plane a "rental" and
require part 135 maintenance..?
Stuart

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 6...
> "Stuart King" wrote
> > 3. He does not pay me anything.
>
> He can even pay you to lease the airplane.

"Stuart King" wrote
> I believe this would be illegal, it would make the plane a
> "rental" and require part 135 maintenance..?

Many corporations lease their aircraft, hire their own pilots
and operate under Part 91. Requires a lease agreement.

Bob Moore

"Stuart King" > wrote in message . com...

>
> 1. He hires an appropriately rated commercial pilot...and
>
> 2. Pays all "direct" operating costs for the flight (gas, oil, landing
> fees)...and
>
> 3. He does not pay me anything.
>
Yes. Actually, it doesn't matter if he pays you or not. As long as you
do not participate in providing or locating the pilot.

However, you better be sure your insurance compnay is happy with such
an arrangement.

"Stuart King" > wrote in message . com...
> RM,
> I believe this would be illegal, it would make the plane a "rental" and
> require part 135 maintenance..?

There's no rules about rentals.
Part 135 refers to commercial operation, that is, where you provide both the pilot
and the airplane.

"ArtP" > wrote in message ...

>
> To answer your follow up question, he cannot pay you to fly it for him
> nor can you fly it for free if he pays you to lease it. Further based
> upon an FAA decision (involving flying a mechanic for an ambulance
> service) you cannot lease it for free and fly it for free if he needs
> it for his business.
>
Correct, any time you have the same entity arranging for both the aircraft
and the pilot, it is most likely a commercial operation.

"Stuart King" > wrote in
. com:

> I believe this would be illegal, it would make the plane a "rental" and
> require part 135 maintenance..?

Renting a plane is just that... an equipment rental. No part 135 is
involved. For the pilot to fly it the plane must be airworthy, which
includes an annual, but no 100 hour inspection is required.

>> "Stuart King" wrote
>> > 3. He does not pay me anything.
>>
>> He can even pay you to lease the airplane.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

You are going to run into some gray legal areas here. In the past some
flights like this have been construed by the FAA as part 135 flights,
especially if your non-flying friend decides to take another passenger along
on the flight who thinks its a charter. The best thing to do is check with
your insurance company to make sure. They will make sure everything fits
right. Let us know what they say.

PD


"Stuart King" > wrote in message
. com...
> I own my airplane.
>
> A friend needs to go somewhere, but is not a pilot.
>
> He can legally use my aircraft without me in it if :
>
> 1. He hires an appropriately rated commercial pilot...and
>
> 2. Pays all "direct" operating costs for the flight (gas, oil, landing
> fees)...and
>
> 3. He does not pay me anything.
>
> Yes/No/Other ?
>
> Stuart
>
>

No, don't trust the insurance company to interpret FARs. Their insurance
requirements and interpretation are different than those of the FAA, but
obviously you will want to ensure compliance of both.

For example, I considered renting my plane to a friend to take flying
lessons - this is a non-issue as far as the FAA is concerned, but was
considered a "commercial" operation by the insurer and required a changes to
the policy.


"Flighthawk" > wrote in message
...
> You are going to run into some gray legal areas here. In the past some
> flights like this have been construed by the FAA as part 135 flights,
> especially if your non-flying friend decides to take another passenger
along
> on the flight who thinks its a charter. The best thing to do is check with
> your insurance company to make sure. They will make sure everything fits
> right. Let us know what they say.
>
> PD
>
>
> "Stuart King" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > I own my airplane.
> >
> > A friend needs to go somewhere, but is not a pilot.
> >
> > He can legally use my aircraft without me in it if :
> >
> > 1. He hires an appropriately rated commercial pilot...and
> >
> > 2. Pays all "direct" operating costs for the flight (gas, oil, landing
> > fees)...and
> >
> > 3. He does not pay me anything.
> >
> > Yes/No/Other ?
> >
> > Stuart
> >
> >
>
>

Don't bother asking the insurance companies anything. All they do is repeat
"commercial operations are not covered." Their attitude is "read the
f*cking policy" and take your chances in court, if heaven forbid it comes to
that. The flack that takes your call has neither the authority nor the
knowledge to go beyond that, and this has been drilled into his brain if he
has been there longer than a few days.

When there is a serious doubt in your mind about coverage, and it is go/no
go based on coverage, your only recourse is to ask for a confirmation in
writing that the proposed operation is not commercial. Don't be surprised
if you get the answer it is commercial and not covered. The additional ins.
co. attitude is why should we increase our exposure for no additional money?
If we play it conservative and strict, he might not fly and that's one more
risk we have avoided. Sorry to rain on the original poster's parade, but I
have been down
this road several times before, and the ins. cos. are not interested in
quality of service and customer satisfaction in a doubtful coverage
situation.

Example, here in this or maybe the owning news group somebody wanted someone
to ferry his plane down to its soon to be new owner in my city. I said I'd
do it, just for the fun of it and $150 a day. That $150 would come close to
compensating me for my time compared to my day job, but is the going rate
for ferry services. But I was not about to do it unless there was insurance
coverage. The owner had the usual pleasure and business coverage.
Exclusion for transporting people or cargo for hire. Reading the policy, it
was not crystal clear that this ferry flight would not be commercial. This
was AIG coverage through the AOPA agency. The same company and agent
combination that I happen to have had on my plane for years with no claims
or issues. I called. The AOPA guy said this is done all the time. I asked
him to sign, or get AIG to sign, a simple confirmation letter I faxed him
and fax it back. A couple days went by with several follow up calls asking
where's my fax? Well turns out that no one at AIG wanted to authorize that
letter. Finally I got someone at AIG to say they think this is a commercial
operation after all. So the owner ended up getting the plane down here some
other way, I guess.

"Flighthawk" > wrote in message
...
> You are going to run into some gray legal areas here. In the past some
> flights like this have been construed by the FAA as part 135 flights,
> especially if your non-flying friend decides to take another passenger
along
> on the flight who thinks its a charter. The best thing to do is check with
> your insurance company to make sure. They will make sure everything fits
> right. Let us know what they say.
>
> PD
>
>
> "Stuart King" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > I own my airplane.
> >
> > A friend needs to go somewhere, but is not a pilot.
> >
> > He can legally use my aircraft without me in it if :
> >
> > 1. He hires an appropriately rated commercial pilot...and
> >
> > 2. Pays all "direct" operating costs for the flight (gas, oil, landing
> > fees)...and
> >
> > 3. He does not pay me anything.
> >
> > Yes/No/Other ?
> >
> > Stuart
> >
> >
>
>

>>
Example, here in this or maybe the owning news group somebody wanted someone
to ferry his plane down to its soon to be new owner in my city. I said I'd
do it, just for the fun of it and $150 a day. That $150 would come close to
compensating me for my time compared to my day job, but is the going rate
for ferry services. But I was not about to do it unless there was insurance
coverage. The owner had the usual pleasure and business coverage.
Exclusion for transporting people or cargo for hire. Reading the policy, it
was not crystal clear that this ferry flight would not be commercial. This
was AIG coverage through the AOPA agency. The same company and agent
combination that I happen to have had on my plane for years with no claims
or issues. I called. The AOPA guy said this is done all the time. I asked
him to sign, or get AIG to sign, a simple confirmation letter I faxed him
and fax it back. A couple days went by with several follow up calls asking
where's my fax? Well turns out that no one at AIG wanted to authorize that
letter. Finally I got someone at AIG to say they think this is a commercial
operation after all. So the owner ended up getting the plane down here some
other way, I guess.
<<

Another datapoint - I have AIG coverage and they exclude aerial photography.
Well, does this mean commercial photography (and its attendant risks) or am I
out of luck if some passenger has a camera and takes a picture? My agent said
that passengers (or even me) taking pictures is fine - they are after
commercial operations (which are excluded anyway). So I asked them to sign off
on it. They would not, and the end of it is that AIG says that if there is a
camera on board and there is a crash, I'm not covered.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

(Teacherjh) wrote in
:

> So I asked them to sign off on it. They would
> not, and the end of it is that AIG says that if there is a camera on
> board and there is a crash, I'm not covered.

What's funny (in a non-humorous sense) is that this interpretation is so
ludicrous that I bet you also can not get them to sign an official letter
stating this either!!!

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------