Angel Flight and Part 91

[Dave Butler]

This is a 2-parter:

(1) I know there is a waiver or Chief Counsel's opinion or something that allows
pilots without a commercial pilot rating, flying under Part 91, to carry Angel
Flight passengers in a way that would otherwise be prohibited. I know I've seen
such a document on the web somewhere, but I can't seem to find it. Can anyone
come up with a pointer?

(2) If memory serves, the above document restricts the waiver to something like
"carrying passengers for the purpose of receiving medical treatment". I am
seeing lots of requests for pilots to volunteer to transport kids to a summer
camp where they can have fun with kids with similar disabilities. Is it legal
for me to fly these missions? Would you accept such a mission?

Dave

[Steve Foley]

If you are receiving no compensation for the flight, I see no way the FAA
can object.

HOWEVER:

If you are reimbursed for your expenses, you are being compensated in the
form of loggable hours.

If you deduct your costs from your taxable income, you are being compensated
in the form of lower taxes.

I believe the Chief Counsel's opinion is in regard to tax deductions.

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1120759809.241568@sj-nntpcache-5...
> This is a 2-parter:
>
> (1) I know there is a waiver or Chief Counsel's opinion or something that
allows
> pilots without a commercial pilot rating, flying under Part 91, to carry
Angel
> Flight passengers in a way that would otherwise be prohibited. I know I've
seen
> such a document on the web somewhere, but I can't seem to find it. Can
anyone
> come up with a pointer?
>
> (2) If memory serves, the above document restricts the waiver to something
like
> "carrying passengers for the purpose of receiving medical treatment". I am
> seeing lots of requests for pilots to volunteer to transport kids to a
summer
> camp where they can have fun with kids with similar disabilities. Is it
legal
> for me to fly these missions? Would you accept such a mission?
>
> Dave

[Dan Luke]

"Steve Foley" wrote:

> If you deduct your costs from your taxable income, you are being
compensated
> in the form of lower taxes.
>
> I believe the Chief Counsel's opinion is in regard to tax deductions.

All AF pilots I know do this.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Gary Drescher]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:Soeze.7365$vu5.6740@trndny08...
> If you are receiving no compensation for the flight, I see no way the FAA
> can object.
>
> HOWEVER:
>
> If you are reimbursed for your expenses, you are being compensated in the
> form of loggable hours.
>
> If you deduct your costs from your taxable income, you are being
> compensated
> in the form of lower taxes.
>
> I believe the Chief Counsel's opinion is in regard to tax deductions.

An FAA Order to that effect can be found on some web sites (though not on
the FAA's own site, as far as I can tell). See
http://www.lifelinepilots.org/pilotinfo.htm:

FAA Order 8400.10, Vol 4, Chap. 5, Sect. 1, Para 1345 12/20/94
1345. FAA Policy Regarding "Compensation or Hire" Considerations
FOR CHARITABLE FLIGHTS OR LIFE FLIGHTS: Various organizations and pilots are
conducting flights that are characterized as "volunteer," "charity," or
"humanitarian." These flights are referred to by numerous generic names,
including "lifeline flights," "life flights," "mercy flights," and "angel
flights." These types of flights will be referred to as "life flights" in
this section.
A. Purposes for Life Flights. The types of organizations and pilots involved
with or conducting life flights vary greatly. The most common purpose of
life flights is to transport ill or injured persons who cannot financially
afford commercial transport to appropriate medical treatment facilities, or
to transport blood or human organs. Other "compassionate flights" include
transporting a child to visit with a dying relative, or transporting a dying
patient to return to the city of the patient's birth.
B. FAA Policy. The FAA's policy supports "truly humanitarian efforts" to
provide life flights to needy persons (including "compassionate flights").
This also includes flights involving the transfer of blood and human organs.
Since Congress has specifically provided for the tax deductibility of some
costs of charitable acts, the FAA will not treat charitable deductions of
such costs, standing alone, as constituting "compensation or hire" for the
purpose of enforcement of FAR 61.118 or FAR Part 135. Inspectors should not
treat the tax deductibility of costs as constituting "compensation or hire"
when the flights are conducted for humanitarian purposes.

[Michael]

> If memory serves, the above document restricts the waiver to
> something like "carrying passengers for the purpose of receiving
> medical treatment".

Well, it also includes compassion flights, such as carrying a child to
visit a dying relative.

> I am
> seeing lots of requests for pilots to volunteer to transport kids to a summer
> camp where they can have fun with kids with similar disabilities. Is it legal
> for me to fly these missions? Would you accept such a mission?

Is it legal? Of course. Would I accept? Sure. But you need to
understand that there is a history behind FAA Order 8400.10, Vol 4,
Chap. 5, Sect. 1, Para 1345 12/20/94 (which is what you are looking
for) before you make your own decision.

The first thing you need to understand is that this order does not
create, rescind, or change any regulation, and is aimed at inspectors,
not pilots. It does not make Angel Flights legal - they were legal to
begin with, snce the pilot bears the entire cost and thus issues of
commonality of purpose and such do not arise. It merely makes clear
that taking a tax deduction on an eligible flight does not constitute
compensation. So why would such a thing have to be stated?

Basically, because an FAA inspector took a dislike to a pilot and
decided to get him. He chose to treat the tax deductions the pilot was
making (I believe he actually flew for AirLifeLine) as compensation,
which would have put the pilot in violation of 61.113 (formerly 61.118)
and possibly parts of 135 as well. Instead of rolling over, the pilot
(who was reasonably well connected) called his congressman and the
congressman called his buddy on the transportation committee who called
someone senior in the FAA, and since they all decided this was
outrageous, the order came down the pike and the inspector had to drop
it. To put a good face on all this, the order was then advertised as
showing the FAA supported such activities.

Just because the specific mission of taking sick kids to summer camps
is not covered by the order does not mean it puts you in violation of
61.113, because a tax deduction is not compensation. There is ample
precedent for this. For example, transporting people in your own car
as a volunteer effort for a charity doesn not require you to get a CDL,
even if you take the allowable tax deduction, when charging for the
same service would require a CDL. Doing the same in your boat does not
require you to get a master's ticket from the Coast Guard. It is a
well established precedent that for purposes of distinguishing personal
from commercial activities, taking a charitable tax deduction does not
constitute compensation.

Unfortunately, the FAA is a law unto itself, and an FAA inspector could
easily decide that what you are doing is not covered by the scope of
the order and issue a violation. If you are well connected, you can
make it go away. If you have the money and time to fight it, you will
probably win (the facts are not in dispute, and the ALJ is highly
unlikely to support such a twisted interpretation of compensation,
especially in view of the order). The only question is - do you want
to take the chance?

Michael

[Gary Drescher]

"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Basically, because an FAA inspector took a dislike to a pilot and
> decided to get him. He chose to treat the tax deductions the pilot was
> making (I believe he actually flew for AirLifeLine) as compensation,
> which would have put the pilot in violation of 61.113 (formerly 61.118)
> and possibly parts of 135 as well.

Do you have any documentation of that story? I'm curious how an FAA
inspector would have been able to establish that the pilot had taken a tax
deduction.

LifeLine Pilots tells a different story about the origins of FAA Order
8400.10, Vol 4,
Chap. 5, Sect. 1, Para 1345 12/20/94. According to them, the order came
about in response to an erroneous Internet rumor to the effect that the FAA
considers tax deductions to be compensation. But they don't cite any source
for their story, so I have no idea if it's accurate.
(http://www.lifelinepilots.org/pilotinfo.htm)

--Gary

[Michael]

> Do you have any documentation of that story?

Heard around the campfire from a usually reliable source. The pilot
was supposedly local (meaning Texas-based). Nothing documented. AFAIK
there wouldn't have been documentation anyway. I doubt an LOI was ever
issued.

> I'm curious how an FAA
> inspector would have been able to establish that the pilot had taken a tax
> deduction.

AFAIK it was simply an assumption - and virtually guaranteed to be
correct, since virtually every pilot does take the deduction.

> According to them, the order came
> about in response to an erroneous Internet rumor to the effect that the FAA
> considers tax deductions to be compensation.

I recall that the story did come out on the internet, minus names (is
there such a thing as non-rumor on the internet?) so my only objection
is their characterization of the rumor as erroneous. Maybe it was, but
I have reason to believe it wasn't.

My guess is that the original situation was communicated to people as
it happened, and wound up on the internet, taking on a life od its own,
even after the issue was settled. I looked at the link you provided,
and it gave a pilot's name supposedly associated with the inquiry -
Texas-based, but part of Angel Flight, not AirLifeLine.

Michael

[Gary Drescher]

"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Do you have any documentation of that story?
>
> Heard around the campfire from a usually reliable source. ...
>
>> I'm curious how an FAA
>> inspector would have been able to establish that the pilot had taken a
>> tax
>> deduction.
>
> AFAIK it was simply an assumption - and virtually guaranteed to be
> correct, since virtually every pilot does take the deduction.

Hm, so according to the campfire tale, the inspector tried to press a case
that he could only argue for by saying that he *assumed* the pilot had
committed the alleged violation, since virtually every charity-flight pilot
does so? I guess I'm not inclined to worry about the prospect of having to
defend against a case like that. :)

> I recall that the story did come out on the internet, minus names (is
> there such a thing as non-rumor on the internet?)

Sure--tons of scholarly material, serious journalism, repositories of
official documents...

> I looked at the link you provided,
> and it gave a pilot's name supposedly associated with the inquiry -
> Texas-based, but part of Angel Flight, not AirLifeLine.

True, the LifeLine site mentions a Texas Angel Flight pilot who made an
inquiry to the FAA--but it doesn't mention any inquiry by the FAA into any
alleged regulatory violation by the pilot.

Not saying it couldn't have happened though--just wondering about the
details.

--Gary

[John Godwin]

Dave Butler > wrote in news:1120759809.241568@sj-nntpcache-5:

> (1) I know there is a waiver or Chief Counsel's opinion or
> something that allows pilots without a commercial pilot rating,
> flying under Part 91, to carry Angel Flight passengers in a way
> that would otherwise be prohibited. I know I've seen such a
> document on the web somewhere, but I can't seem to find it. Can
> anyone come up with a pointer?

There is no such waiver because these are charity flights and you are
not compensated. You do Angel Flights under Part 91 and the only
certificate, and experience requirements are those of Angel Flight
(naturally, you must also meet applicable FAA currency requirements)

> (2) If memory serves, the above document restricts the waiver to
> something like "carrying passengers for the purpose of receiving
> medical treatment".

Not true.

> I am seeing lots of requests for pilots to
> volunteer to transport kids to a summer camp where they can have
> fun with kids with similar disabilities. Is it legal for me to fly
> these missions? Would you accept such a mission?

Yes and absolutely yes in a heartbeat. I took two kids on an Angel
Flight to a camp for burn victims. Bill Cosby was there greeting the
kids as they arrived which was a real kick and something to remember
for them.

Please contact your friendly Angel Flight Office for your area of the
country and volunteer. I have the links on my web page:

http://www.aviline.com/misc.html

--