Renting an airplane? Need Expert FARS Advice??

[NW_PILOT]

Ok, Fellow Pilots Here Is The Situation:

"A Private Pilot wants to rent an airplane and this person wants to fly it
from the west coast to the east coast but not back. This person would like
you to come along for the trip and dose not want to be reimbursed for any
part of the rental for time I act as PIC during the trip. This person also
is willing to pay for the aircraft rental for how ever many hours it takes
to get the airplane back home. This person would not be paying anyone for
acting as PIC just for the airplane rental! Would this be legal for a
private pilot to do? or would one have to pay your equal share on the way
there and all expenses on the way back home? or just pass on the trip"

This is the proposal that I have been offered from a good friend that lives
in Northern California that is moving even further away because of a Job on
the east coast. She thought since we hardly see each other anymore as it is
and she is moving even further away that this would be a trip that we both
would remember for lifetime. She has already discussed rental arrangements
of an aircraft with the FBO they said as long as they get a deposit for
estimated flight hours and I get a check out in the aircraft and listed as a
renter it would not be a problem. She even offered to pay for my check out
with the FBO and my renters insurance to meet fbo requirements. I will have
to pay for fuel on the way home but the FBO will reimburse me upon return.
Expense to her is not really no factor this would be a really fun trip see
spec's below.

Spec's:

Female
24 Years Old
5' 6"
115 to 120 lb's
Brown/Red Hair
A Strong 34 C
She is not current and taking her BFR next week

My little head is telling me to go for it, but my big head is saying stop
wait (must be my old age) get some advice from the people that know more
than the FBO on the FARS and legal aspects before making a decision. I
really would like to go the hotel stays would even be fun. What would you
do?


Ohhh.
No need for anyone to tell me that I have bad spelling and punctuation I
know I do!

[Paul Sengupta]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, Fellow Pilots Here Is The Situation:
>
> "A Private Pilot wants to rent an airplane and this person wants to fly it

How about insuring her in your plane?

Paul

[Neil Gould]

Recently, NW_PILOT > posted:

> Ok, Fellow Pilots Here Is The Situation:
>
> "A Private Pilot wants to rent an airplane and this person wants to
> fly it from the west coast to the east coast but not back."
>
Sounds to me that you're missing your best opportunity by not marrying the
girl! ;-)

It also doesn't sound like a violation of the FARs, unless you consider
the cost of the return trip as being paid to ferry the plane. But, that's
a stretch, IMO, because there isn't any rule saying that you *must* pay to
fly; just that you can't _get paid_ to fly as a private pilot. I wouldn't
expect that you'd hear a peep from the FSDO.

Neil

[Paul Sengupta]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, Fellow Pilots Here Is The Situation:
>
> "A Private Pilot wants to rent an airplane and this person wants to fly it
> from the west coast to the east coast but not back. This person would like
> you to come along for the trip and dose not want to be reimbursed for any
> part of the rental for time I act as PIC during the trip. This person also
> is willing to pay for the aircraft rental for how ever many hours it takes
> to get the airplane back home. This person would not be paying anyone for
> acting as PIC just for the airplane rental! Would this be legal for a
> private pilot to do? or would one have to pay your equal share on the way
> there and all expenses on the way back home? or just pass on the trip"

Couldn't you pay your share for the way back and come to some
other arrangement on how she pays you back?

Paul

[Blanche]

NW_PILOT > wrote:
[snip the details]

>My little head is telling me to go for it, but my big head is saying stop
>wait (must be my old age) get some advice from the people that know more
>than the FBO on the FARS and legal aspects before making a decision.

Then don't ask here. Call AOPA legal services.

>I really would like to go the hotel stays would even be fun. What would you

And for my second recommendation, call Dr. Ruth.

troll or a misogynist, not sure which.

[G.R. Patterson III]

NW_PILOT wrote:
>
> "A Private Pilot wants to rent an airplane and this person wants to fly it
> from the west coast to the east coast but not back. This person would like
> you to come along for the trip and dose not want to be reimbursed for any
> part of the rental for time I act as PIC during the trip. This person also
> is willing to pay for the aircraft rental for how ever many hours it takes
> to get the airplane back home. This person would not be paying anyone for
> acting as PIC just for the airplane rental! Would this be legal for a
> private pilot to do? or would one have to pay your equal share on the way
> there and all expenses on the way back home? or just pass on the trip"

Well, she's going to be flying out, so the Feds can't really expect you to have to
pay your way for that part -- you're a passenger. As for the trip back, the FAA has
been known to violate people for flying other people's aircraft for free, but only in
cases in which the pilot's were in competition with professionals (glider towplanes,
for example).

Me, I would let her pay the bills. I also wouldn't talk about it very much, just in
case.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[zatatime]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:14:44 -0700, "NW_PILOT" >
wrote:


Listen to your little head! Listen to your little head! Don't worry
about the FARs. Losing your license for 30 days would be a small
price to pay if its really gonna be that good a trip! <g> Besides if
you explain this to any male inspector, I'll bet he turns green with
envy, pats you on the back, and keeps it for back room discussions
only.

Seriously, it wouldn't seem to me that you are agreegiously breaking
the law. What if you bought a hotel room, or food, or something? All
of this should be counted toward expenses. As someone else stated,
call AOPA for the best response.

Good Luck!
z

[john smith]

Hmmm... one would wonder what the FAA's definition of "or other
compensation" might include.

> Spec's:
> Female
> 24 Years Old
> 5' 6"
> 115 to 120 lb's
> Brown/Red Hair
> A Strong 34 C
> She is not current and taking her BFR next week
>
> My little head is telling me to go for it, but my big head is saying stop
> wait (must be my old age) get some advice from the people that know more
> than the FBO on the FARS and legal aspects before making a decision. I
> really would like to go the hotel stays would even be fun. What would you
> do?

[Robert M. Gary]

I assume you would be the one renting the plane, otherwise...
1) How is she going to get an FBO to rent an airplane to her without a
current BFR?
2) The FBO likely had her sign something stating that only a
"authorized pilot" can fly the plane (she can't lone it to friends).

The FAA has violated people on several occasions for being able to fly
for free as a private pilot. The classic examples are tow pilots
(although an exemption is now available through the glider pilot's
association), jump pilots, etc. The FAA has said, in these situations,
that your ability to fly for free is compensation. The best bet may be
to call the Sac FSDO, ask their opinion, write down the name of the
person you talked to and then don't fly outside their district. You
are in a grey area here.

-Robert, CFI



"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message >...
> Ok, Fellow Pilots Here Is The Situation:
>
> "A Private Pilot wants to rent an airplane and this person wants to fly it
> from the west coast to the east coast but not back. This person would like
> you to come along for the trip and dose not want to be reimbursed for any
> part of the rental for time I act as PIC during the trip. This person also
> is willing to pay for the aircraft rental for how ever many hours it takes
> to get the airplane back home. This person would not be paying anyone for
> acting as PIC just for the airplane rental! Would this be legal for a
> private pilot to do? or would one have to pay your equal share on the way
> there and all expenses on the way back home? or just pass on the trip"
>
> This is the proposal that I have been offered from a good friend that lives
> in Northern California that is moving even further away because of a Job on
> the east coast. She thought since we hardly see each other anymore as it is
> and she is moving even further away that this would be a trip that we both
> would remember for lifetime. She has already discussed rental arrangements
> of an aircraft with the FBO they said as long as they get a deposit for
> estimated flight hours and I get a check out in the aircraft and listed as a
> renter it would not be a problem. She even offered to pay for my check out
> with the FBO and my renters insurance to meet fbo requirements. I will have
> to pay for fuel on the way home but the FBO will reimburse me upon return.
> Expense to her is not really no factor this would be a really fun trip see
> spec's below.
>
> Spec's:
>
> Female
> 24 Years Old
> 5' 6"
> 115 to 120 lb's
> Brown/Red Hair
> A Strong 34 C
> She is not current and taking her BFR next week
>
> My little head is telling me to go for it, but my big head is saying stop
> wait (must be my old age) get some advice from the people that know more
> than the FBO on the FARS and legal aspects before making a decision. I
> really would like to go the hotel stays would even be fun. What would you
> do?
>
>
> Ohhh.
> No need for anyone to tell me that I have bad spelling and punctuation I
> know I do!

[NW_PILOT]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Recently, NW_PILOT > posted:
>
> > Ok, Fellow Pilots Here Is The Situation:
> >
> > "A Private Pilot wants to rent an airplane and this person wants to
> > fly it from the west coast to the east coast but not back."
> >
> Sounds to me that you're missing your best opportunity by not marrying the
> girl! ;-)


Sorry I cannot do that I am already married,

[NW_PILOT]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> I assume you would be the one renting the plane, otherwise...
> 1) How is she going to get an FBO to rent an airplane to her without a
> current BFR?

She has been renting form that FBO for some time now and next week is going
to be going up with an instructor to take her BFR



> 2) The FBO likely had her sign something stating that only a
> "authorized pilot" can fly the plane (she can't lone it to friends).

That is why they are going to require me to have a check out with them in
the aircraft and listed as a renter.


>
> The FAA has violated people on several occasions for being able to fly
> for free as a private pilot. The classic examples are tow pilots
> (although an exemption is now available through the glider pilot's
> association), jump pilots, etc. The FAA has said, in these situations,
> that your ability to fly for free is compensation. The best bet may be
> to call the Sac FSDO, ask their opinion, write down the name of the
> person you talked to and then don't fly outside their district. You
> are in a grey area here.
>
> -Robert, CFI
>

I will call the Sac FSDO in the morning.

>
>
> "NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
>...
> > Ok, Fellow Pilots Here Is The Situation:
> >
> > "A Private Pilot wants to rent an airplane and this person wants to fly
it
> > from the west coast to the east coast but not back. This person would
like
> > you to come along for the trip and dose not want to be reimbursed for
any
> > part of the rental for time I act as PIC during the trip. This person
also
> > is willing to pay for the aircraft rental for how ever many hours it
takes
> > to get the airplane back home. This person would not be paying anyone
for
> > acting as PIC just for the airplane rental! Would this be legal for a
> > private pilot to do? or would one have to pay your equal share on the
way
> > there and all expenses on the way back home? or just pass on the trip"
> >
> > This is the proposal that I have been offered from a good friend that
lives
> > in Northern California that is moving even further away because of a Job
on
> > the east coast. She thought since we hardly see each other anymore as it
is
> > and she is moving even further away that this would be a trip that we
both
> > would remember for lifetime. She has already discussed rental
arrangements
> > of an aircraft with the FBO they said as long as they get a deposit for
> > estimated flight hours and I get a check out in the aircraft and listed
as a
> > renter it would not be a problem. She even offered to pay for my check
out
> > with the FBO and my renters insurance to meet fbo requirements. I will
have
> > to pay for fuel on the way home but the FBO will reimburse me upon
return.
> > Expense to her is not really no factor this would be a really fun trip
see
> > spec's below.
> >
> > Spec's:
> >
> > Female
> > 24 Years Old
> > 5' 6"
> > 115 to 120 lb's
> > Brown/Red Hair
> > A Strong 34 C
> > She is not current and taking her BFR next week
> >
> > My little head is telling me to go for it, but my big head is saying
stop
> > wait (must be my old age) get some advice from the people that know more
> > than the FBO on the FARS and legal aspects before making a decision. I
> > really would like to go the hotel stays would even be fun. What would
you
> > do?
> >
> >
> > Ohhh.
> > No need for anyone to tell me that I have bad spelling and punctuation I
> > know I do!

[NW_PILOT]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:14:44 -0700, "NW_PILOT" >
> wrote:
>
>
> Listen to your little head! Listen to your little head! Don't worry
> about the FARs.

No way that always gets me introuble.

>Losing your license for 30 days would be a small
> price to pay if its really gonna be that good a trip! <g> Besides if
> you explain this to any male inspector, I'll bet he turns green with
> envy, pats you on the back, and keeps it for back room discussions
> only.


Its been almost 3 weeks since I have flown because of dental problems and
its been killing me. No way could I go 30 day's being told by someone else I
cannot fly.

>
> Seriously, it wouldn't seem to me that you are agreegiously breaking
> the law. What if you bought a hotel room, or food, or something? All
> of this should be counted toward expenses. As someone else stated,
> call AOPA for the best response.

Ill call the fsdo and aopa see what they have to say

>
> Good Luck!
> z

[Bushy]

> Female
> 24 Years Old
> 5' 6"
> 115 to 120 lb's
> Brown/Red Hair
> A Strong 34 C

I'll fly her for you!

Is she rated for aerobatics?

How much ground roll does she require for takeoff?

Hope this helps,
Peter

[Paul Sengupta]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Sounds to me that you're missing your best opportunity by not marrying
the
> > girl! ;-)
>
> Sorry I cannot do that I am already married,

What?!

Then you should volunteer one of us for the job.

Paul

[Robert M. Gary]

zatatime > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:14:44 -0700, "NW_PILOT" >
> wrote:

> As someone else stated,
> call AOPA for the best response.

The only problem with AOPA in situations like this is that they are
going to give you the opinion of the FSDO up there. These types of
situations are always very different from FSDO to FSDO, since there is
no federal guidance. Case in point, there is a guy at our flying club
who holds a private ticket and started a company to sell airborne
photos of businesses. The Sac FSDO told him he's ok to fly for his
company with a private. The FSDO in the bay said no. So he's ok as
long as he doesn't get too close to the bay. Since its the local FSDO
that does the enforcement, its best to talk to them. They tend to not
like hearing, "But AOPA told me I could do it...".

-Robert

[Just go look it up!]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:54:57 -0700, "NW_PILOT" >
wrote:


>I will call the Sac FSDO in the morning.

Probably the smartest move.

That having been said, I would suggest they'll say something like
this:

61.113 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; nor may that person, for
compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft."

You're not carrying passengers, and there's nothing stopping someone
from paying 100% of the rental (rather than pro-rating) if both of you
are in the aircraft, which gets you from the west coast to the east
coast.

However, if the pilot who is paying is not in the aircraft, like on
the return leg, yet pays for the rental, they're effectively paying
for you to ferry the aircraft back to the airport of origin, which
would be prohibited.

[gatt]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message

> Couldn't you pay your share for the way back and come to some
> other arrangement on how she pays you back?

Damn. Was drinking coffee when I read that. :>

-c

[Malcolm Teas]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message et>...
> Recently, NW_PILOT > posted:
>
> > Ok, Fellow Pilots Here Is The Situation:
> >
> > "A Private Pilot wants to rent an airplane and this person wants to
> > fly it from the west coast to the east coast but not back."
> >
> Sounds to me that you're missing your best opportunity by not marrying the
> girl! ;-)
>
> It also doesn't sound like a violation of the FARs, unless you consider
> the cost of the return trip as being paid to ferry the plane. But, that's
> a stretch, IMO, because there isn't any rule saying that you *must* pay to
> fly; just that you can't _get paid_ to fly as a private pilot. I wouldn't
> expect that you'd hear a peep from the FSDO.

Well, I can't claim to have memorized the FARs, but I'm pretty sure
that marriage isn't a violation.

But, I'm also pretty sure that flying for free is considered
compensation:

61.117 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Second in command
of aircraft requiring more than one pilot.

Except as provided in §61.113 of this part, no private pilot may, for
compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is
type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as
second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
property for compensation or hire.

and:

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.

Seems that flying back to the west coast would be compensation and
less than your pro-rata share of the flight. Since you're flying
alone then, your pro-rate share is 100%.

-Malcolm Teas

[Peter Clark]

On 23 Sep 2004 13:13:51 -0700, (Malcolm Teas) wrote:


> 61.117 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Second in command
>of aircraft requiring more than one pilot.
>
>Except as provided in §61.113 of this part, no private pilot may, for
>compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is
>type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as
>second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
>property for compensation or hire.

Not that I disagree with the position that he'd be in violation of the
FAR's by flying the aircraft back alone without paying for it, might I
ask what the bit about second in command of a type-certified for
multi-pilot aircraft has to do with the OP's question?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Malcolm Teas wrote:
>
> 61.117 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Second in command
> of aircraft requiring more than one pilot.
>
> Except as provided in §61.113 of this part, no private pilot may, for
> compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is
> type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as
> second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
> property for compensation or hire.

Few small planes are type certified to require more than one pilot, so it's highly
unlikely that he would be serving as second in command of such a plane. As described,
the flight is not carrying anything for hire, so he wouldn't be doing that either.
This FAR is not applicable to the flight.

> 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.
>
> Seems that flying back to the west coast would be compensation and
> less than your pro-rata share of the flight. Since you're flying
> alone then, your pro-rate share is 100%.

Since he's flying alone, there are no passengers, so this FAR doesn't apply either.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Malcolm Teas]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> Malcolm Teas wrote:
> >
> > 61.117 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Second in command
> > of aircraft requiring more than one pilot.
> >
> > Except as provided in §61.113 of this part, no private pilot may, for
> > compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is
> > type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as
> > second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
> > property for compensation or hire.
>
> Few small planes are type certified to require more than one pilot, so it's highly
> unlikely that he would be serving as second in command of such a plane. As described,
> the flight is not carrying anything for hire, so he wouldn't be doing that either.
> This FAR is not applicable to the flight.

Yup! Absolutely right. I cut-and-pasted the wrong thing clearly.
Mea culpa. I saw the "Private pilot privileges and limitations" part
and started selecting text.

>
> > 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.
> >
> > Seems that flying back to the west coast would be compensation and
> > less than your pro-rata share of the flight. Since you're flying
> > alone then, your pro-rate share is 100%.
>
> Since he's flying alone, there are no passengers, so this FAR doesn't apply either.

I understand your comment and might agree but for the "may not pay
less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight"
aspect. It's clear that the return trip will have operating expenses.
It's also clear that he won't be paying them.

I think the flight - as stated - violates the intent of the FARs. I'd
love to be asked to fly for free across the country, but am convinced
the FAA would take a dim view. But, I'm not PIC for this flight and
given my cut-and-paste error above, I doubt I'll claim to be a FAR
expert either. <grin>

-Malcolm Teas

[G.R. Patterson III]

Malcolm Teas wrote:
>
> I understand your comment and might agree but for the "may not pay
> less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight"
> aspect. It's clear that the return trip will have operating expenses.
> It's also clear that he won't be paying them.

Then you really don't understand my comment. The FAR clearly states that it ONLY
applies to flights WITH passengers, and there are none.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Robert M. Gary]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> Malcolm Teas wrote:
> >
> > 61.117 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Second in command
> > of aircraft requiring more than one pilot.
> >
> > Except as provided in §61.113 of this part, no private pilot may, for
> > compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is
> > type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as
> > second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
> > property for compensation or hire.
>
> Few small planes are type certified to require more than one pilot, so it's highly
> unlikely that he would be serving as second in command of such a plane. As described,
> the flight is not carrying anything for hire, so he wouldn't be doing that either.
> This FAR is not applicable to the flight.
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Seems that flying back to the west coast would be compensation and
> > less than your pro-rata share of the flight. Since you're flying
> > alone then, your pro-rate share is 100%.
>
> Since he's flying alone, there are no passengers, so this FAR doesn't apply either.

Sec. 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in
command.^M
^M
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section,
no^M
person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in
command of^M
an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation
or hire;^M
nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command
of an^M
aircraft.^M

If he flys back on his own, it would be hard for him to not be PIC.
The FAA has busted people for being able to fly without paying before
(. They consider that compensation. Example.. if the FBO asks you to
fly a plane down to another airport for annual, that is always
considered commercial. That's a good reason for CFIs to keep their 2nd
class medical current.

-Roebrt (with current 2nd class medical)

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>
> If he flys back on his own, it would be hard for him to not be PIC.
> The FAA has busted people for being able to fly without paying before
> (. They consider that compensation.

As I said before, the FAA has regarded flight time as compensation, but, so far, they
have only done so in cases in which the pilot was competing with professionals at a
job normally done for hire. The infamous case was a pilot who was flying a glider tow
plane to build time. So far, the FAA has never violated a pilot for the sort of
flight which NW_PILOT is considering.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> As I said before, the FAA has regarded flight time as compensation,
> but, so far, they have only done so in cases in which the pilot was
> competing with professionals at a job normally done for hire. The
> infamous case was a pilot who was flying a glider tow plane to
> build time. So far, the FAA has never violated a pilot for the
> sort of flight which NW_PILOT is considering.

I don't understand your comments. Ferrying an airplane back is definitely
something that professionals normally do for hire, and that's exactly what
NW_PILOT is proposing. As far as building time goes, how is flying an
airplane back across the country for someone else not just as much about
building time as flying a glide tow plane?

You seem to be saying that the FAA would violate a pilot doing this, but
also saying that the FAA would not violate a pilot doing this. It's clear
what you intend to say, but the truth is that your comments are
self-contradictory. You simply don't seem to recognize this as the
potential commercial operation that it is.

Pete

[Julian Scarfe]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> You seem to be saying that the FAA would violate a pilot doing this, but
> also saying that the FAA would not violate a pilot doing this. It's clear
> what you intend to say, but the truth is that your comments are
> self-contradictory. You simply don't seem to recognize this as the
> potential commercial operation that it is.

"Potential commercial operation" is not the issue. There are two categories
of things that a private pilot can't do under 61.113:

---
(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;

nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an
aircraft.
---

The first prohibition relates to whether compensation is paid for the
carriage of passengers or property. It doesn't cover "potential commercial
operations", and it doesn't matter if the operation would normally be
carried out by professionals. All that matters is whether someone is paying
someone else for a person to occupy a seat or for freight to occupy a seat.

The second prohibition is quite separate. It says that the private pilot
cannot receive compensation for acting as pilot.

I have yet to see an account of a case cited where the FAA has busted a
private pilot for flying for free which didn't come under the *first*
prohibition. The issue is *not* that flying for free is compensation, but
rather that someone is paying someone else for carriage, even if neither of
those parties is the pilot.

Roger Long cited a case in a thread a while back:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=nsMVc.822%24UM3.654%40newsfe2-gui.ntli.net
in which an FAA counsel opinion was quoted in just such a situation.

That some pilots get paid for ferry flights doesn't make it illegal for a
private pilot to fill the role for free.

Finally the exceptions in paragraphs (b) to (g) have to be read as just
that, exceptions from paragraph (a). It makes no sense to read

---
(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.

---

in isolation. If you were to read it in isolation, the "provided" clause
would make no sense: the pilot *must* pay his share if he includes only
fuel, oil and airport expenditures, but he does *not* have to do so if he
adds in an allowance for maintenance and hangarage(?). That's clearly
nonsensical. What (c) is doing is allowing the second prohibition in (a) to
be violated in certain circumstances. If (a) is not violated, (c) is
irrelevant. And thus it makes no difference if a (non-fare-paying)
passenger is carried on the ferry flight.

Julian Scarfe

[Teacherjh]

Under the (pilot must pay) rules, is it legal for a pilot's father to pay for
his training? (i.e. instrument rating, including solo flights)?

Jose

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

[Peter Clark]

On 25 Sep 2004 14:24:14 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

>Under the (pilot must pay) rules, is it legal for a pilot's father to pay for
>his training? (i.e. instrument rating, including solo flights)?

I believe that is a different scenario. Father didn't fly a plane
across the county and pay for his son fly it back for him. Father
isn't in the aircraft, nor has father benefited from son's flying. It
would be illegal for father to pay 100% of the rental for an aircraft
that non-pilot father gets transported in with son at controls after
training.

[Peter Duniho]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> "Potential commercial operation" is not the issue.

It is with respect to George's comments.

> There are two categories of things that a private pilot
> can't do under 61.113:

If you want to talk about 61.113, I think it would make more sense to reply
to a post written by someone who also is talking about 61.113.

Pete

[Michael Brown]

Does this mean that if a private pilot has a friend who owns a 172, and the
friend allows the private pilot to fly the 172 whenever the private pilot
wants, and the friend does not charge the private pilot for the flight time,
then the private pilot is in violation?

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> >...
>> Malcolm Teas wrote:
>> >
>> > 61.117 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Second in command
>> > of aircraft requiring more than one pilot.
>> >
>> > Except as provided in §61.113 of this part, no private pilot may, for
>> > compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is
>> > type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as
>> > second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
>> > property for compensation or hire.
>>
>> Few small planes are type certified to require more than one pilot, so
>> it's highly
>> unlikely that he would be serving as second in command of such a plane.
>> As described,
>> the flight is not carrying anything for hire, so he wouldn't be doing
>> that either.
>> This FAR is not applicable to the flight.
>>
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > Seems that flying back to the west coast would be compensation and
>> > less than your pro-rata share of the flight. Since you're flying
>> > alone then, your pro-rate share is 100%.
>>
>> Since he's flying alone, there are no passengers, so this FAR doesn't
>> apply either.
>
> Sec. 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in
> command.^M
> ^M
> (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section,
> no^M
> person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in
> command of^M
> an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation
> or hire;^M
> nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command
> of an^M
> aircraft.^M
>
> If he flys back on his own, it would be hard for him to not be PIC.
> The FAA has busted people for being able to fly without paying before
> (. They consider that compensation. Example.. if the FBO asks you to
> fly a plane down to another airport for annual, that is always
> considered commercial. That's a good reason for CFIs to keep their 2nd
> class medical current.
>
> -Roebrt (with current 2nd class medical)

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:09:33 -0400, "Michael Brown"
> wrote:

>Does this mean that if a private pilot has a friend who owns a 172, and the
>friend allows the private pilot to fly the 172 whenever the private pilot
>wants, and the friend does not charge the private pilot for the flight time,
>then the private pilot is in violation?

If the person borrowing the aircraft doesn't pay for the gas and oil
they use, I would suspect that yes, it could be considered a
violation.

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>>Does this mean that if a private pilot has a friend who owns a 172, and
>>the
>>friend allows the private pilot to fly the 172 whenever the private pilot
>>wants, and the friend does not charge the private pilot for the flight
>>time, >>then the private pilot is in violation?
>
> If the person borrowing the aircraft doesn't pay for the gas and oil
> they use, I would suspect that yes, it could be considered a
> violation.

I believe that it would depend on whether the owner of the aircraft was
getting something in the deal. It's hard to claim that the pilot is
actually flying FOR compensation, if there was no need for the pilot to fly
the airplane. Just because the pilot could be considered compensated, that
doesn't mean that the pilot did the flying FOR the compensation.

Now, the FAA could (would?) equivocate on whether the owner of the aircraft
was getting something in return. For example, an airplane that sits idle is
worse off than an airplane that is regularly flown. The FAA might accuse
the pilot of providing a service to the owner, simply by keeping the
airplane flown.

But generally speaking, no I would not expect the FAA to have any problem at
all with a friend loaning a plane to another friend, as long as the other
friend was flying for themselves, and not for the owner.

Pete

[Julian Scarfe]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> I believe that it would depend on whether the owner of the aircraft was
> getting something in the deal. It's hard to claim that the pilot is
> actually flying FOR compensation, if there was no need for the pilot to
fly
> the airplane. Just because the pilot could be considered compensated,
that
> doesn't mean that the pilot did the flying FOR the compensation.
>
> Now, the FAA could (would?) equivocate on whether the owner of the
aircraft
> was getting something in return. For example, an airplane that sits idle
is
> worse off than an airplane that is regularly flown. The FAA might accuse
> the pilot of providing a service to the owner, simply by keeping the
> airplane flown.

But it's not a violation of 61.113 (I presume you're talking about it *this*
time, Peter) to provide a service to someone. It's a violation to be
*compensated* for providing that service. If the owner says "make this
flight for me and I'll lend you the aircraft for a few hours for free next
week" then that could be construed as compensation. If he just says "please
make this flight for me", I don't think it can.

Julian

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:42:20 GMT, "Julian Scarfe" >
wrote:

>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I believe that it would depend on whether the owner of the aircraft was
>> getting something in the deal. It's hard to claim that the pilot is
>> actually flying FOR compensation, if there was no need for the pilot to
>fly
>> the airplane. Just because the pilot could be considered compensated,
>that
>> doesn't mean that the pilot did the flying FOR the compensation.
>>
>> Now, the FAA could (would?) equivocate on whether the owner of the
>aircraft
>> was getting something in return. For example, an airplane that sits idle
>is
>> worse off than an airplane that is regularly flown. The FAA might accuse
>> the pilot of providing a service to the owner, simply by keeping the
>> airplane flown.
>
>But it's not a violation of 61.113 (I presume you're talking about it *this*
>time, Peter) to provide a service to someone. It's a violation to be
>*compensated* for providing that service. If the owner says "make this
>flight for me and I'll lend you the aircraft for a few hours for free next
>week" then that could be construed as compensation. If he just says "please
>make this flight for me", I don't think it can.

However, the FAA includes intangibles such as good will to be part of
what they weigh when considering whether compensation was garnered or
not. I don't believe they'd go out of their way to violate someone
just for using a friend's aircraft for free, but IMO a strict reading
of the "no compensation" rule would preclude it from being acceptable.
What is the pilot giving the owner in return for their paying for the
fuel, oil, and airport expenditures the pilot is accruing yet not
paying for? The pilot is getting free flight time, the owner is
getting a bill...

It seems to me that the underlying implication of the rule is that in
the eyes of the FAA the pilot is supposed to be paying for the flight
expenses in all cases. In this light, everything else is either an
exception, or needs to be Part 121 or 135. 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" is in the exception list -
and even it implies the baseline understanding that the pilot is
paying - all the pilot can do is carve up the authorized items in the
bill with the passengers, and even then the pilot can only reduce his
cost by his share of the seats used - and then there has to be common
purpose and all that. March 04 AOPA Pilot has an article "Commercial
operations and the private pilot". In this article the story is about
how pilot's friend was throwing a Super Bowl party at his restaurant
and some of the guests were being flown in, but the charter
arrangements fell through. Restaurant owner asked pilot friend for a
favor, can you go pick these people up. Pilot said sure, no
compensation here, just doing a favor for a friend. Pilot took no
money from restaurant owner, and paid for the flights. However, 4
flights later, FAA violated the pilot and pulled his certificate for
270 days. Appeal to NTSB was denied, and in their ruling they held
in part that "compensation need not be direct nor in the form of
money. Goodwill is a form of prohibited compensation." Of course
there were other parts of the ruling and circumstances were different
here (there were passengers involved), but they've established (or
continued? I didn't go that far back) the precedent that goodwill and
other indirect compensation should be examined when determining
whether the flight is prohibited or not.

[Peter Duniho]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> [...] If the owner says "make this
> flight for me and I'll lend you the aircraft for a few hours for free next
> week" then that could be construed as compensation. If he just says
> "please
> make this flight for me", I don't think it can.

This has been covered so often in this newsgroup, it's hard to give you the
benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just trolling, but...

The flight itself is what the FAA would consider compensation. Even just
the one. In this particular scenario, the Private Pilot would be required
to pay his own way while operating the airplane. Otherwise, he is being
compensated (by the free use of the airplane).

Pete

[Julian Scarfe]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...] If the owner says "make this
> > flight for me and I'll lend you the aircraft for a few hours for free
next
> > week" then that could be construed as compensation. If he just says
> > "please
> > make this flight for me", I don't think it can.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> This has been covered so often in this newsgroup, it's hard to give you
the
> benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just trolling, but...
>
> The flight itself is what the FAA would consider compensation. Even just
> the one. In this particular scenario, the Private Pilot would be required
> to pay his own way while operating the airplane. Otherwise, he is being
> compensated (by the free use of the airplane).

I'm certainly not trolling. Can you cite a single case in which the FAA has
deemed this the case?I've not seen one that didn't turn out to rely on a
different interpretation on closer inspection.

Julian

[Peter Duniho]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> I'm certainly not trolling. Can you cite a single case in which the FAA
> has
> deemed this the case?I've not seen one that didn't turn out to rely on a
> different interpretation on closer inspection.

I trust AOPA's experts to review the cases for me, as well as other
resources. I don't have the specific examples in front of me, but it's
simply not in question that the FAA has considered flight time to be
"compensation". This is well-understood, and frequently reported.

For example, from http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/1997/pc9710.html :

"The FAA interprets the term compensation in its broadest sense.
Compensation is not only the payment of money, but it is the receipt of
anything of value, and even the mere expectation of some benefit. To show
you how broad the FAA interpretation is, the agency, on several occasions,
has said that just building up flight time is compensation to the pilot
where the pilot does not pay the cost of operating the aircraft"

Like I said, this has been discussed so many times right here in this
newsgroup, it's hard to see how you can claim it's not the case unless
you're trolling. I know you're not (unless you've gone through some radical
personality change), but even so...it's still hard to believe.

Pete

[Julian Scarfe]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...

> March 04 AOPA Pilot has an article "Commercial
> operations and the private pilot". In this article the story is about
> how pilot's friend was throwing a Super Bowl party at his restaurant
> and some of the guests were being flown in, but the charter
> arrangements fell through. Restaurant owner asked pilot friend for a
> favor, can you go pick these people up. Pilot said sure, no
> compensation here, just doing a favor for a friend. Pilot took no
> money from restaurant owner, and paid for the flights. However, 4
> flights later, FAA violated the pilot and pulled his certificate for
> 270 days. Appeal to NTSB was denied, and in their ruling they held
> in part that "compensation need not be direct nor in the form of
> money. Goodwill is a form of prohibited compensation." Of course
> there were other parts of the ruling and circumstances were different
> here (there were passengers involved), but they've established (or
> continued? I didn't go that far back) the precedent that goodwill and
> other indirect compensation should be examined when determining
> whether the flight is prohibited or not.

This looks like precisely the misinterpretation that I've been talking about
in the other parts of this thread.

Read the ruling:
http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/5061.PDF

The passengers on the flight were restaurant guests -- *they* were paying
for their seats on the flight:

"There were people who had paid to be flown to Put-In-
Bay for whom there was no transportation available and,
apparently, respondent came to the rescue."

That in itself violates the *first* prohibition in 61.113. Whether the
pilot is compensated or not is irrelevant. He's busted.

Moreover, at *no* point is it suggested that the flights themselves were the
compensation. They *were* paid for by the pilot in command. But the court
refused to believe that there would be no compensation paid to the pilot at
all:

"Interpreting the facts in a way most favorable to
respondent and assuming that he really had no expectation of any
kind of benefit, strains credulity. Respondent testified that
these flights cost him about $1100. The law judge, who had the
opportunity to witness respondent's demeanor, judged his
credibility and rejected his Good Samaritan argument."

This case has nothing to do with pilots not paying the direct costs of their
flights!

Julian

[Gary Drescher]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> This has been covered so often in this newsgroup, it's hard to give you
> the
>> benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just trolling, but...
>>
>> The flight itself is what the FAA would consider compensation. Even just
>> the one. In this particular scenario, the Private Pilot would be
>> required
>> to pay his own way while operating the airplane. Otherwise, he is being
>> compensated (by the free use of the airplane).
>
> I'm certainly not trolling. Can you cite a single case in which the FAA
> has
> deemed this the case? I've not seen one that didn't turn out to rely on a
> different interpretation on closer inspection.

The misconception that's I've seen debunked in previous threads is the
notion that merely being able to log flight time constitutes compensation
(even if the pilot pays for the flight herself). But I don't recall any
evidence disputing the notion that providing free flight time to a pilot
constitutes compensation.

--Gary

[Julian Scarfe]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> I trust AOPA's experts to review the cases for me, as well as other
> resources. I don't have the specific examples in front of me, but it's
> simply not in question that the FAA has considered flight time to be
> "compensation". This is well-understood, and frequently reported.
>
> For example, from http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/1997/pc9710.html
:

If the different AOPA article quoted by Peter Clark in this thread really
interprets the case, for which the ruling is available for all to read, as
supporting this view, then I'm not convinced they're doing you a favour.

> "The FAA interprets the term compensation in its broadest sense.
> Compensation is not only the payment of money, but it is the receipt of
> anything of value, and even the mere expectation of some benefit. To show
> you how broad the FAA interpretation is, the agency, on several occasions,
> has said that just building up flight time is compensation to the pilot
> where the pilot does not pay the cost of operating the aircraft"

I'm not really going to be convinced except by docket numbers! This seems
to be an area where rumours reinforce themselves.

> Like I said, this has been discussed so many times right here in this
> newsgroup, it's hard to see how you can claim it's not the case unless
> you're trolling. I know you're not (unless you've gone through some
radical
> personality change), but even so...it's still hard to believe.

I don't read every thread, Peter, and while I've seen some assertions on the
subject, I've never seen anything that changed my opinion. I've now seen
two cases (the other was the letter posted by Roger Long with FAA counsel's
opinion) cited in support of the concept that flying for free is illegal.
Both arguments have rested on a lazy reading of what was actually written.

Julian

[Peter Duniho]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> If the different AOPA article quoted by Peter Clark in this thread really
> interprets the case, for which the ruling is available for all to read, as
> supporting this view, then I'm not convinced they're doing you a favour.

Not sure what you're talking about. The case Peter Clark is quoting is a
completely different issue, where the pilot is not the person being
compensated, even though the flight was made "for compensation". The case
doesn't address whether free flight time is compensation at all, since the
case involved a much more clear-cut situation of paying passengers, nor does
the AOPA Pilot article make a claim that the case does.

> I'm not really going to be convinced except by docket numbers! This seems
> to be an area where rumours reinforce themselves.

The cases have been quoted. Just because I don't have them in front of me
doesn't mean they don't exist. Regardless, it's not really any of my
concern whether you agree or not. I know that I would never accept free
flight time where the donor had anything other than simply doing me a favor
in mind; that includes just flying the airplane to keep it from sitting
idle.

Pete

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:28:18 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
>> If the different AOPA article quoted by Peter Clark in this thread really
>> interprets the case, for which the ruling is available for all to read, as
>> supporting this view, then I'm not convinced they're doing you a favour.
>
>Not sure what you're talking about. The case Peter Clark is quoting is a
>completely different issue, where the pilot is not the person being
>compensated, even though the flight was made "for compensation". The case
>doesn't address whether free flight time is compensation at all, since the
>case involved a much more clear-cut situation of paying passengers, nor does
>the AOPA Pilot article make a claim that the case does.

Actually, I was only quoting that case in the context that the FAA and
NTSB appear to take the view that intangible things (including good
will) can and are also considered compensation WRTexamining whether
61.113 was violated or not. The specifics of the case are immaterial
to the concept that, according to the ruling, one of the tests to be
used in deciding if there is a violation of 61.113 or not includes
looking to see if there is evidence of (in the absence of direct
monetary compensation) any intangible benefits to be found, and if
they are present a violation has occurred. If I'm wrong in
interpreting the ruling to establish/use one prong of a multi-prong
test to see whether a violation has occurred, great, I'd like to
understand the dissenting opinion's logic.

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, I was only quoting that case in the context that the FAA and
> NTSB appear to take the view that intangible things (including good
> will) can and are also considered compensation WRTexamining whether
> 61.113 was violated or not.

The Super Bowl party case doesn't show that. The problem there was actual,
paying passengers, who paid for transportation. That's tangible
compensation, and has nothing to do with whether intangible compensation
(like logging hours) is considered "compensation" by the FAA.

In spite of the NTSB's comments regarding "goodwill", I don't read the
article as saying that that was a core component of their judgment, but
rather a secondary issue. The real problem was that the pilot participated
in what was a commercial operation, complete with paying passengers. (It
certainly didn't help things that the airplanes used were not Part 135
certified either).

I agree with your views with respect to 61.113, but I don't think that
particular case is the best example of how the pilot himself receives what
the FAA considers "compensation" even if he isn't paid in cash. There's too
many other distracting factors (after all, Julian apparently failed to
notice that, in addition to the other "commercial operation" issues, the
NTSB found that the pilot *did* receive compensation himself; I think that's
because the other issues distracted him from that one).

It *does* illustrate that *even if the pilot himself pays for the flight*,
he could potentially get into trouble, if the operation otherwise looks like
a commercial operation, or if the FAA and NTSB find that the pilot *still*
received some sort of compensation (even in the form of "goodwill"). That
latter point delves more deeply into what the FAA might not approve of than
the comments I've made do.

Frankly, with such liberal interpretations of "compensation" by the FAA and
NTSB, it boggles my mind that anyone might think that the FAA *doesn't* view
free flight time as compensation. (Hi Julian :) ).

Pete

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> I don't understand your comments.

Ok, then I've not phrased things well. In the case I mentioned, the key argument the
FAA advanced was that the towplane pilot was time-building; that is, he intended to
use the time flying the towplane to fulfill part of the requirements for his next
certificate. As such, the time was valuable and he would have had to pay for it had
he not volunteered to fly the towplane. That made it compensation. The fact that he
was competing with professionals for the towplane job got him busted but did not
otherwise figure in the case.

So, the real question here is whether or not NW_PILOT is intending to pursue another
rating or certificate and intends to use this time as part of the time necessary to
fulfill the requirements for that rating. If so, he could be busted for violation of
this FAR, and there is precedence for a guilty verdict. If not, there is no
precedence for a bust or guilty verdict (though I suppose he could be the first).

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[NW_PILOT]

Ok guys, I am waiting for a return call form the FSDO, But from the initial
call it was a BIG NO the way it was proposed to be done. But there is a way
around it they think? and they are checking on it further may take them a
week or so to get back with me, it would consist of either a Joint account
at the FBO in witch deposited money from a third party that was given as a
gift in to that joint account or 2 accounts and money deposited in to them
accounts and all rental fees deducted from both accounts equally.

Sorry for the delay in writing back.

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> So, the real question here is whether or not NW_PILOT is intending to
> pursue another
> rating or certificate and intends to use this time as part of the time
> necessary to
> fulfill the requirements for that rating.

Hmmm...well, I see what you mean. But I'm not sure the FAA bothers to make
that distinction. That is, I believe that they say that logged time is
compensation, whether or not you ever intend to use it for another rating.

If you don't even log the time, then yes...I'd agree that even the FAA would
be hard-pressed to find a "compensation" facet to the operation.

Pete

[Julian Scarfe]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...

> Actually, I was only quoting that case in the context that the FAA and
> NTSB appear to take the view that intangible things (including good
> will) can and are also considered compensation WRTexamining whether
> 61.113 was violated or not.

That "compensation" is broader than a simple payment is not in dispute.
That compensation for a flight would include the mere privilege of making
that particular flight, is.

> The specifics of the case are immaterial
> to the concept that, according to the ruling, one of the tests to be
> used in deciding if there is a violation of 61.113 or not includes
> looking to see if there is evidence of (in the absence of direct
> monetary compensation) any intangible benefits to be found, and if
> they are present a violation has occurred. If I'm wrong in
> interpreting the ruling to establish/use one prong of a multi-prong
> test to see whether a violation has occurred, great, I'd like to
> understand the dissenting opinion's logic.

If I misinterpreted your reason for quoting that ruling, I apologise. You
quoted it in a paragraph where you started with the assertion

> It seems to me that the underlying implication of the rule is that in
> the eyes of the FAA the pilot is supposed to be paying for the flight
> expenses in all cases.

and I thought you were using that in support. The "goodwill" referred to by
the NTSB in that ruling is the expectation that the pilot would get paid, or
equivalent, at some future date for doing this "favor". In essence, neither
the law judge nor the Board believed that this was just a favor, and the
"goodwill" precedent seemed to be cited to contrast with the lack of
evidence that money changed hands. It did nothing to broaden the
interpretation of compensation to support your assertion above.

Julian

[Julian Scarfe]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> I agree with your views with respect to 61.113, but I don't think that
> particular case is the best example of how the pilot himself receives what
> the FAA considers "compensation" even if he isn't paid in cash. There's
too
> many other distracting factors (after all, Julian apparently failed to
> notice that, in addition to the other "commercial operation" issues, the
> NTSB found that the pilot *did* receive compensation himself; I think
that's
> because the other issues distracted him from that one).

They didn't find that he received compensation in the form of anything as
intangible as you would like it to be. They found that it "strained
credulity" that he didn't expect to get paid. In other words, they simply
didn't believe that there was no compensation, even though they couldn't
find the check stubs.

Julian

[Peter Duniho]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> They didn't find that he received compensation in the form of anything as
> intangible as you would like it to be. They found that it "strained
> credulity" that he didn't expect to get paid. In other words, they simply
> didn't believe that there was no compensation, even though they couldn't
> find the check stubs.

That wasn't my interpretation of that statement. After all, it "strains
credulity" to think that your comments were not acts of trolling, even
though ultimately I have to believe that they were not. Further, why
comment on the "compensation" in the form of "good will", if they really
believed there was actual payment?

Regardless, the actual interpretation is irrelevant to this discussion.
Please interpret the NTSB's statement however you like.

Pete

[Ash Wyllie]

Peter Duniho opined

>"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
>> [...] If the owner says "make this
>> flight for me and I'll lend you the aircraft for a few hours for free next
>> week" then that could be construed as compensation. If he just says
>> "please
>> make this flight for me", I don't think it can.

>This has been covered so often in this newsgroup, it's hard to give you the
>benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just trolling, but...

>The flight itself is what the FAA would consider compensation. Even just
>the one. In this particular scenario, the Private Pilot would be required
>to pay his own way while operating the airplane. Otherwise, he is being
>compensated (by the free use of the airplane).

As a quick and dirty rule, if you are better off after a flight than before,
then the FAA will connsider it illegal.



-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[Paul Sengupta]

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> All that matters is whether someone is paying
> someone else for a person to occupy a seat or for freight to occupy a
seat.
:
> The second prohibition is quite separate. It says that the private pilot
> cannot receive compensation for acting as pilot.
:
> The issue is *not* that flying for free is compensation, but
> rather that someone is paying someone else for carriage, even if neither
of
> those parties is the pilot.
:
> That some pilots get paid for ferry flights doesn't make it illegal for a
> private pilot to fill the role for free.

So. Someone else could pay all the costs of a flight as long as you
were solo. If they wanted to come along, it would then be against
the rules.

Glad I don't make or enforce the rules...

Is the load you're prohibed to carry restricted to passengers, freight,
gliders, parachutists, etc, or can it relate to the plane itself?

Paul