NW_Pilot
November 3rd 06, 05:37 AM
Sorry for the delay on this comcast has horrable retention,
For the private pilot that was wishing to ferry airplanes logged time is
considered compensation unless you pay for all expenses.
http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/traps.html#fivetraps
Fourth Trap:
A trap for the unwary lies when the pilot wants the passengers to pay more
than the fuel & oil for that flight, the aircraft rental and the airport
expenses (landing fees, tie down for the trip, etc.). Let's say the pilot
wants the passengers to split a portion of the annual maintenance, some of
his insurance costs, a portion of his annual hangar rent, or any other fixed
cost of aircraft ownership. The rule does not allow the sharing of fixed
ownership or long term operating costs, just "the operating expenses of a
flight." If maintenance is needed to complete the flight, it may be an
operating expense of the flight. While any maintenance expense included in
the passengers' tab can challenged by the FAA, if not directly related to
the flight.
Be aware that the term "compensation" is interpreted very broadly by the
FAA. I sometimes think that the FAA is trying to outdo the IRS, an agency
that who wants to tax income in "any form." The FAA does not care if the
pilot actually makes a profit or has a profit motive. If the pilot gains any
economic advantage from the flight beyond the permissible sharing, he is
getting more than his pro rata share.
An exchange of services could constitute compensation. Judge Patrick
Geraghty of the NTSB, who currently hears enforcement cases in the western
United States, has explained that compensation can exist "without an
exchange of greenbacks or dollar bills or anything else if there is a quid
pro quo" which benefits the operator.
Understanding the FAA's interpretation of compensation, leads to the
question of whether a pilot can simply volunteer his airplane and his
piloting services to transport passengers to where they want to go, as long
as the pilot pays no less than his pro rata share of the flight expenses?
Let's say that out of love of flying, and/or a desire to build hours of
experience, the pilot may be willing to pay his share of the passengers'
trip. He/she may reason that this is a lot better than paying the whole
amount for that amount of flight time. What if the pilot does collect money
from the passengers but only their pro rata share. FAA legal interpretations
have been issued declaring that this arrangement may involve impermissible
"compensation or hire." The problem is that a violation can occur if the
pilot is getting an economic advantage beyond the sharing, because he is not
involved in a trip for a "common purpose."
Canadian regulations require the following for transoceanic flight:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/PART6/602.htm#602_38
Transoceanic Flight
602.39 No pilot-in-command of a single-engined aircraft, or of a
multi-engined aircraft that would be unable to maintain flight in the event
of the failure of any engine, shall commence a flight that will leave
Canadian Domestic Airspace and enter airspace over the high seas unless
(a) the pilot-in-command holds a pilot licence endorsed with an instrument
rating;
(b) the aircraft is equipped with
(i) the equipment referred to in section 605.18,
(ii) a high frequency radio capable of transmitting and receiving on a
minimum of two appropriate international air-ground general purpose
frequencies, and
(iii) hypothermia protection for each person on board; and
(c) the aircraft carries sufficient fuel to meet the requirements of section
602.88 and, in addition, carries contingency fuel equal to at least 10 per
cent of the fuel required pursuant to section 602.88 to complete the flight
to the aerodrome of destination.
For the private pilot that was wishing to ferry airplanes logged time is
considered compensation unless you pay for all expenses.
http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/traps.html#fivetraps
Fourth Trap:
A trap for the unwary lies when the pilot wants the passengers to pay more
than the fuel & oil for that flight, the aircraft rental and the airport
expenses (landing fees, tie down for the trip, etc.). Let's say the pilot
wants the passengers to split a portion of the annual maintenance, some of
his insurance costs, a portion of his annual hangar rent, or any other fixed
cost of aircraft ownership. The rule does not allow the sharing of fixed
ownership or long term operating costs, just "the operating expenses of a
flight." If maintenance is needed to complete the flight, it may be an
operating expense of the flight. While any maintenance expense included in
the passengers' tab can challenged by the FAA, if not directly related to
the flight.
Be aware that the term "compensation" is interpreted very broadly by the
FAA. I sometimes think that the FAA is trying to outdo the IRS, an agency
that who wants to tax income in "any form." The FAA does not care if the
pilot actually makes a profit or has a profit motive. If the pilot gains any
economic advantage from the flight beyond the permissible sharing, he is
getting more than his pro rata share.
An exchange of services could constitute compensation. Judge Patrick
Geraghty of the NTSB, who currently hears enforcement cases in the western
United States, has explained that compensation can exist "without an
exchange of greenbacks or dollar bills or anything else if there is a quid
pro quo" which benefits the operator.
Understanding the FAA's interpretation of compensation, leads to the
question of whether a pilot can simply volunteer his airplane and his
piloting services to transport passengers to where they want to go, as long
as the pilot pays no less than his pro rata share of the flight expenses?
Let's say that out of love of flying, and/or a desire to build hours of
experience, the pilot may be willing to pay his share of the passengers'
trip. He/she may reason that this is a lot better than paying the whole
amount for that amount of flight time. What if the pilot does collect money
from the passengers but only their pro rata share. FAA legal interpretations
have been issued declaring that this arrangement may involve impermissible
"compensation or hire." The problem is that a violation can occur if the
pilot is getting an economic advantage beyond the sharing, because he is not
involved in a trip for a "common purpose."
Canadian regulations require the following for transoceanic flight:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/PART6/602.htm#602_38
Transoceanic Flight
602.39 No pilot-in-command of a single-engined aircraft, or of a
multi-engined aircraft that would be unable to maintain flight in the event
of the failure of any engine, shall commence a flight that will leave
Canadian Domestic Airspace and enter airspace over the high seas unless
(a) the pilot-in-command holds a pilot licence endorsed with an instrument
rating;
(b) the aircraft is equipped with
(i) the equipment referred to in section 605.18,
(ii) a high frequency radio capable of transmitting and receiving on a
minimum of two appropriate international air-ground general purpose
frequencies, and
(iii) hypothermia protection for each person on board; and
(c) the aircraft carries sufficient fuel to meet the requirements of section
602.88 and, in addition, carries contingency fuel equal to at least 10 per
cent of the fuel required pursuant to section 602.88 to complete the flight
to the aerodrome of destination.