Re: PPL question re: payment for flight

[john price]

Well.. maybe not... If you fly 2 people someplace and drop them
off, that tends to be viewed a little differently than you and your
buddies flew someplace, hung out together, then flew back...
This operation sounds like an air-taxi service and that you just
might be "holding out" (i.e. advertising that you can fly people
places)...

John Price
CFII/AGI/IGI
http://home.att.net/~jm.price



"Yossarian" > wrote in message
et...
> Hypothetical situation: I rent a plane and fly 2 friends to city A. I
drop
> them off and fly back. If I pay 1/3 of the rental time and costs going
> there and full amount of the return leg, that's legal, right?
>
>

[Matthew Waugh]

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
et...
> Hypothetical situation: I rent a plane and fly 2 friends to city A. I
drop
> them off and fly back. If I pay 1/3 of the rental time and costs going
> there and full amount of the return leg, that's legal, right?

What was your reason for going to city A? If all you did was drop them off
then your reason would appear to have been the transportation of your 2
friends. This makes it illegal. If you have a reason to go to city A and
take your friends along and they share the cost, that would be legal.

Mat

--
Matthew Waugh
Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI
http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Yossarian wrote:
> Hypothetical situation: I rent a plane and fly 2 friends to city A. I drop
> them off and fly back. If I pay 1/3 of the rental time and costs going
> there and full amount of the return leg, that's legal, right?

Depends. Why did you fly to City A? If your sole motivation was to
convey your friends there, the legality is questionable. It could
be perceived as an air taxi service.

If you had a personal reason to visit City A (eat the World Famous
Braunschweiger, visit the museum, visit friends) and you're simply
taking your friends along but needing to return home before they
do, that's legal with expense sharing as you describe.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Roger Tracy]

Kind of smells like a taxi operation to me. Were you going there anyway?

It's easy to get away with stuff like this .. but if something should happen
then it could cause you all sorts of trouble. Or if one of your friends uses
the wrong wording in describing the flight and it gets back to the wrong
people.

I have an easy solution to this. I've just never accepted anything for
someone
riding in my plane. Problem solved.


"Yossarian" > wrote in message
et...
> Hypothetical situation: I rent a plane and fly 2 friends to city A. I
drop
> them off and fly back. If I pay 1/3 of the rental time and costs going
> there and full amount of the return leg, that's legal, right?
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

There was a similar case to this a few years back. Some guy wanted to
build up twin time so he charged some old lady 1/2 the rental to fly
her somewhere and drop her off (as I recall, it was a while ago). The
FAA busted him for "holding out" as 135. The test was that the pilot
would not have gone there if it were not for her so there are two
problems here...

1) You certainly could never charge the passengers for part of the
flight where you flew home without them. I think that's obvious.
2) Since you had no reason or desire to go to this city w/o the
passengers the FAA would argue (and has) that you are operating a 135
charter operation. There is no requirement that make make a profit to
be considered 135 in the eyes of the FAA.


"Yossarian" > wrote in message >...
> Hypothetical situation: I rent a plane and fly 2 friends to city A. I drop
> them off and fly back. If I pay 1/3 of the rental time and costs going
> there and full amount of the return leg, that's legal, right?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Yossarian wrote:
>
> Hypothetical situation: I rent a plane and fly 2 friends to city A. I drop
> them off and fly back. If I pay 1/3 of the rental time and costs going
> there and full amount of the return leg, that's legal, right?

Yep.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[BTIZ]

> could have to let pay them all. Because you had also costs to get the
> private pilot license!
>
> Roger

don't think so Roger.. you can only "share" flight costs on the particular
flight involved (in the USofA)

BT

[Roger Tschanz]

You are right BT

FAR Part 61.113
(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the
operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses
involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

But in my eyes you could also charge the passenger for no direct flight
costs such as annual flight member fees, hangar fees. The FAR is not
realy clear in that.

1st paragraph says:
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no
person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command
of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation
or hire

The most important is that you do not flight for hire (earn money) or
compensation (that you fly without) costs!(compensating the costs)

Roger


> don't think so Roger.. you can only "share" flight costs on the particular
> flight involved (in the USofA)
>
> BT
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger Tschanz" > wrote in message
...
> But in my eyes you could also charge the passenger for no direct flight
> costs such as annual flight member fees, hangar fees. The FAR is not
> realy clear in that.

No, the FAR is perfectly clear. The ONLY expenses that may be shared are
"fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees". An aircraft owner may
not include non-direct operating expenses such as (but not limited to)
hangar, insurance, maintenance, engine reserve, etc. Any pilot may not
include non-direct operating expenses such as (but not limited to) charts,
headsets, training expenses, training manuals, etc.

> The most important is that you do not flight for hire (earn money) or
> compensation (that you fly without) costs!(compensating the costs)

The FAR is very clear about "the most important" thing. The FAA obviously
considers even reimbursement for passengers' pro-rata share of direct
operating expenses (such as fuel or rental costs) to be "compensation",
having made a specific exception allowing that type of compensation.

Pete

[J. Hansen]

"Matthew Waugh" > wrote in message >...
> "Yossarian" > wrote in message
> et...
> > Hypothetical situation: I rent a plane and fly 2 friends to city A. I
> drop
> > them off and fly back. If I pay 1/3 of the rental time and costs going
> > there and full amount of the return leg, that's legal, right?
>
> What was your reason for going to city A? If all you did was drop them off
> then your reason would appear to have been the transportation of your 2
> friends. This makes it illegal. If you have a reason to go to city A and
> take your friends along and they share the cost, that would be legal.
>
> Mat


Actually, not only must you have a reason for going to city A, but you
must have a common purpose as well. There have been numerous NTSB
decisions in which the pilot paid only his share of the costs, but
because there was no common purpose (e.g., you are both going to see
a baseball game together) the flight was considered an unauthorized
Part 135 flight and thus the pilot was sanctioned.

In one example, NTSB Order EA-4306, a pilot was receiving multi-engine
flight instruction from a CFI. The (non-CFI) pilot on his own
arranged to share costs with two TV reporters who needed
transportation. The passangers paid only thier share of the costs.
Both the pilot and the CFI were found to be operating under Part 135
without proper certification and received suspensions of their pilot
certificates due to the fact that their was no common purpose. The
purpose for the pilot was to receive multi-engine training while the
purpose for the TV crew was to receive transportation. Even though the
CFI was unaware of the arrangement, it was determined that as PIC, he
was responsible for determining the purpose of the passangers, and
knowing that this would be an illegal flight (i.e., not asking
questions does not make you immune).

Other examples I've seen include pilots trying to apply the "shared
expenses" exception to parachute jump operations with the jumpper
paying thier share of the costs. I'm sure there are other examples
more closely resembling the transportation to city A scenario, but I
haven't made a concerted effort to look for them. However, the common
theme of all of these decisions is that the "shared expenses" exception
only applies when there is a "common purpose" among the pilot and
passangers.

Jeffery Hansen, CFI-A

[G.R. Patterson III]

Roger Tschanz wrote:
>
> And who says the price for rental fees, how are they defined? And what
> if you own an aircraft, then you are the one who defines the self-rental
> fees!
> It's a question of definition.

Yes, and the FAA has already done all the defining allowed. Argue this sort
of thing with them, and you won't be flying at all for a while.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Roger Tschanz]

You say that I am playing stupid word games.
In fact have you read the following part?


FAR Part 61.113
(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the
operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses
involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

And whats written there?

....may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses...
e.g A one hour flight with 3 passengers costs 80$ rental fees.
so you have to pay a minimum of 20$. Thats the minimum!!!
Nothing is written about the maximum what a passenger has to pay!
For this case is paragraph (a)! Please read it!

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no
person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command
of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation
or hire

Is there something written about what is included or not? No.
The definition is: ... for compensation or hire.

You think this is a word game? Maybe that's the reason why in the USofA,
you can make money by going to the judge because in a Microwave
Usermanual was nothing written about, not to put a pet in it!

Roger



Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Neither the FAA nor the judge is going to play stupid word games with you.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Roger Tschanz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>And who says the price for rental fees, how are they defined? And what
>>if you own an aircraft, then you are the one who defines the self-rental
>>fees!
>>It's a question of definition.
>>
>>
>
>
>

[blanche cohen]

$80 divided by 3 people is $26.67, not $20.

What the rule states (altho not clearly) is that the PIC may pay
exactly 1/3 of the cost OR upto and including the ENTIRE cost of
the flight.

Anything else is "compensation for hire".

The phrase "pro rata" translates to "fair share".

[Greg Burkhart]

Not to nitpick, but Roger said 3 passengers, which would be then divided by
4, hence $20 minimum.

I pay for the entire flight myself and haven't had to divide my costs. If I
can't afford to fly someplace without passengers, I don't fly...

"blanche cohen" > wrote in message
...
> $80 divided by 3 people is $26.67, not $20.
>
> What the rule states (altho not clearly) is that the PIC may pay
> exactly 1/3 of the cost OR upto and including the ENTIRE cost of
> the flight.
>
> Anything else is "compensation for hire".
>
> The phrase "pro rata" translates to "fair share".
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

OK, here's one. I have heard the FAA considers "time" to be compensation.
The following is hypothetical.

Let's say I have a wife who thinks flying is a waste of my time. So she
always gives me a hard time when I want to use the plane. Now, she has a
friend who needs to get somewhere, a small airport that no commercial planes
go, and she asks me to fly her there. No monetary compensation is involved
(nor other "favors" from her friend, for those of you with dirty minds).
All I get out of it is time flying, and I bear all the costs. I would have
no other reason to fly to that particular field (although no reason not to
either).

Is this legal in the FAAs eyes?


"Greg Burkhart" > wrote in message
news:hgyRa.81603$N7.9685@sccrnsc03...
> Not to nitpick, but Roger said 3 passengers, which would be then divided
by
> 4, hence $20 minimum.
>
> I pay for the entire flight myself and haven't had to divide my costs. If
I
> can't afford to fly someplace without passengers, I don't fly...
>
> "blanche cohen" > wrote in message
> ...
> > $80 divided by 3 people is $26.67, not $20.
> >
> > What the rule states (altho not clearly) is that the PIC may pay
> > exactly 1/3 of the cost OR upto and including the ENTIRE cost of
> > the flight.
> >
> > Anything else is "compensation for hire".
> >
> > The phrase "pro rata" translates to "fair share".
> >
>
>

[Montblack]

"Peter Gottlieb"
<snip>
> No monetary compensation is involved
> (nor other "favors" from her friend, for those of you with dirty minds).
> All I get out of it is time flying, and I bear all the costs. I would
have
> no other reason to fly to that particular field (although no reason not to
> either).

No dirty minds here. We believe you, nothing happened with "the friend."

....so, why do you think your wife (and her friend) wanted you out of town
for the afternoon?? <g>

Answer to your FAA question: You are acting as a (money losing) air taxi
service. Bad.

Hey, what a coincidence. I was planning to fly over there next Wednesday
anyway. Not bad.

--
Montblack

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
...
> OK, here's one. I have heard the FAA considers "time" to be compensation.

Only if someone else is providing the time.

> [ferrying a wife's friend]
> Is this legal in the FAAs eyes?

As far as I know, yes. I'm not aware of any enforcement action where, with
the pilot paying the entire cost of the flight, a pilot was found guilty of
operating for compensation or hire.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger Tschanz" > wrote in message
...
> You say that I am playing stupid word games.

Maybe it's because English isn't your first language. But yes, you are
playing stupid word games.

> FAR Part 61.113
> (c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the
> operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses
> involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
>
> And whats written there?
>
> ...may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses...
> e.g A one hour flight with 3 passengers costs 80$ rental fees.
> so you have to pay a minimum of 20$. Thats the minimum!!!

That's the minimum for the DIRECT OPERATING COSTS of the flight. Nothing in
that regulation is intended to mean that you can add OTHER costs of the
flight to the passenger's bill.

> Nothing is written about the maximum what a passenger has to pay!

Yes, something IS written about "the maximum what a passenger has to pay".
Since the only costs that can be shared are the DIRECT OPERATING COSTS, and
since the pilot must pay at least his pro-rata share, that means the
passengers may not pay more than their pro-rata share in aggregate.

Now, *a* passenger can still pay more than his pro-rata share, as long as
another passenger pays less. But when all of the money is counted up, the
pilot must pay at LEAST his pro-rata share, which means all of the
passengers together may NOT pay more than their pro-rata share. There's
your maximum right there.

> For this case is paragraph (a)! Please read it!
>
> (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no
> person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command
> of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation
> or hire
>
> Is there something written about what is included or not? No.
> The definition is: ... for compensation or hire.

No, that's not the definition. That's the regulation. You need to look to
FAA interpretation to find the definition of "compensation", and that has
*consistently* been interpreted to be ANY benefit to the pilot. Permitted
benefits are described in paragraphs (b) through (g) (as paragraph (a)
specifically) says. Anything not described in those paragraphs would not be
a permitted benefit for a private pilot.

> You think this is a word game? Maybe that's the reason why in the USofA,
> you can make money by going to the judge because in a Microwave
> Usermanual was nothing written about, not to put a pet in it!

Uh, right. Even if someone did win a judgment after they cooked their pet
(and they didn't), what does that have to do with the FAA's regulations?

Pete

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
.. .
>> No dirty minds here. We believe you, nothing happened with "the friend."
>
> ...so, why do you think your wife (and her friend) wanted you out of town
> for the afternoon?? <g>

Maybe I should have done something with the friend... I never thought of
that angle!

> Answer to your FAA question: You are acting as a (money losing) air taxi
> service. Bad.

So, in the eyes of the FAA, I would have to drive a car instead?

> Hey, what a coincidence. I was planning to fly over there next Wednesday
> anyway. Not bad.

How did you know that? ;)

[Yossarian]

"Roger Tschanz" > wrote in message
...
> You say that I am playing stupid word games.
> In fact have you read the following part?
>
>
> FAR Part 61.113
> (c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the
> operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses
> involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
>
> And whats written there?
>
> ...may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses...
> e.g A one hour flight with 3 passengers costs 80$ rental fees.
> so you have to pay a minimum of 20$. Thats the minimum!!!
> Nothing is written about the maximum what a passenger has to pay!
> For this case is paragraph (a)! Please read it!

This refers to the minimum the PILOT must pay, not the passenger.

[John Galban]

"Montblack" > wrote in message >...
> "Peter Gottlieb"
> <snip>
> > No monetary compensation is involved
> > (nor other "favors" from her friend, for those of you with dirty minds).
> > All I get out of it is time flying, and I bear all the costs. I would
> have
> > no other reason to fly to that particular field (although no reason not to
> > either).
>
> No dirty minds here. We believe you, nothing happened with "the friend."
>
> ...so, why do you think your wife (and her friend) wanted you out of town
> for the afternoon?? <g>
>
> Answer to your FAA question: You are acting as a (money losing) air taxi
> service. Bad.

Gotta disagree with this one Montblack. If there was no
compensation involved, Peter is not acting as an air taxi. As far as
the FAA is concerned, you can fly anyone, anywhere, anytime as long as
you (the pilot) are paying for all costs associated with the flight.

The "commonality of purpose" and "pro rata share" tests only come
into play when money or other compensation is exchanged. Basically,
the rule exists to keep private pilots from making commercial flights.
The absence of any sort of compensation makes Peter's flight legit.

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

[John Galban]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message >...
> OK, here's one. I have heard the FAA considers "time" to be compensation.
> The following is hypothetical.

What you have heard is "kind of" correct. It came from a ruling
against a pilot who was not being compensated monetarily, but was
getting free use of an airplane. The logged flight time was
considered to be compensation, as the pilot would have otherwise had
to pay for the flight time. The specific case involved a
time-building pilot that was flying skydivers for a skydiving
operation for free. The FAA ruled that the pilot was being
compensated with free flight time. Flight time that you pay for
yourself is not considered compensation. If it was, you wouldn't be
able to fly yourself anywhere.

>
> Let's say I have a wife who thinks flying is a waste of my time. So she
> always gives me a hard time when I want to use the plane. Now, she has a
> friend who needs to get somewhere, a small airport that no commercial planes
> go, and she asks me to fly her there. No monetary compensation is involved
> (nor other "favors" from her friend, for those of you with dirty minds).
> All I get out of it is time flying, and I bear all the costs. I would have
> no other reason to fly to that particular field (although no reason not to
> either).
>
> Is this legal in the FAAs eyes?

Yes, this is legal. If your wife's friend contributed nothing to
the flight, there was no compensation. You payed for the flight, so
there is no way it could be considered a commercial operation.

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

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> Maybe I should have done something with the friend... I never thought of
> that angle!

Well, the mother of a pair of Young Eagles wanted to fly along last Saturday.
I can testify that you can't accomplish much along those lines in a Maule
with no auto-pilot. :-)

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Peter Gottlieb]

You'll have to borrow a Cherokee 6 at least. With a pilot who won't look
back...


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> >
> > Maybe I should have done something with the friend... I never thought
of
> > that angle!
>
> Well, the mother of a pair of Young Eagles wanted to fly along last
Saturday.
> I can testify that you can't accomplish much along those lines in a Maule
> with no auto-pilot. :-)
>
> George Patterson
> The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
> pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
> James Branch Cavel

[J. Hansen]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> ...
> > OK, here's one. I have heard the FAA considers "time" to be compensation.
>
> Only if someone else is providing the time.
>
> > [ferrying a wife's friend]
> > Is this legal in the FAAs eyes?
>
> As far as I know, yes. I'm not aware of any enforcement action where, with
> the pilot paying the entire cost of the flight, a pilot was found guilty of
> operating for compensation or hire.
>
> Pete

There is something close. In NTSB order (EA-4791), a private pilot transported
a mechanic for a medical air transportation service to repair one of their
stranded helicopters. The owner of the company initially tried to find a 135
carrier, but was unable to find anyone available for the flight. He was
eventually refered to a private pilot by an acquaintance who operated one of
the charter services. The private pilot who offered to do the flight and pay
all costs personally. He also advised the owner and mechanic that he was not
an air charter operator. On that flight, and two other related flights, the
owner of the medical transport co. offered to reimburse him for fuel, and the
private pilot refused to accept payment.

The FAA went after him and gave him a 365 day suspension, which was then
reduced to 180 days on appeal to the law judge. Fortunately, on appeal to
the NTSB, the charges were ultimately dismissed, but obviously not without a
great deal of hardship and expense.

Jeff H., CFI-A

[Peter Duniho]

"J. Hansen" > wrote in message
om...
> There is something close. In NTSB order (EA-4791), a private pilot
transported
> a mechanic for a medical air transportation service to repair one of their
> stranded helicopters.

Yes, I read about that in AOPA Pilot (if it's the same one I recall). It's
not a relevant example though, because what tripped the pilot up was the
"for hire" clause, not the "for compensation" clause.

Also, you do note that in the end, the pilot was absolved, in a rare NTSB
reversal. So the case is more an example of how the FAA can make your life
miserable, and less an example of what the rules actually mean.

Pete

[Todd Pattist]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>Yes, I read about that in AOPA Pilot (if it's the same one I recall). It's
>not a relevant example though, because what tripped the pilot up was the
>"for hire" clause, not the "for compensation" clause.
>
>Also, you do note that in the end, the pilot was absolved, in a rare NTSB
>reversal. So the case is more an example of how the FAA can make your life
>miserable, and less an example of what the rules actually mean.

The NTSB was at pains to establish that the pilot did not
“hold himself out for compensation or hire.” IIRC, the
original question was whether it would be OK to fly two
people to city A, split the cost 3 ways and then fly back
alone, paying all the cost of the return. It would probably
depend on whether the pilot was found to “hold himself out
for compensation or hire.” If you post a notice on a board
that you will transport people under the arrangement above,
there would be no common purpose for the flight and the
NTSB/FAA would probably find that you were holding yourself
out "for compensation or hire." It's not relevant whether
you make or lose money on the operation, only that you say
you will provide transportation for the specified amount -
namely 2/3 of the outbound flight cost.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Peter Gottlieb]

One problem is that if you strictly follow all the rules you cannot seem to
fly anybody anywhere. Let's say my wife wants to go visit a friend of hers
300 miles away. If I fly her there the FAA could turn around and say I had
no reason to go there and by telling my wife I would fly her on such trips
during my training I was "putting myself out for compensation" (namely,
being allowed to train).

So, it's not a matter of breaking rules, it's a matter of which ones and how
severely. We're always breaking some rule.


"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
> >Yes, I read about that in AOPA Pilot (if it's the same one I recall).
It's
> >not a relevant example though, because what tripped the pilot up was the
> >"for hire" clause, not the "for compensation" clause.
> >
> >Also, you do note that in the end, the pilot was absolved, in a rare NTSB
> >reversal. So the case is more an example of how the FAA can make your
life
> >miserable, and less an example of what the rules actually mean.
>
> The NTSB was at pains to establish that the pilot did not
> "hold himself out for compensation or hire." IIRC, the
> original question was whether it would be OK to fly two
> people to city A, split the cost 3 ways and then fly back
> alone, paying all the cost of the return. It would probably
> depend on whether the pilot was found to "hold himself out
> for compensation or hire." If you post a notice on a board
> that you will transport people under the arrangement above,
> there would be no common purpose for the flight and the
> NTSB/FAA would probably find that you were holding yourself
> out "for compensation or hire." It's not relevant whether
> you make or lose money on the operation, only that you say
> you will provide transportation for the specified amount -
> namely 2/3 of the outbound flight cost.
> Todd Pattist
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> ___
> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> Share what you learn.

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
> [...] If I fly her there the FAA could turn around and say I had
> no reason to go there and by telling my wife I would fly her on such trips
> during my training I was "putting myself out for compensation" (namely,
> being allowed to train).

I think it's a stretch to think that the FAA would find you to be "holding
out" to your own wife.

Generally, the standard requires holding out to the *public*.

IMHO, the only reason you think there's no way to strictly follow the rules
is that you're misinterpreting the rules.

Pete

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> IMHO, the only reason you think there's no way to strictly follow the
rules
> is that you're misinterpreting the rules.
>

A logical supposition, but easy to get into when the rules are complex and
the real rules are a mix of regulatory law, case law, and the sometimes
confused interpretation of different officials.

Notwithstanding the mental masturbation that occurs in these forums at times
(and I am as guilty as anyone), I use common sense to guide my actions and
generally will make any flight that I can.

Peter

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
> [...] I use common sense to guide my actions and
> generally will make any flight that I can.

I think that especially if you are right, but even if the rules *can* be
followed exactly, that's a very sensible approach. :)

[Teacherjh]

>>
I think it's a stretch to think that the FAA would find you to be "holding
out" to your own wife.
<<

Based on what I've read about this, I think the FAA stretches things.

Jose


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

[John Galban]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "J. Hansen" > wrote in message
> om...
> > There is something close. In NTSB order (EA-4791), a private pilot
> transported
> > a mechanic for a medical air transportation service to repair one of their
> > stranded helicopters.
>
> Yes, I read about that in AOPA Pilot (if it's the same one I recall). It's
> not a relevant example though, because what tripped the pilot up was the
> "for hire" clause, not the "for compensation" clause.
>

One other thing to note in this example. The whole debacle started
because the maintenance company owner (the mechanic's employer)
attempted to include transportation charges for the mechanic in his
bill to the medical transport service.

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

[Ron Natalie]

"Steve House" > wrote in message ...
> I'm curious - if the pilot in question happens to hold a commercial license
> but everything else is the same - ie, the flight does not take place in the
> course of the operation of a business but is more like "Hey Joe, you're a
> pilot. I've gotta get my mechanic over to XYZ in a hurry - if you rent a
> plane to take him, I'll cover all the costs of the trip and give you $50
> for your trouble" does the flight and the financial transactions now become
> legal if the pilot holds a commercial ticket?

It might be. If the pilot flies someone for hire, he most likely needs a 135
certificate. If the company has a plane and they say, hey I need you to
fly our mechanic in one of our planes, then it's ok with just the commercial.