Legality of a flight

[John]

Consider this scenario; Using FAA (USA) regulations.

A passenger wins a raffle prize or makes a donation to a charity, school
fund-raiser etc to win something. The winning item is an airplane
ride. The airplane ride is flown by a private pilot, who pays the
expense for the plane (rental, fuel, or time in her own plane). The
plane only lands at the same airport as it departs. In other words, the
passenger paid money, with the expectation of an airplane ride, although
the money isn't spent on the plane or pilot. Is this legal?

Change the scenario to the pilot has a commercial rating. Does this
change the answer to the question?

Finally, if the airplane ride is to a destination at another airport and
then returning (after a few hours, overnight, weekend etc.) How does
this change the answers?

[Peter Duniho]

"John" > wrote in message ...
> A passenger wins a raffle prize or makes a donation to a charity, school
> fund-raiser etc to win something. The winning item is an airplane
> ride. [...] In other words, the
> passenger paid money, with the expectation of an airplane ride, although
> the money isn't spent on the plane or pilot. Is this legal?

Yes.

> Change the scenario to the pilot has a commercial rating. Does this
> change the answer to the question?

No.

> Finally, if the airplane ride is to a destination at another airport and
> then returning (after a few hours, overnight, weekend etc.) How does
> this change the answers?

As far as I know, it doesn't. The key to the flight is the charitable
donation aspect, and I don't recall seeing any exclusion with respect to the
exact nature of the flight.

I have heard differing opinions from people with respect to whether their
local FSDO requires a drug test for such donations, but that's the only
complication I'm aware of.

Pete

[tony roberts]

Can't speak for the USA, but in Canada it would be legal.



--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE




In article >, John > wrote:

> Consider this scenario; Using FAA (USA) regulations.
>
> A passenger wins a raffle prize or makes a donation to a charity, school
> fund-raiser etc to win something. The winning item is an airplane
> ride. The airplane ride is flown by a private pilot, who pays the
> expense for the plane (rental, fuel, or time in her own plane). The
> plane only lands at the same airport as it departs. In other words, the
> passenger paid money, with the expectation of an airplane ride, although
> the money isn't spent on the plane or pilot. Is this legal?
>
> Change the scenario to the pilot has a commercial rating. Does this
> change the answer to the question?
>
> Finally, if the airplane ride is to a destination at another airport and
> then returning (after a few hours, overnight, weekend etc.) How does
> this change the answers?

[Mike Schumann]

The way I read the FARs, the private pilot needs to have 200 hours unless he
has a commercial rating. In addition, you need to go thru the AOPA waver to
avoid having to take the drug test. Finally, you have to land at the
originating airport and can't fly more than 25 miles from the originating
airport unless the aircraft is being operated by a 121 or 135 carrier.

Personally, I haven't done this yet, so it would be worth doing your own
detailed investigation of the FARs.

Mike Schumann

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "John" > wrote in message
> ...
>> A passenger wins a raffle prize or makes a donation to a charity, school
>> fund-raiser etc to win something. The winning item is an airplane
>> ride. [...] In other words, the
>> passenger paid money, with the expectation of an airplane ride, although
>> the money isn't spent on the plane or pilot. Is this legal?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Change the scenario to the pilot has a commercial rating. Does this
>> change the answer to the question?
>
> No.
>
>> Finally, if the airplane ride is to a destination at another airport and
>> then returning (after a few hours, overnight, weekend etc.) How does
>> this change the answers?
>
> As far as I know, it doesn't. The key to the flight is the charitable
> donation aspect, and I don't recall seeing any exclusion with respect to
> the exact nature of the flight.
>
> I have heard differing opinions from people with respect to whether their
> local FSDO requires a drug test for such donations, but that's the only
> complication I'm aware of.
>
> Pete
>

[Robert M. Gary]

You need to file the proper charity flight notification with the FAA
and meet the FAR requirements for charity flight (200 hrs, etc). Also,
you will need to use the AOPA drug test exemption. I've done this and
it worked out well. Being commercial means you don't need to notify the
FDSO ahead of time.

-Robert

[Brien K. Meehan]

John wrote:
> Consider this scenario; Using FAA (USA) regulations.
>
> A passenger wins a raffle prize or makes a donation to a charity, school
> fund-raiser etc to win something. The winning item is an airplane
> ride. The airplane ride is flown by a private pilot, who pays the
> expense for the plane (rental, fuel, or time in her own plane). The
> plane only lands at the same airport as it departs. In other words, the
> passenger paid money, with the expectation of an airplane ride, although
> the money isn't spent on the plane or pilot. Is this legal?

No, unless the flight complies with FAR 61.113(d).

> Change the scenario to the pilot has a commercial rating. Does this
> change the answer to the question?

It's not legal unless it complies with either 61.113(d) or the
following list: 135.249, 135.251, 135.253, 135.255, and 135.353 (per
135(1)(a)(5)).

> Finally, if the airplane ride is to a destination at another airport and
> then returning (after a few hours, overnight, weekend etc.) How does
> this change the answers?

It's not legal unless it complies with either 61.113(d) or the entirety
of Part 119 and any applicable parts of parts 121, 125, or 135.

[Sylvain]

John wrote:

> Consider this scenario; Using FAA (USA) regulations.

as far as I understand it, yes it is legal, however:

The pilots must be at least a private pilot (not recreational or sport);
61.101(e)(13) and 61.315(c)(10)

Other than that relevant regs is 61.113(d) providing that -- I
summarize some key points, but refer to the regs -- the sponsor,
i.e., charitable organization, notifies the local FSDO at least
7 days ahead of time and in doing so provides some documentation
which includes the credentials of the pilots involved; if
the pilots are private pilots, they must have at least 200 hours
of *flight time* (I don't see anywhere that it has to be PIC nor
that said flight time has to be all in same category/class). The
flights have to be day VFR, no acro, no formation flights...

Now a commercial pilots would necessarily meet these requirements.
As for the other questions however, i.e., flight to another
destination, overnight stay, etc. I don't see it described as
an exception of part 119.1(e)... but, folks who fly Angel
Flights do that routinely, so how does it work? what are the
chapter and verses that apply? or do they operate under specific
Letter of Agreement (or whatever other waiver?)

Note that since you will have to talk to the FSDO anyway, you
might as well as them the question, in addition of course to
asking these nice folks from AOPA,

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Brien K. Meehan wrote:

> 135(1)(a)(5)).

yep, but these concern flight for compensation or for hire; does it
apply to such operations? note that I am not saying you are wrong,
just wondering.

--Sylvain

[Robert M. Gary]

> but, folks who fly Angel Flights do that routinely, so how does it work?

Angel Flight is specially recognized by the FAA. It operates almost as
an exempt 135 operation. The FAA has tried to kill it a couple of times
but politics won't let it happen. After 9/11 when only part 135 could
go VFR, Angel Flight was flying VFR too. A couple high profile
accidents and it would probably gone quickly though.

-Robert

[jmk]

All true, but there is no specific "Angel Flight" exemption. Our
flights are purely part91 flights with no "compensation" going to
either the pilot or the organization in return for the flight (neither
the patient nor the hospital is ever billed a dime). The FAA has said
that they would not count any "charitable tax deduction" claimed by the
pilot as "compensation" - but that is a "commercial" issue and not
relevant to the legality of the flight itself.

There is work still going on to allow groups or individuals to
"sponsor" a flight. This would, for example, cover a bunch of company
employees that want to put something towards a co-worker getting to
treatment. They can do that now, but it's not specific to that
individual flight. That (and even letting them help pay for the gas
for a flight) are being worked, but not definitized yet. [Sort of a
"share the costs" which is already allowed, but the others sharing are
not the passenger.]

The original question here has come up before, and not with a perfect
answer (i.e. you get as many answers as FSDO's you call and ask).
Clearly a charity fund-raising flight day has specific rules (advanced
notification, testing, etc.). This is the "Come to the airport on
Saturday... airplane rides for sale all day... all money going to XXX
charity." type of thing.

But this case (original poster) is more the "I'll let you auction off a
ride in my airplane as part of your fund raising activities, and I'll
give whoever wins a ride sometime later." Frankly, usually it's just
"done" and no one really cares if so and so gets an hour of sight
seeing from the air. I do suspect that it would be looked at much
differently if you were to offer "a trip from LA to SF to the highest
bidder." There you are clearly providing air transport rather than
just a sight seeing trip.

[Robert M. Gary]

> All true, but there is no specific "Angel Flight" exemption.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that there was a special exemption. Angel
Flight is specially recognized by the FAA. If you tried to start the
same organization today the FAA would require a 135 certificate since
it fails the "common cause" test for 135 operation. The FAA has
threatened to shut down Angel Flight in the past but they do a good job
of showing successful missions on "Good Morning America" and the like.
The FAA chooses to ignore Angel Flight.

> Our flights are purely part91 flights with no "compensation" going to
> either the pilot or the organization in return for the flight (neither
> the patient nor the hospital is ever billed a dime).

True, it passes the compensation test but if failes the "common cause"
test. Anytime you publicly offer to transport someone from one place to
another that you would not have otherwise gone it, its generally
considered part 135. AOPA has a good publication on the several tests
the FAA uses to determine part 135.

-Robert

[Marty Shapiro]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
ups.com:

>> All true, but there is no specific "Angel Flight" exemption.
>
> Sorry, didn't mean to imply that there was a special exemption. Angel
> Flight is specially recognized by the FAA. If you tried to start the
> same organization today the FAA would require a 135 certificate since
> it fails the "common cause" test for 135 operation. The FAA has
> threatened to shut down Angel Flight in the past but they do a good job
> of showing successful missions on "Good Morning America" and the like.
> The FAA chooses to ignore Angel Flight.
>
>> Our flights are purely part91 flights with no "compensation" going to
>> either the pilot or the organization in return for the flight (neither
>> the patient nor the hospital is ever billed a dime).
>
> True, it passes the compensation test but if failes the "common cause"
> test. Anytime you publicly offer to transport someone from one place to
> another that you would not have otherwise gone it, its generally
> considered part 135. AOPA has a good publication on the several tests
> the FAA uses to determine part 135.
>
> -Robert
>
>

The FAA does not "ignore" Angel Flight. There is a specific order in the
Air Transportation Inspector's handbook (FAA Order 8400.10) addressing the
status of Angel Flight and similar organizations regarding this issue.

The Air Care Alliance web site has a copy of FAA Order 8400.10, Vol. 4,
Chap. 5, Section 1, Para 1345 (http://www.aircarall.org/tax.htm) which
specifically tells inspectors that they should NOT treat the tax
decuctiblity of Angel Flight or similar groups (referred to as "life
flights") as "compensation for hire" for the purposes of enforcement of FAR
61.118 or FAR part 135.

The following have been copied from the above referenced web site.

The April 23, 1993 letter from the FAA Acting Chief COunsel to the Air Care
Alliance and Angel Flight of Texas:

Apr 23, 1993

"As a matter of policy, taking into consideration the fact that Congress
has specifically provided for the tax deductibility of some costs of
charitable acts, we will not treat charitable deduction of such costs,
standing alone, as constituting "compensation or hire" for the purpose of
enforcing [Paragraph] 61.118 or Part 135. If taking a charitable tax
deduction for transporting persons or property is coupled with any
reimbursement of expenses, or other compensation of any kind, then this
policy does not apply."

[Signed] John H. Cassady FAA Acting Chief Counsel


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.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[gatt]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
news:9jPeg.9452

> The way I read the FARs, the private pilot needs to have 200 hours unless
> he has a commercial rating. In addition, you need to go thru the AOPA
> waver to avoid having to take the drug test.

Can somebody elaborate on this? I'm looking at the form right now, and it
says:

"Under FAA Exemption No. 7112D, the event sponsor must provide the AOPA
member-pilot with a statement indicating that neither the event sponsor nor
any participating pilot operating under this exemption has operated more
than four similar events during the calendar year."

So, if I read this correctly, IF YOU'RE AN AOPA member, you can fill out the
form and be exempted so long as the charity organization doesn't conduct
these sorts of flights more than four times a year. I presume that the
AOPA has some arrangement with the FAA that it extends to its members, and
that the four-event maximum is to prevent bogus "charity" airlines.

Am I correct and, if so, WTH does drug testing have to do with any of it?

-c

[Robert M. Gary]

> The FAA does not "ignore" Angel Flight.

You posted some stuff regarding tax deduction and the FAAs decision
that that is not "compensation". However, the FAA chooses to ignore the
fact that Angel Flight would normally be considered part 135 because
there is no common purpose of flight. When I was serving as the area
Angel Flight check pilot instructor it was made clear to us that we
were on non-solid ground and unsafe flight could easily get the entire
organization shut down.

-Robert

[Marty Shapiro]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
ups.com:

>> The FAA does not "ignore" Angel Flight.
>
> You posted some stuff regarding tax deduction and the FAAs decision
> that that is not "compensation". However, the FAA chooses to ignore the
> fact that Angel Flight would normally be considered part 135 because
> there is no common purpose of flight. When I was serving as the area
> Angel Flight check pilot instructor it was made clear to us that we
> were on non-solid ground and unsafe flight could easily get the entire
> organization shut down.
>
> -Robert
>

The FAA Order not only exempted Angel Flight pilots from FAR 61.118 (now
61.113), but also from FAR 135. This was not an issue when I received my
Angel Flight checkout and orientation.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)