Ownership and passengers

[Roger Long]

The FAA is looking for two things when considering the question of whether a
private pilot was carrying a passenger(s) legitimately. One is evidence
that the passenger is incidentally aboard on a flight that was going to take
place anyway. Second is that the pilot and passenger have a shared interest
in the objective of the flight.

In the case of co-ownership, such as in a partnership or flying club (with
stock), would there not be a presumption of shared interest?

For example:

Strictly speaking, if a friend not involved with your aircraft said. "I need
to go to Podunk on Saturday, how about flying me up there?", the flight
would be questionable if you had no prior intent or independent reason to
fly there.

However, if a co-owner said, "I need to go to Podunk on Saturday and I can't
fly PIC until I finish this medication, how about flying me down?, I would
think that your co-responsibility for the aircraft management and
maintenance and similar factors would make this OK.

If you co-owner said, "I need to be on Podunk on Saturday and my wife would
like to meet me on Saturday, how about flying her up and we'll have lunch?",
I would think that would be OK even though it would be questionable in the
case of a non-co-owner.

Anyone care to predict what the FAA would (or should) say? Assume costs
shared properly according to seat occupancy.
--
Roger Long

[Peter Gottlieb]

I fly whomever I feel like flying wherever I feel like going. I never ask
for or accept compensation. The trouble is that I find it hard to get away
to fly so whenever I can I do. I love going to places I've never been. So
if I'm going someplace it might as well be where someone else is going, at
least then I feel less guilty for using the fuel. However, mostly it is
just sightseeing trips, which I am always up for as I always go someplace
new.


"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> The FAA is looking for two things when considering the question of whether
a
> private pilot was carrying a passenger(s) legitimately. One is evidence
> that the passenger is incidentally aboard on a flight that was going to
take
> place anyway. Second is that the pilot and passenger have a shared
interest
> in the objective of the flight.
>
> In the case of co-ownership, such as in a partnership or flying club (with
> stock), would there not be a presumption of shared interest?
>
> For example:
>
> Strictly speaking, if a friend not involved with your aircraft said. "I
need
> to go to Podunk on Saturday, how about flying me up there?", the flight
> would be questionable if you had no prior intent or independent reason to
> fly there.
>
> However, if a co-owner said, "I need to go to Podunk on Saturday and I
can't
> fly PIC until I finish this medication, how about flying me down?, I
would
> think that your co-responsibility for the aircraft management and
> maintenance and similar factors would make this OK.
>
> If you co-owner said, "I need to be on Podunk on Saturday and my wife
would
> like to meet me on Saturday, how about flying her up and we'll have
lunch?",
> I would think that would be OK even though it would be questionable in the
> case of a non-co-owner.
>
> Anyone care to predict what the FAA would (or should) say? Assume costs
> shared properly according to seat occupancy.
> --
> Roger Long
>
>

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Roger Long m> wrote:
>The FAA is looking for two things when considering the question of whether a
>private pilot was carrying a passenger(s) legitimately.

You kind of left out "...and sharing costs". You can carry whoever,
wherever, for free.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Ron Natalie]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message news:Xh_gb.715284$uu5.116972@sccrnsc04...
> In article >,
> Roger Long m> wrote:
> >The FAA is looking for two things when considering the question of whether a
> >private pilot was carrying a passenger(s) legitimately.
>
> You kind of left out "...and sharing costs". You can carry whoever,
> wherever, for free.

Nope. Common carriage isn't permitted even if you don't charge.

[Roger Long]

Both the FSDO and AOPA have told me otherwise. The funeral example actually
came from the explanation someone at AOPA gave me. If you are in a gray
area, not cost sharing will certainly help your case. It might also turn an
action into a warning.

The FAA will base their decision largely on what they think the passenger
perceives which will largely depend on what the passenger says. People's
natural instinct to appear grateful can get you into trouble even if the
flight was legit. Passenger gushes to FAA during ramp check, "Oh, it was so
wonderful of him to fly me down here, I know he's so busy and it was out of
his way!" You're busted. Make sure your passengers know what to say.

--
Roger Long
Ben Jackson > wrote in message
news:Xh_gb.715284$uu5.116972@sccrnsc04...
> In article >,
> Roger Long m> wrote:
> >The FAA is looking for two things when considering the question of
whether a
> >private pilot was carrying a passenger(s) legitimately.
>
> You kind of left out "...and sharing costs". You can carry whoever,
> wherever, for free.
>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

[David Megginson]

"Roger Long" m> writes:

> The FAA will base their decision largely on what they think the passenger
> perceives which will largely depend on what the passenger says. People's
> natural instinct to appear grateful can get you into trouble even if the
> flight was legit. Passenger gushes to FAA during ramp check, "Oh, it was so
> wonderful of him to fly me down here, I know he's so busy and it was out of
> his way!" You're busted. Make sure your passengers know what to
> say.

Would the same thing apply to driving someone to a funeral, if you
don't have a commercial driver's license of some kind?


All the best,


David

[Roger Long]

Nope.

Two entirely different regulatory regimes, expectations, and sets of rules.

--
Roger Long
>
> Would the same thing apply to driving someone to a funeral, if you
> don't have a commercial driver's license of some kind?
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David

[John Galban]

"Roger Long" m> wrote in message >...
> The FAA is looking for two things when considering the question of whether a
> private pilot was carrying a passenger(s) legitimately. One is evidence
> that the passenger is incidentally aboard on a flight that was going to take
> place anyway. Second is that the pilot and passenger have a shared interest
> in the objective of the flight.

Disagree. The above would be true if limited to flights where some
form of compensation (like cost sharing) was involved. Commonality of
purporse only comes into effect in determining whether the
compensation was allowed under the rules. No compensation, no
question.

>
> In the case of co-ownership, such as in a partnership or flying club (with
> stock), would there not be a presumption of shared interest?
>
> For example:
>
> Strictly speaking, if a friend not involved with your aircraft said. "I need
> to go to Podunk on Saturday, how about flying me up there?", the flight
> would be questionable if you had no prior intent or independent reason to
> fly there.

Only if you were compensated by the friend. If you paid all costs
associated with the flight, it's perfectly legal.
<snip>
>
> Anyone care to predict what the FAA would (or should) say? Assume costs
> shared properly according to seat occupancy.

Are we assuming this in all examples? If so, forget what I said
above.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[John Harper]

But there's also the question of what constitutes compensation. I remember
reading
about a case where someone was busted because even though they didn't take
any money, the passenger was an established customer of their business and
it
was argued that the compensation was expectation of future business. Suppose
I fly my boss somewhere, it could be argued that the compensation is
expectation
of a pay-rise (fat chance) or other job-related benefits

John

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> "Roger Long" m> wrote
in message >...
> > The FAA is looking for two things when considering the question of
whether a
> > private pilot was carrying a passenger(s) legitimately. One is evidence
> > that the passenger is incidentally aboard on a flight that was going to
take
> > place anyway. Second is that the pilot and passenger have a shared
interest
> > in the objective of the flight.
>
> Disagree. The above would be true if limited to flights where some
> form of compensation (like cost sharing) was involved. Commonality of
> purporse only comes into effect in determining whether the
> compensation was allowed under the rules. No compensation, no
> question.
>
> >
> > In the case of co-ownership, such as in a partnership or flying club
(with
> > stock), would there not be a presumption of shared interest?
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > Strictly speaking, if a friend not involved with your aircraft said. "I
need
> > to go to Podunk on Saturday, how about flying me up there?", the flight
> > would be questionable if you had no prior intent or independent reason
to
> > fly there.
>
> Only if you were compensated by the friend. If you paid all costs
> associated with the flight, it's perfectly legal.
> <snip>
> >
> > Anyone care to predict what the FAA would (or should) say? Assume costs
> > shared properly according to seat occupancy.
>
> Are we assuming this in all examples? If so, forget what I said
> above.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[MRQB]

as a student pilot who busts you and who questions you how do they find out
ect.



"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1065653712.292352@sj-nntpcache-5...
> But there's also the question of what constitutes compensation. I remember
> reading
> about a case where someone was busted because even though they didn't take
> any money, the passenger was an established customer of their business and
> it
> was argued that the compensation was expectation of future business.
Suppose
> I fly my boss somewhere, it could be argued that the compensation is
> expectation
> of a pay-rise (fat chance) or other job-related benefits
>
> John
>
> "John Galban" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Roger Long" m> wrote
> in message >...
> > > The FAA is looking for two things when considering the question of
> whether a
> > > private pilot was carrying a passenger(s) legitimately. One is
evidence
> > > that the passenger is incidentally aboard on a flight that was going
to
> take
> > > place anyway. Second is that the pilot and passenger have a shared
> interest
> > > in the objective of the flight.
> >
> > Disagree. The above would be true if limited to flights where some
> > form of compensation (like cost sharing) was involved. Commonality of
> > purporse only comes into effect in determining whether the
> > compensation was allowed under the rules. No compensation, no
> > question.
> >
> > >
> > > In the case of co-ownership, such as in a partnership or flying club
> (with
> > > stock), would there not be a presumption of shared interest?
> > >
> > > For example:
> > >
> > > Strictly speaking, if a friend not involved with your aircraft said.
"I
> need
> > > to go to Podunk on Saturday, how about flying me up there?", the
flight
> > > would be questionable if you had no prior intent or independent reason
> to
> > > fly there.
> >
> > Only if you were compensated by the friend. If you paid all costs
> > associated with the flight, it's perfectly legal.
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > Anyone care to predict what the FAA would (or should) say? Assume
costs
> > > shared properly according to seat occupancy.
> >
> > Are we assuming this in all examples? If so, forget what I said
> > above.
> >
> > John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Roger Long wrote:
>
> Anyone care to predict what the FAA would (or should) say? Assume costs
> shared properly according to seat occupancy.

If you have to ask, you *know* what the FAA will say. "Excuse me, sir. Can we
have that piece of paper we gave you that says you can fly back?"

The solution is simple. Don't share costs for stuff like that. The immediate
expenses of my Maule are about $20 an hour. If I don't like someone well enough
to fly him an hour or two for free, then I don't fly him.

Now, if someone wants to go to Oshkosh and *I* want to go to Oshkosh, it's a
different matter, but that's not the case here.

Don't sweat the small stuff.

George Patterson
God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the
good fortune to run into the ones I like, and the eyesight to tell the
difference.

[G.R. Patterson III]

MRQB wrote:
>
> as a student pilot who busts you and who questions you how do they find out
> ect.

The local FAA inspectors bust you. It is typically done either because some
"friend" or vicious FBO complained (the argument usually being that you "took
money away from them" by flying him for less). It can also occur by accident if
an inspector is in the FBO and overhears a chance remark by either you or your
passenger (or sees money change hands). Your chances of the latter are much
reduced on weekends, since few inspectors work weekends (at least in this area).

In short, if you and your passengers keep your mouths completely shut, there's
next to no chance of you getting busted.

George Patterson
God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the
good fortune to run into the ones I like, and the eyesight to tell the
difference.

[[email protected]]

I'm not sure I agree with your hair-splitting. In everything official I've
seen from the FAA the matter seems to revolve only around whether the pilot
is compensated for acting as a pilot (beyond sharing of expenses). As a
private pilot you are certainly allowed to provide transportation to another
person, provided no compensation is paid, regardless of whether you would
have otherwise undertaken the flight.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Ron Natalie]

> wrote in message ...
> I'm not sure I agree with your hair-splitting. In everything official I've
> seen from the FAA the matter seems to revolve only around whether the pilot
> is compensated for acting as a pilot (beyond sharing of expenses).

You haven't looked very hard.

> As a
> private pilot you are certainly allowed to provide transportation to another
> person, provided no compensation is paid, regardless of whether you would
> have otherwise undertaken the flight.

This is certainly NOT the case. The FAA has repeatedly struck down ride
share operations that involve no money changing hands (not pilot compensation,.
not even expenxes). There are two things the FAA has interpretted that throw
a monkey wrench into things: non-monetary compensation (such as the accrual
of flight time), and carrying passengers in air commerce (not a private vs. commercial
issue but a part 91 vs. 135 one).

[Michael]

"Roger Long" m>
wrote
> Both the FSDO and AOPA have told me otherwise.

And they are both flagrantly, egregiously wrong. That's why I'm not
an AOPA member. As for the FSDO - well, they're a bunch of worthless
bloody loonies.

If they were even a little bit right, how could organizations like
Angel Flight possibly operate?

Michael

[Dave Butler]

Michael wrote:

> If they were even a little bit right, how could organizations like
> Angel Flight possibly operate?

Angel Flight and its cousins are special. See for example
http://www.aircareall.org/tax.htm where it quotes our old friend Rick Cremer
(who used to contribute to this newsgroup):

762019 S15/FAA Topics
23-Feb-95 11:17:31
Sb #ANGEL FLIGHT POLICY
Fm Rick Cremer FAA HQ 72130,3305
To ALL

FAA "ANGEL FLIGHT" POLICY

Recently, the FAA published Change 10 to it's Air Transportation Inspector's
handbook (FAA Order 8400.10). That change included new guidance for our
inspectors concerning Angel Flights. Included below, is the full text of
guidance. What it says, basically, is that if a person takes a charitable tax
deduction for the costs associated with the operation that does not constitute a
for hire or compensation operation.

Best Regards

Rick Cremer FAA HDQ



FAA Order 8400.10, Vol. 4, Chap. 5, Sect. 1, Para 1345 12/20/94

1345. FAA POLICY REGARDING "COMPENSATION OR HIRE" CONSIDERATIONS

FOR CHARITABLE FLIGHTS OR LIFE FLIGHTS. Various organizations and pilots are
conducting flights that are characterized as "volunteer," "charity," or
"humanitarian." These flights are referred to by numerous generic names,
including "lifeline flights," "life flights," "mercy flights," and "angel
flights." These types of flights will be referred to as "life flights" in this
section.

A. Purposes for Life Flights. The types of organizations and pilots involved
with or conducting life flights vary greatly. The most common purpose of life
flights is to transport ill or injured persons who cannot financially afford
commercial transport to appropriate medical treatment facilities, or to
transport blood or human organs. Other "compassionate flights" include
transporting a child to visit with a dying relative, or transporting a dying
patient to return to the city of the patient's birth.

B. FAA Policy. The FAA's policy supports "truly humanitarian efforts" to provide
life flights to needy persons (including "compassionate flights"). This also
includes flights involving the transfer of blood and human organs. Since
Congress has specifically provided for the tax deductibility of some costs of
charitable acts, the FAA will not treat charitable deductions of such costs,
standing alone, as constituting "compensation or hire" for the purpose of
enforcement of FAR 61.118 or FAR Part 135. Inspectors should not treat the tax
deductibility of costs as constituting "compensation or hire" when the flights
are conducted for humanitarian purposes.

[Ron Natalie]

"Michael" > wrote in message om...
> "Roger Long" m>
> wrote
> > Both the FSDO and AOPA have told me otherwise.
>
> And they are both flagrantly, egregiously wrong. That's why I'm not
> an AOPA member. As for the FSDO - well, they're a bunch of worthless
> bloody loonies.
Yeah, but it's the bloody loonies who are running the show.

[Craig Prouse]

"Dave Butler" wrote:

> Angel Flight and its cousins are special.

Only inasmuch as accepting a tax deduction for the charitable flight is not
deemed to be compensatory. Angel Flight pilots still take relative
strangers where they need to go, even if it wasn't exactly the pilot's
original idea to go there.

The notion that it is "questionable" to take a friend (someone known to you)
anywhere he wants to go per his request just because it wasn't the pilot's
prior intention to fly that route that day is an absurdly tortured
interpretation of the rules. If my friend calls me from Fresno because his
car is broken down and he needs a ride home, it doesn't matter whether I go
pick him up in my car or my airplane.

[John Galban]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message >...
>
> This is certainly NOT the case. The FAA has repeatedly struck down ride
> share operations that involve no money changing hands (not pilot compensation,.
> not even expenxes). There are two things the FAA has interpretted that throw
> a monkey wrench into things: non-monetary compensation (such as the accrual
> of flight time), and carrying passengers in air commerce (not a private vs. commercial
> issue but a part 91 vs. 135 one).


The non-monetary compensation (i.e. flight time) issue that I know
of, involved someone else paying for the operating expenses of the
plane. This is not an issue for private pilots who are absorbing the
full cost of the flight. The "absorbing the full cost" is the key,
rather than just not accepting monetary payment.

I think the point that Elliott was trying to make is that there a
few restictions on a private pilot flying someone for any
non-commercial reason, as long as the pilot pays for the cost of the
flight. Does that sound reasonable? I know it doesn't count, but
I've asked several local FSDO inspectors and they agree with that
interpretation.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[[email protected]]

On 9-Oct-2003, Craig Prouse > wrote:

> The notion that it is "questionable" to take a friend (someone known to
> you) anywhere he wants to go per his request just because it wasn't the
> pilot's
> prior intention to fly that route that day is an absurdly tortured
> interpretation of the rules.
>If my friend calls me from Fresno because his car is broken down and he
>needs a ride home,
>it doesn't matter whether I go pick him up in my car or my airplane.


Exactly right, so long as no compensation is involved! In fact, the person
would not even have to be "known to you." For example, it's certainly legal
for me as a private pilot to volunteer my (uncompensated) services to fly a
political candidate from one campaign appearance to another.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[john smith]

John Galban wrote:
> I think the point that Elliott was trying to make is that there a
> few restictions on a private pilot flying someone for any
> non-commercial reason, as long as the pilot pays for the cost of the
> flight. Does that sound reasonable? I know it doesn't count, but
> I've asked several local FSDO inspectors and they agree with that
> interpretation.

Thanks, guys!
Now I have an excuse to tell mother why she shouldn't hide money in my
house when I fly her home after flying her around. She knows I won't
accept it if she hands it to me, so she puts it someplace that I will
find it after a couple days or weeks. Parents... sneaky, aren't they?

[Greg Hopp]

> > As a
> > private pilot you are certainly allowed to provide transportation to another
> > person, provided no compensation is paid, regardless of whether you would
> > have otherwise undertaken the flight.
>
> This is certainly NOT the case. The FAA has repeatedly struck down ride
> share operations that involve no money changing hands (not pilot compensation,.
> not even expenxes). There are two things the FAA has interpretted that throw
> a monkey wrench into things: non-monetary compensation (such as the accrual
> of flight time), and carrying passengers in air commerce (not a private vs. commercial
> issue but a part 91 vs. 135 one).

Yesterday I planned to fly to a meeting that was 105 nm away. I was
going to take a colleague with me. I was not planning on asking him
to pay 1/2 my flying expenses, but I was planning on turning in my
mileage and tiedown fee for reimbursement, as I would otherwise have
driven my car to the meeting and turned in that mileage.

Is this legal?

(BTW, my company nixed the idea on liability concerns. They want a
waiver for next time but were otherwise in favor of the idea.)

Best,

Greg Hopp
Cols, OH.

[Ross Magnaldo]

For what it's worth, the Canadian regs perspective on the subject can be
found in CARs Part IV - Personnel Licensing & Training, subpart 1, Division
VI item 401.28. Just follow the link:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/REGSERV/CARAC/CARS/cars/401e.htm#401_28
and go down half the page.

Fly safely,
Ross
"Once you're up in the air always make sure you can fly another day..."

"Roger Long" m> wrote in
message ...
> The FAA is looking for two things when considering the question of whether
a
> private pilot was carrying a passenger(s) legitimately. One is evidence
> that the passenger is incidentally aboard on a flight that was going to
take
> place anyway. Second is that the pilot and passenger have a shared
interest
> in the objective of the flight.
>
> In the case of co-ownership, such as in a partnership or flying club (with
> stock), would there not be a presumption of shared interest?
>
> For example:
>
> Strictly speaking, if a friend not involved with your aircraft said. "I
need
> to go to Podunk on Saturday, how about flying me up there?", the flight
> would be questionable if you had no prior intent or independent reason to
> fly there.
>
> However, if a co-owner said, "I need to go to Podunk on Saturday and I
can't
> fly PIC until I finish this medication, how about flying me down?, I
would
> think that your co-responsibility for the aircraft management and
> maintenance and similar factors would make this OK.
>
> If you co-owner said, "I need to be on Podunk on Saturday and my wife
would
> like to meet me on Saturday, how about flying her up and we'll have
lunch?",
> I would think that would be OK even though it would be questionable in the
> case of a non-co-owner.
>
> Anyone care to predict what the FAA would (or should) say? Assume costs
> shared properly according to seat occupancy.
> --
> Roger Long
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Greg Hopp wrote:
>
> Is this legal?

Yes.

George Patterson
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect. - Linus Torvalds, speaking about Linux.

[Newps]

Greg Hopp wrote:

>>>As a
>>>private pilot you are certainly allowed to provide transportation to another
>>>person, provided no compensation is paid, regardless of whether you would
>>>have otherwise undertaken the flight.
>>
>>This is certainly NOT the case. The FAA has repeatedly struck down ride
>>share operations that involve no money changing hands (not pilot compensation,.
>>not even expenxes). There are two things the FAA has interpretted that throw
>>a monkey wrench into things: non-monetary compensation (such as the accrual
>>of flight time), and carrying passengers in air commerce (not a private vs. commercial
>>issue but a part 91 vs. 135 one).
>
>
> Yesterday I planned to fly to a meeting that was 105 nm away. I was
> going to take a colleague with me. I was not planning on asking him
> to pay 1/2 my flying expenses, but I was planning on turning in my
> mileage and tiedown fee for reimbursement, as I would otherwise have
> driven my car to the meeting and turned in that mileage.
>
> Is this legal?
>

Yes.

[EDR]

In article >, Greg Hopp
> wrote:
> Yesterday I planned to fly to a meeting that was 105 nm away. I was
> going to take a colleague with me. I was not planning on asking him
> to pay 1/2 my flying expenses, but I was planning on turning in my
> mileage and tiedown fee for reimbursement, as I would otherwise have
> driven my car to the meeting and turned in that mileage.
> Is this legal?
> (BTW, my company nixed the idea on liability concerns. They want a
> waiver for next time but were otherwise in favor of the idea.)

Gregg, back in the late 1980's early 1990's, NBAA (National Business
Aircraft Association) created a package of documents and advice that
explained how to approach you company officials and obtain permission
to use and be reimbursed for use of personal aircraft for business
related travel. I don't know if they still offer it, but you may want
to contact them. If they don't have anything you can use, contact me, I
still have one or two buried somewhere in a box that I can give you.
Do you fly out of Don Scott?

[Michael]

Dave Butler > wrote
> Angel Flight and its cousins are special. <much snipped>
> What it says, basically, is that if a person takes a charitable tax
> deduction for the costs associated with the operation that does not
> constitute a for hire or compensation operation.

Well, that's fine. But supposing you didn't even take a tax
deduction.

The point remains that Angel Flight and similar operations are
providing both pilot and aircraft, for point-to-point on-demand
flights, day and night, VFR and IFR. And it's all legal, without need
for waivers of any kind - because no money is changing hands.
Therefore, all the nonsense about needing a common purpose even if
costs are not shared is just that - nonsense.

The stuff you posted merely tells the inspectors that whatever their
personal opinion on the issue might be, they are NOT to treat the tax
deduction as money changing hands.

Michael

[Roger Long]

If you check, I believe you'll find that Angel Flight and similar
organizations have a Memorandum of Understanding on file with the FAA that
lets them do things that would be questionable for a private pilot.

--
Roger Long

[G.R. Patterson III]

Michael wrote:
>
> Well, that's fine. But supposing you didn't even take a tax
> deduction.

It doesn't matter if you do. The IRS long ago told the FAA to keep their
cotton-picking fingers out of the tax situation. Take all the deductions you
can; the FAA won't argue about it.

George Patterson
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect. - Linus Torvalds, speaking about Linux.

[Michael]

"Roger Long" m>
wrote
> If you check, I believe you'll find that Angel Flight and similar
> organizations have a Memorandum of Understanding on file with the FAA that
> lets them do things that would be questionable for a private pilot.

There is no such thing as questionable. Either it is legal, or it is
not. It ****es me off to no end when people describe operations as
'questionable' and avoiding them 'to be safe.' If you think it
violates a rule, cite it chapter and verse or admit it doesn't.

There is nothing questionable about flying people around for free,
regardless of reason. It only becomes an issue if compensation is
involved. Sharing costs is compensation. Flight time has been ruled
to be compensations, but not if you're paying for it out of your own
pocket.

Does that mean nobody has ever been busted for it? Of course not.
Plenty of FAA inspectors are assholes who simply make up their own
rules; if that weren't the case then there never would have been any
need for the 'guidance' that went into the handbook about not treating
tax deductions as compensation. I think you will find that when you
chase the Memorandum of Understanding down (if it still exists - I
suspect the change to the Inspector's Handbook made it moot, and I've
certainly never heard of it in the years I've been flying for Angel
Flight) that it will also address only the issue of compensation.

You need to realize that just because someone at the FSDO said so
doesn't make it right. FSDO inspectors have been known to do all
sorts of improper things, up to and including hounding pilots to
death. (http://www.avweb.com/pdf/brinell_report.pdf) People do get
violated for no good reason, and that's one of those risks of flying
that you just can't avoid. If the fed wants to get you, he will get
you.

Michael

[Mike Spera]

When you say they "nixed" the idea, do you mean they refused to
reimburse you for that trip? Not sure why they would not pay your
mileage as if you drove your car. Maybe you meant they were not in favor
of you using that mode of transportation.

I'm curious to what waiver language they want. If they want you to
promise not to sue them while traveling on business using your plane, I
would look at the particulars to be sure they were very specific and
detailed. You may not want to absolve them of any and all liability in
the fine print.

I find it curious that some company insurance policies exclude coverage
on you while you pilot your airplane. However, chain smokers, skydivers,
people who drive race cars and demolition cars as hobbies, and other
high risk activities are covered. At the same time, these very policies
usually double your coverage if you fly commercially on business. It
seems odd, but I am not in the business of calculating risks. The
private pilot thing appears to be outdated prejudice rather than
objective risk number crunching.

Good Luck,


Mike



EDR wrote:
> In article >, Greg Hopp
> > wrote:
>
>>Yesterday I planned to fly to a meeting that was 105 nm away. I was
>>going to take a colleague with me. I was not planning on asking him
>>to pay 1/2 my flying expenses, but I was planning on turning in my
>>mileage and tiedown fee for reimbursement, as I would otherwise have
>>driven my car to the meeting and turned in that mileage.
>>Is this legal?
>>(BTW, my company nixed the idea on liability concerns. They want a
>>waiver for next time but were otherwise in favor of the idea.)
>
>
> Gregg, back in the late 1980's early 1990's, NBAA (National Business
> Aircraft Association) created a package of documents and advice that
> explained how to approach you company officials and obtain permission
> to use and be reimbursed for use of personal aircraft for business
> related travel. I don't know if they still offer it, but you may want
> to contact them. If they don't have anything you can use, contact me, I
> still have one or two buried somewhere in a box that I can give you.
> Do you fly out of Don Scott?


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>