Ferry flight a commercial op?

[Paul Tomblin]

Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were flying
it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the buyer. A CFI in
the club said I can't, because it's a commercial operation, even though
I'm not getting paid. Is he right?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
The WWW is exciting because Microsoft doesn't own it, and therefore,
there's a tremendous amount of innovation happening.
-- Steve Jobs

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were flying
> it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the buyer. A CFI in
> the club said I can't, because it's a commercial operation, even though
> I'm not getting paid. Is he right?
>

Will you use the ferry time to qualify for another rating?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:

> Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were
> flying it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the
> buyer. A CFI in the club said I can't, because it's a commercial
> operation, even though I'm not getting paid. Is he right?
>

No. unless someone else is getting paid. If you were flying for a
commercial operator, for instance.

He's probably just jealous since he'll be going around in circles while
you;re doing it.


Bertie

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> because it's a commercial operation, >

Maybe he thinks

Sales = Commerce

?

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were flying
>> it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the buyer. A CFI in
>> the club said I can't, because it's a commercial operation, even though
>> I'm not getting paid. Is he right?
>>
>
>Will you use the ferry time to qualify for another rating?

No. I have no current plans to get a commercial or CFI rating.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Quality Control, n.:
The process of testing one out of every 1,000 units coming off
a production line to make sure that at least one out of 100 works.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> No. I have no current plans to get a commercial or CFI rating.
>

Then it's not a commercial operation.

[Gatt]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were flying
> it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the buyer. A CFI in
> the club said I can't, because it's a commercial operation, even though
> I'm not getting paid. Is he right?

It seems to me that he's only right to the extent that if the transaction
was reversed, ie, you were buying the plane rather than selling it, it would
be a commercial transaction.

That suggests that you also can't buy an airplane and fly it away because
it's a "commercial operation." Personally, I think you'd have to screw up
in a lot of ways before the FAA started looking with that much scrutiny.
Why should a private club have to hire a commercial pilot to sell an
airplane? Do people actually do that?

Has anybody here -ever- seen any legal trouble over something like this?

-c
commercial and still confused.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Gatt" > wrote in
:

>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were
>> flying it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the
>> buyer. A CFI in the club said I can't, because it's a commercial
>> operation, even though I'm not getting paid. Is he right?
>
> It seems to me that he's only right to the extent that if the
> transaction was reversed, ie, you were buying the plane rather than
> selling it, it would be a commercial transaction.
>
> That suggests that you also can't buy an airplane and fly it away
> because it's a "commercial operation." Personally, I think you'd
> have to screw up in a lot of ways before the FAA started looking with
> that much scrutiny. Why should a private club have to hire a
> commercial pilot to sell an airplane? Do people actually do that?


Only for convienience.

>
> Has anybody here -ever- seen any legal trouble over something like
> this?
>

Doubt it. I used to ferry commercially, but I was paid. The CFI that said
that is talking out of his ass.


Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> It seems to me that he's only right to the extent that if the transaction
> was reversed, ie, you were buying the plane rather than selling it, it
> would be a commercial transaction.
>
> That suggests that you also can't buy an airplane and fly it away because
> it's a "commercial operation." Personally, I think you'd have to screw
> up in a lot of ways before the FAA started looking with that much
> scrutiny. Why should a private club have to hire a commercial pilot to
> sell an airplane? Do people actually do that?
>
> Has anybody here -ever- seen any legal trouble over something like this?
>

Something like ten years ago, maybe more, there was a case that involved a
skydiving club. One of the members was also a private pilot and volunteered
to fly the jump plane. He thought it a great way to build free time towards
his commercial. Since he was using the time towards another rating it was
deemed to be compensation since he'd otherwise have to pay for it and the
flights were a commercial operation.

[Helen]

The FAA can interpret you logging the flight time as compensation and as
such the CFI is correct. I've actually had a long chat with AOPA on
this subject. I manage a light sport flight school and most of my staff
are age 60+ and don't carry medicals. They'd need a second class one to
ferry a plane if we paid them for their time. If they volunteer their
time though, it gets gray. AOPA is pretty certain though we're OK
letting them ferry planes as volunteers though just for the simple fact
that the FAA would have a hard time making a case that a 68 year old
40,000 hour pilot, really considered the .5 of hobbs time as
compensation he could use for his up and coming career.

Assuming you aren't age 68 with 40,000 hours, you should probably avoid
the ferry duty.

Helen


Paul Tomblin wrote:
> Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were flying
> it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the buyer. A CFI in
> the club said I can't, because it's a commercial operation, even though
> I'm not getting paid. Is he right?
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Helen > wrote in
news:5zs_i.5854$VB6.2737@trnddc06:

> The FAA can interpret you logging the flight time as compensation and
> as such the CFI is correct. I've actually had a long chat with AOPA
> on this subject. I manage a light sport flight school and most of my
> staff are age 60+ and don't carry medicals. They'd need a second
> class one to ferry a plane if we paid them for their time. If they
> volunteer their time though, it gets gray. AOPA is pretty certain
> though we're OK letting them ferry planes as volunteers though just
> for the simple fact that the FAA would have a hard time making a case
> that a 68 year old 40,000 hour pilot, really considered the .5 of
> hobbs time as compensation he could use for his up and coming career.
>
> Assuming you aren't age 68 with 40,000 hours, you should probably
> avoid the ferry duty.
>

I disagree. There's nothing in the FARs that says that flying time has a
value.
If you go pich up your friend's car somewhere for him it doesn't make you a
taxi driver.

Bertie

[Helen]

No, but it IS in their legal rulings.

Helen

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Helen > wrote in
> news:5zs_i.5854$VB6.2737@trnddc06:
>
>> The FAA can interpret you logging the flight time as compensation and
>> as such the CFI is correct. I've actually had a long chat with AOPA
>> on this subject. I manage a light sport flight school and most of my
>> staff are age 60+ and don't carry medicals. They'd need a second
>> class one to ferry a plane if we paid them for their time. If they
>> volunteer their time though, it gets gray. AOPA is pretty certain
>> though we're OK letting them ferry planes as volunteers though just
>> for the simple fact that the FAA would have a hard time making a case
>> that a 68 year old 40,000 hour pilot, really considered the .5 of
>> hobbs time as compensation he could use for his up and coming career.
>>
>> Assuming you aren't age 68 with 40,000 hours, you should probably
>> avoid the ferry duty.
>>
>
> I disagree. There's nothing in the FARs that says that flying time has a
> value.
> If you go pich up your friend's car somewhere for him it doesn't make you a
> taxi driver.
>
> Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Helen > wrote in
news:KSs_i.5976$VB6.2248@trnddc06:

> No, but it IS in their legal rulings.
>


Still, can't se them making a case out of it unless they were trying to get
at someone for something else that was upsetting them.



I know one I can ask next time I see him, but he's the most anti FAA person
I ever met, even though he's an inspector for them.



Bertie

[Helen]

Here's a good write-up on the subject. Note in the case listed, it
wasn't even logged flight hours that the FAA cited as "compensation,"
but simply "good will."

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2004/pc0403.html

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Helen > wrote in
> news:5zs_i.5854$VB6.2737@trnddc06:
>
>> The FAA can interpret you logging the flight time as compensation and
>> as such the CFI is correct. I've actually had a long chat with AOPA
>> on this subject. I manage a light sport flight school and most of my
>> staff are age 60+ and don't carry medicals. They'd need a second
>> class one to ferry a plane if we paid them for their time. If they
>> volunteer their time though, it gets gray. AOPA is pretty certain
>> though we're OK letting them ferry planes as volunteers though just
>> for the simple fact that the FAA would have a hard time making a case
>> that a 68 year old 40,000 hour pilot, really considered the .5 of
>> hobbs time as compensation he could use for his up and coming career.
>>
>> Assuming you aren't age 68 with 40,000 hours, you should probably
>> avoid the ferry duty.
>>
>
> I disagree. There's nothing in the FARs that says that flying time has a
> value.
> If you go pich up your friend's car somewhere for him it doesn't make you a
> taxi driver.
>
> Bertie
>
>

[BT]

He fed you that line because he is not getting paid to ferry the aircraft.
Is the buyer paying for your time or travel expenses? No? Have fun, fly
safe.
B

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were flying
> it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the buyer. A CFI in
> the club said I can't, because it's a commercial operation, even though
> I'm not getting paid. Is he right?
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
> The WWW is exciting because Microsoft doesn't own it, and therefore,
> there's a tremendous amount of innovation happening.
> -- Steve Jobs

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:01:14 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in >:

>Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were flying
>it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the buyer. A CFI in
>the club said I can't, because it's a commercial operation, even though
>I'm not getting paid. Is he right?

Who's funding the flight (time, fuel, insurance,...)?

[Helen]

And additional...
http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/article.cfm?article=1467

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Helen > wrote in
> news:5zs_i.5854$VB6.2737@trnddc06:
>
>> The FAA can interpret you logging the flight time as compensation and
>> as such the CFI is correct. I've actually had a long chat with AOPA
>> on this subject. I manage a light sport flight school and most of my
>> staff are age 60+ and don't carry medicals. They'd need a second
>> class one to ferry a plane if we paid them for their time. If they
>> volunteer their time though, it gets gray. AOPA is pretty certain
>> though we're OK letting them ferry planes as volunteers though just
>> for the simple fact that the FAA would have a hard time making a case
>> that a 68 year old 40,000 hour pilot, really considered the .5 of
>> hobbs time as compensation he could use for his up and coming career.
>>
>> Assuming you aren't age 68 with 40,000 hours, you should probably
>> avoid the ferry duty.
>>
>
> I disagree. There's nothing in the FARs that says that flying time has a
> value.
> If you go pich up your friend's car somewhere for him it doesn't make you a
> taxi driver.
>
> Bertie
>
>

[NW_Pilot]

I have a legal opinion in PDF format on the subject some place around here
time is considered compensation unless you have a common purpose for the
trip visiting grandma/grab an ice cream cone then you would have to pay all
fuel etc for the trip to make it a non ferry flight.

NW_Pilot "A Ferry Pilot That Gets Paid"



"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Helen > wrote in
> news:5zs_i.5854$VB6.2737@trnddc06:
>
>> The FAA can interpret you logging the flight time as compensation and
>> as such the CFI is correct. I've actually had a long chat with AOPA
>> on this subject. I manage a light sport flight school and most of my
>> staff are age 60+ and don't carry medicals. They'd need a second
>> class one to ferry a plane if we paid them for their time. If they
>> volunteer their time though, it gets gray. AOPA is pretty certain
>> though we're OK letting them ferry planes as volunteers though just
>> for the simple fact that the FAA would have a hard time making a case
>> that a 68 year old 40,000 hour pilot, really considered the .5 of
>> hobbs time as compensation he could use for his up and coming career.
>>
>> Assuming you aren't age 68 with 40,000 hours, you should probably
>> avoid the ferry duty.
>>
>
> I disagree. There's nothing in the FARs that says that flying time has a
> value.
> If you go pich up your friend's car somewhere for him it doesn't make you
> a
> taxi driver.
>
> Bertie
>
>

[Helen]

Just call AOPA. All of our membership dollars pay those folks to sit
around reading the FAA legal interpretations. You'll be surprised at
some of the petty cases the FAA has taken on under this rule to
prosecute well meaning pilots.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Helen > wrote in
> news:KSs_i.5976$VB6.2248@trnddc06:
>
>> No, but it IS in their legal rulings.
>>
>
>
> Still, can't se them making a case out of it unless they were trying to get
> at someone for something else that was upsetting them.
>
>
>
> I know one I can ask next time I see him, but he's the most anti FAA person
> I ever met, even though he's an inspector for them.
>
>
>
> Bertie
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Helen" > wrote in message
news:8ft_i.6111$VB6.5184@trnddc06...
>
> Just call AOPA. All of our membership dollars pay those folks to sit
> around reading the FAA legal interpretations. You'll be surprised at some
> of the petty cases the FAA has taken on under this rule to prosecute well
> meaning pilots.
>

Legal interpretations are nothing, look for rulings.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Helen > wrote in
news:8ft_i.6111$VB6.5184@trnddc06:

> Just call AOPA. All of our membership dollars pay those folks to sit
> around reading the FAA legal interpretations. You'll be surprised at
> some of the petty cases the FAA has taken on under this rule to
> prosecute well meaning pilots.
>


Hmm, probably wouldn't be all that surprised. OK, you sold me, though it's
kind of irrelevant in my case..


OK, what about sending one of our club members up to collect an airplane
that's been at a radio shop?


Bertie

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
<...>
>
> OK, what about sending one of our club members up to collect an airplane
> that's been at a radio shop?
>
>
> Bertie

Who is paying for the gas?

--
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate

[F. Baum]

On Nov 13, 6:54 pm, Helen > wrote:

I would like to provide some clarification to your post.
> The FAA can interpret you logging the flight time as compensation and as
> such the CFI is correct.

The question here is Would they. You are dealing with many different
FISDO's and they will all have a different interpritaion on this. I
doubt this would hold up in court. There are also many many ways to
get around this. With this being on Usnet I am sue we will read
several of the ways ;)


> I've actually had a long chat with AOPA on
> this subject.

Dont believe what you hear from AOPA! I have known people who have
recieved so much bad advise over the years it makes me sad. Judging
from the responses I have heard from AOPA, you have alot of marginally
qualified people over there who are just regurging reference material
they dont understand.



>I manage a light sport flight school and most of my staff
> are age 60+ and don't carry medicals. They'd need a second class one to
> ferry a plane if we paid them for their time. If they volunteer their
> time though, it gets gray. AOPA is pretty certain though we're OK
> letting them ferry planes as volunteers though just for the simple fact
> that the FAA would have a hard time making a case that a 68 year old
> 40,000 hour pilot, really considered the .5 of hobbs time as
> compensation he could use for his up and coming career.
>

My hat is off to you for running a flight school ! We could certainly
use more people like you but you should not try to be a lawyer. I
think Paul would be blowin it if he didnt take this flight.
KFB

[buttman]

On Nov 13, 5:53 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> Something like ten years ago, maybe more, there was a case that involved a
> skydiving club. One of the members was also a private pilot and volunteered
> to fly the jump plane. He thought it a great way to build free time towards
> his commercial. Since he was using the time towards another rating it was
> deemed to be compensation since he'd otherwise have to pay for it and the
> flights were a commercial operation.


http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf

this case?

If so, in that case, the pilot was in the wrong because he was flying
passengers who had paid to be there. Therefore, even though he wasn't
getting paid, a company (or in this case a skydiving club) was being
compensated for his piloting services. The fact that he was trying to
build time is irrelevant.

In the case of an already-sold plane being delivered to the buyer, the
way I see it, No one is being compensated (the pilot nor the seller)
for the flight.

[buttman]

On Nov 13, 5:54 pm, Helen > wrote:
> AOPA is pretty certain though we're OK
> letting them ferry planes as volunteers though just for the simple fact
> that the FAA would have a hard time making a case that a 68 year old
> 40,000 hour pilot, really considered the .5 of hobbs time as
> compensation he could use for his up and coming career.

Did AOPA actually say that?

When has the FAA ever established that logging flight time is
considered "compensation"?

[F. Baum]

On Nov 13, 7:41 pm, Helen > wrote:
> Just call AOPA. All of our membership dollars pay those folks to sit
> around reading the FAA legal interpretations. You'll be surprised at
> some of the petty cases the FAA has taken on under this rule to
> prosecute well meaning pilots.

Helen,
the AOPA people are probably the last resource you should recomend.
The ALPA legal services plan is probably not a good way to get
interpritations.The staff may be well meaning, but most of them lack
the qualifications and expertise to do members much good.Over the
years most of the prominent aviation attorneys have dropped out of the
plan. I would recomend most pilots just talk to their own attorneys if
they have a question.
KFB

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"buttman" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf
>
> this case?
>

Could be.


>
> If so, in that case, the pilot was in the wrong because he was flying
> passengers who had paid to be there. Therefore, even though he wasn't
> getting paid, a company (or in this case a skydiving club) was being
> compensated for his piloting services. The fact that he was trying to
> build time is irrelevant.
>

The club was compensated for skydiving instruction, not for the services of
the pilot.

[Maxwell]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were flying
> it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the buyer. A CFI in
> the club said I can't, because it's a commercial operation, even though
> I'm not getting paid. Is he right?
>

If your club is not specifically charging the new owner to deliver the
aircraft,

and you are not receiving compensation for delivering it,

you are good to go.

I have never heard of a case where accruing hours during a flight was
considered compensation.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in
:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
> <...>
>>
>> OK, what about sending one of our club members up to collect an airplane
>> that's been at a radio shop?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Who is paying for the gas?
>

Pilot pays for nothing.

Let's break it down into two examples then.

One, he's part of a flying club, pays dues monthly, let's say he washes
airplanes and what not for flying time, and in the second example he's just
a friend of a guy who hasn't got time to schlepp his airplane to the field
where the radio shop is. He's just doing it as a favor to the owner.

I've known both of these to have happened in the distant past (with the
flying club an FAA inspector was one of the members and knew)


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

buttman > wrote in news:1195010837.025449.286700
@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 13, 5:54 pm, Helen > wrote:
>> AOPA is pretty certain though we're OK
>> letting them ferry planes as volunteers though just for the simple fact
>> that the FAA would have a hard time making a case that a 68 year old
>> 40,000 hour pilot, really considered the .5 of hobbs time as
>> compensation he could use for his up and coming career.
>
> Did AOPA actually say that?
>
> When has the FAA ever established that logging flight time is
> considered "compensation"?



Depends on if you're actually gettingn anything out of the flying. Like
learning something.



You're ok.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

buttman > wrote in
ps.com:

> On Nov 13, 5:53 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> wrote:
>> Something like ten years ago, maybe more, there was a case that
>> involved a skydiving club. One of the members was also a private
>> pilot and volunteered to fly the jump plane. He thought it a great
>> way to build free time towards his commercial. Since he was using
>> the time towards another rating it was deemed to be compensation
>> since he'd otherwise have to pay for it and the flights were a
>> commercial operation.
>
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf
>
> this case?
>
> If so, in that case, the pilot was in the wrong because he was flying
> passengers who had paid to be there. Therefore, even though he wasn't
> getting paid, a company (or in this case a skydiving club) was being
> compensated for his piloting services. The fact that he was trying to
> build time is irrelevant.
>
> In the case of an already-sold plane being delivered to the buyer, the
> way I see it, No one is being compensated (the pilot nor the seller)
> for the flight.
>
>

Desperate to build a little time are we?

I wouldn't bother if I was you.


Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
>
> If the club didn't have to pay for a pilot for services rendered that they
> received payment, then the club had a net profit from the pilot's
> contribution.
>

Not necessarily. They could also have a net loss or they could break even.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Kloudy via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> because it's a commercial operation, >
>
> Maybe he thinks
>
> Sales = Commerce
>
> ?

I don't buy it. Are you saying if I sell a plane I own I can't take it to
the buyer or fly it somewhere for a buyer to to see it? I could make the
same flight legally to sell widgets either for myself or my employer.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> said:
>Kloudy via AviationKB.com wrote:
>> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>> because it's a commercial operation, >
>>
>> Maybe he thinks
>>
>> Sales = Commerce
>>
>> ?
>
>I don't buy it. Are you saying if I sell a plane I own I can't take it to
>the buyer or fly it somewhere for a buyer to to see it? I could make the
>same flight legally to sell widgets either for myself or my employer.

Don't the FARs contain explicit language about demoing airplanes for sale
not requiring a commercial rating?

Not that that applies to my situation - the plane is sold, I'm just
delivering it to the buyer.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing.
Probably a bad thing; most things are bad things.
-- Nile Evil *******

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:

> "buttman" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf
>>
>> this case?
>>
>
> Could be.
>
>
>>
>> If so, in that case, the pilot was in the wrong because he was flying
>> passengers who had paid to be there. Therefore, even though he wasn't
>> getting paid, a company (or in this case a skydiving club) was being
>> compensated for his piloting services. The fact that he was trying to
>> build time is irrelevant.
>>
>
> The club was compensated for skydiving instruction, not for the
> services of the pilot.
>
If the club didn't have to pay for a pilot for services rendered that they
received payment, then the club had a net profit from the pilot's
contribution. The only question is whether someone else's benefit (the
club's) makes an operation commercial for all involved. If so, then a
situation where a club (or flying school) profits from the rental of an
aircraft by a student could get fuzzy real fast. Since that doesn't seem
to be an issue, I'd think that the ferrying of the sold aircraft would
also not be an issue *as long as the pilot paid the expense of the trip*.

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> said:
>> Kloudy via AviationKB.com wrote:
>>> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>>> because it's a commercial operation, >
>>>
>>> Maybe he thinks
>>>
>>> Sales = Commerce
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> I don't buy it. Are you saying if I sell a plane I own I can't take
>> it to the buyer or fly it somewhere for a buyer to to see it? I
>> could make the same flight legally to sell widgets either for myself
>> or my employer.
>
> Don't the FARs contain explicit language about demoing airplanes for
> sale not requiring a commercial rating?
>
> Not that that applies to my situation - the plane is sold, I'm just
> delivering it to the buyer.

You are right and that same PPL aircraft salesman can deliver a plane.

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
:

>
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> If the club didn't have to pay for a pilot for services rendered that
>> they received payment, then the club had a net profit from the pilot's
>> contribution.
>>
>
> Not necessarily. They could also have a net loss or they could break
> even.
>
>

IMHO, it's not about the profit.

I would compare the cases to similar situations on the ground. For example,
the case you brought up would compare to an employee of a Limo company who
is not yet commercially rated (have his "hack license) taking the wheel of
a party Limo to build time torward his rating. The riders didn't pay for
the driver, they just payed for a party in a limo. But I think it's pretty
clear that he needs to have his hack license to do this.

The case that the OP brought up is more like if a Limo company sold one of
the town cars to an individual. I don't think I would need a hack license
to drive the town car to the buyer. At that point, I'm just an ordinary
citizen driving a town car.

Maybe I'm full of s%^&* but that's typically how I try to draw the line.
Of course common sense doesn't always apply when it comes to the FAA...

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> In a previous article, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> said:
>>> Kloudy via AviationKB.com wrote:
>>>> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>>>> because it's a commercial operation, >
>>>>
>>>> Maybe he thinks
>>>>
>>>> Sales = Commerce
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> I don't buy it. Are you saying if I sell a plane I own I can't take
>>> it to the buyer or fly it somewhere for a buyer to to see it? I
>>> could make the same flight legally to sell widgets either for myself
>>> or my employer.
>>
>> Don't the FARs contain explicit language about demoing airplanes for
>> sale not requiring a commercial rating?
>>
>> Not that that applies to my situation - the plane is sold, I'm just
>> delivering it to the buyer.
>
> You are right and that same PPL aircraft salesman can deliver a plane.
>

Unless the plane is own personally owned aircraft, a PPL has to have 200
hours logged to legally conduct a "demo" flight with a prospective buyer. As
for example a salesman.

I think delivering will still depend on wether the buyer specifically pays
for delivery, as opposed to being delivered for free.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Helen > said:
>Here's a good write-up on the subject. Note in the case listed, it
>wasn't even logged flight hours that the FAA cited as "compensation,"
>but simply "good will."
>
>http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2004/pc0403.html

But that's carrying passengers. I'm not going to be carrying passengers.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
There is only one thing worse than walking out to a plane knowing it will
be your last flight - that is walking out to a plane not knowing it will
be your last flight.

[Judah]

Helen > wrote in news:fZs_i.6012$VB6.114@trnddc06:

> Here's a good write-up on the subject. Note in the case listed, it
> wasn't even logged flight hours that the FAA cited as "compensation,"
> but simply "good will."
>
> http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2004/pc0403.html

In the case you describe, a guy paid a charter service to ferry a bunch of
people back and forth to his restaurant. Instead of paying the charter
service for a second run, his friend made MULTIPLE trips to bring the rest
of the group there.

All of the customers paid for charter services. Even though the pilot
didn't get compensated, the fact is someone who paid to be flown to a party
on an island was flown to a pilot on an island through arrangements of the
receiver of money.

While I think the FAA was probably somewhat harsh on the pilot in this
case, and the explanation of "goodwill" is actually more problematic than
if they would have just said that the flights were not incidental to the
business of transporting the partygoers to the party, the fact is I can see
where this merits the opinion that was made.

Furthermore, I suspect if it were just one trip, no one would have
complained about it - it becomes a guy who gave a lift to some folks that
were headed the same way and missed their plane. But he made several trips
back and forth. In doing so, he essentially competed with the charter
company, and clearly they reported him to the FAA for it.

In the club plane delivery case described above, I don't think any of these
situations need apply. A guy is delivering his club's plane to it's new
owner. He may as well be delivering it to a mechanic for maintenance...

The only case where I might agree with the CFI is if the club was
specifically paid to deliver the plane to the buyer, separately from the
purchase price of the airplane. If that's the case, then it might somewhat
resemble the case you described above.

But I doubt the club was specifically paid for ferrying the plane...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in news:fhf54d$67b$1
@xen1.xcski.com:

> In a previous article, Helen > said:
>>Here's a good write-up on the subject. Note in the case listed, it
>>wasn't even logged flight hours that the FAA cited as "compensation,"
>>but simply "good will."
>>
>>http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2004/pc0403.html
>
> But that's carrying passengers. I'm not going to be carrying passengers.
>
>

IO still think you're OK. There's the letter of the law and the spirit of
the law. The law requiring you to have a commercial licence to fly for
dough is to further public safety. IOW someone paying for flying has a
right to a certain standards otherwise we'd have a bunch of Anthonys flying
airliners.
Your operation would not endanger the public anymore than if you were fling
your own or a rented airplane from a to b.
Having said that, some FAA types are natural born policemen and can't see
past the nose on their faces. Most can, though.


Bertie

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> If the club didn't have to pay for a pilot for services rendered
>> that they received payment, then the club had a net profit from the
>> pilot's contribution.
>>
>
> Not necessarily. They could also have a net loss or they could break
> even.
>
I wasn't referring to their year-end financial report.

At any rate, I suspect that most laws and rules are written at a certain
level of naiveté and it is the unintended consequences that lead to such
ambiguities as those we're discussing. A service that you get for free
that you would otherwise have to pay for is recorded in the credits
column, and just that could qualify the service as a commercial
transaction. If that service is of sufficient value, it *will* be of
interest to the IRS and thus the FAA and so forth, regardless of the
year-end financial picture.

Bottom line as I see it is that unless someone has a bug up their
posterior, this ferry flight is unlikely to become an issue for anyone
unless the club picks up the cost of the trip.

Neil

[Helen]

The FAA can consider the logging of "free flight time" as compensation.

Helen

Maxwell wrote:
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were flying
>> it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the buyer. A CFI in
>> the club said I can't, because it's a commercial operation, even though
>> I'm not getting paid. Is he right?
>>
>
> If your club is not specifically charging the new owner to deliver the
> aircraft,
>
> and you are not receiving compensation for delivering it,
>
> you are good to go.
>
> I have never heard of a case where accruing hours during a flight was
> considered compensation.
>
>
>

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Helen" > wrote in message
news:PmG_i.9313$Vp3.521@trnddc05...
> The FAA can consider the logging of "free flight time" as compensation.

What if you don't log the time?

My humble opinion:

#1) The FAA will never know

#2) If they somehow find out, they will need to decide if it they feel it's
a violation.

#3) If they decide it's a violation, they have to decide to punish you.

If nothing happens, I feel then chances of #1 are pretty small. Even if #1
occurs, what is the likelyhood of #2 and #3 happening?

[Maxwell]

"Helen" > wrote in message
news:PmG_i.9313$Vp3.521@trnddc05...

> The FAA can consider the logging of "free flight time" as compensation.
>

Can you reference case that they actually have?

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-11-13 16:01:14 -0800, (Paul Tomblin) said:

> Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were flying
> it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the buyer. A CFI in
> the club said I can't, because it's a commercial operation, even though
> I'm not getting paid. Is he right?

It is not clear. After all, you are not carrying passengers or cargo
'for hire.' Neither are you getting paid, beyond the possible exception
of the value of the flight time. Aircraft salesmen are allowed to
demonstrate the airplane to customers. Presumably they are also flying
the plane to the city where the aircraft will be demoed.

>> §Â*61.113Â*Â*Â*Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
>> (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.
>> (b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in
>> command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
>> (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and
>> (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation
>> or hire.
>> (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.
>> (d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of a charitable,
>> nonprofit, or community event flight described in §91.146, if the
>> sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of §91.146.
>> (e) A private pilot may be reimbursed for aircraft operating expenses
>> that are directly related to search and location operations, provided
>> the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental
>> fees, and the operation is sanctioned and under the direction and
>> control of:
>> (1) A local, State, or Federal agency; or
>> (2) An organization that conducts search and location operations.
>> (f) A private pilot who is an aircraft salesman and who has at least
>> 200 hours of logged flight time may demonstrate an aircraft in flight
>> to a prospective buyer.
>> (g) A private pilot who meets the requirements of §61.69 may act as a
>> pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight
>> vehicle.
Furthermore, your club can charge any price that it wants for 'renting'
the aircraft to you, including nothing at all or even paying for your
fuel.

>> §Â*61.133Â*Â*Â*Commercial pilot privileges and limitations.
>> (a) Privileges —(1) General. A person who holds a commercial pilot
>> certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft—
>> (i) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire, provided the
>> person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the
>> applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation; and
>> (ii) For compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in
>> accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter
>> that apply to the operation.
It is quite clear that any commercial pilot may ferry the aircraft for
compensation or hire if it is not carrying passengers or property. This
is not a part 135 or commercial airline operation, after all. So, you
could, if you were a commercial pilot, charge anything you like for the
flight and maybe even do some commercial aerial photography along the
way.

Part 119 governs whether a flight is covered by the flight rules for
commercial airlines. Note particularly 119.1(e)(3):

>> §Â*119.1Â*Â*Â*Applicability.
>> ...
>> (e) Except for operations when common carriage is not involved
>> conducted with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20
>> seats or more, excluding any required crewmember seat, or a payload
>> capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, this part does not apply to—
>> (1) Student instruction;
>> (2) Nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted after September 11, 2007, in
>> an airplane or helicopter having a standard airworthiness certificate
>> and passenger-seat configuration of 30 seats or fewer and a maximum
>> payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less that begin and end at the same
>> airport, and are conducted within a 25-statute mile radius of that
>> airport, in compliance with the Letter of Authorization issued under
>> §91.147 of this chapter. For nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted in
>> accordance with part 136, subpart B of this chapter, National Parks Air
>> Tour Management, the requirements of part 119 of this chapter apply
>> unless excepted in §136.37(g)(2). For Nonstop Commercial Air Tours
>> conducted in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona,
>> the requirements of SFAR 50–2, part 93, subpart U, and part 119 of this
>> chapter, as applicable, apply.
>> (3) Ferry or training flights;
>> (4) Aerial work operations, including—
>> (i) Crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and bird chasing;
>> (ii) Banner towing;
>> (iii) Aerial photography or survey;
>> (iv) Fire fighting;
>> (v) Helicopter operations in construction or repair work (but it does
>> apply to transportation to and from the site of operations); and
>> (vi) Powerline or pipeline patrol;
>> (5) Sightseeing flights conducted in hot air balloons;
>> (6) Nonstop flights conducted within a 25-statute-mile radius of the
>> airport of takeoff carrying persons or objects for the purpose of
>> conducting intentional parachute operations.
>> (7) Helicopter flights conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of the
>> airport of takeoff if—
>> (i) Not more than two passengers are carried in the helicopter in
>> addition to the required flightcrew;
>> (ii) Each flight is made under day VFR conditions;
>> (iii) The helicopter used is certificated in the standard category and
>> complies with the 100-hour inspection requirements of part 91 of this
>> chapter;
>> (iv) The operator notifies the FAA Flight Standards District Office
>> responsible for the geographic area concerned at least 72 hours before
>> each flight and furnishes any essential information that the office
>> requests;
>> (v) The number of flights does not exceed a total of six in any calendar year;
>> (vi) Each flight has been approved by the Administrator; and
>> (vii) Cargo is not carried in or on the helicopter;
>> (8) Operations conducted under part 133 of this chapter or 375 of this title;
>> (9) Emergency mail service conducted under 49 U.S.C. 41906; or
>> (10) Operations conducted under the provisions of §91.321 of this chapter.
Ferry flights are a specific exception to the rules for common
carriers, so a commercial pilot could ferry your Lance for compensation
or hire without meeting the requirements for common carriers.

The question is, could you, as a private pilot, ferry the plane? I can
just about guarantee that the CFI who claims that it is a commercial
operation will report it to the FAA as such. He probably wants the job
and will be offended by your flying it for free. Never mind whether he
is actually competent to fly the Lance, you understand, it is just that
he thinks he should do the job and get paid for it.

Or he might simply be an incompetent CFI who has a poor understanding
of the FARs and he thinks you need to be part 135 to fly ferry flights.

Whatever. This guy is Trouble with a capital T. It is entirely up to
you whether you want to deal with it or not. Best way to head off such
trouble is to simply call the FSDO in advance and get their take on it.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-11-13 19:25:30 -0800, buttman > said:

> On Nov 13, 5:53 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> wrote:
>> Something like ten years ago, maybe more, there was a case that involved a
>> skydiving club. One of the members was also a private pilot and volunteered
>> to fly the jump plane. He thought it a great way to build free time towards
>> his commercial. Since he was using the time towards another rating it was
>> deemed to be compensation since he'd otherwise have to pay for it and the
>> flights were a commercial operation.
>
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf
>
> this case?
>
> If so, in that case, the pilot was in the wrong because he was flying
> passengers who had paid to be there.

He was, but (just to be clear about this) it is not because he was
violating the rules for common carriage. See part 119.1:

>> §Â*119.1Â*Â*Â*Applicability.
>> ...
>> (e) Except for operations when common carriage is not involved
>> conducted with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20
>> seats or more, excluding any required crewmember seat, or a payload
>> capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, this part does not apply to—
>> ...
>> (6) Nonstop flights conducted within a 25-statute-mile radius of the
>> airport of takeoff carrying persons or objects for the purpose of
>> conducting intentional parachute operations.
So, it is not a question of whether he was carrying passengers as a
common carrier. It is a question of whether he was piloting an aircraft
and carrying passengers for compensation in violation of the privileges
and limitations of a private pilot certificate. The FAA said being
allowed to fly an aircraft for free was a form of compensation. The
problem I really have with this ruling (and the reason I brought this
subject up in the first place) was the Administrator's insistence that
a private pilot sharing expenses with his passengers must have a
'common purpose' with them for the flight. This is clearly wrong. You
almost get the impression that if the pilot had jumped out of the plane
along with the skydivers that the FAA would have been okay with that,
because then he would have shared enough 'common purpose' with the
skydivers to meet the 'shared expenses' rule (provided he had paid his
share of the expenses). Because he did not jump out of the plane, there
was no 'common purpose' with the skydivers. This is bogus, as the FARs
make no mention at all of the need for a 'common purpose' when sharing
expenses. See part 61.113 -- no mention of 'common purpose' at all:

>> §Â*61.113Â*Â*Â*Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
>> (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.
>> (b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in
>> command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
>> (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and
>> (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation
>> or hire.
>> (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.

I think it is clear that this was an obvious example of someone
attempting to circumvent the FARs governing commercial flight.
Unfortunately, this forced the FAA to adopt a position that adversely
affects private pilots engaged in ordinary activity. All it takes is
one guy to try to find a loophole, and the FAA will have to plug up the
loophole with a plug that blocks hundreds or even thousands of pilots
who are engaging in an activity that was formerly considered
legitimate. The 'common purpose' test is clearly out of bounds and
should only be used in cases of questions of common carriage. In this
case, the skydiving operation was clearly 'holding out' without having
to resort to any sort of 'common purpose' test. They were advertising
in the Yellow Pages, after all, which is how the pilot found them. But,
even though they were 'holding out,' they were still within the
exception of part 119.1(e)(3), so the issue of 'common purpose' should
never have come up at all.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-11-14 10:47:07 -0800, "Maxwell" > said:

>
> "Helen" > wrote in message
> news:PmG_i.9313$Vp3.521@trnddc05...
>
>> The FAA can consider the logging of "free flight time" as compensation.
>>
>
> Can you reference case that they actually have?

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Maxwell]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007111412152311272-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-11-14 10:47:07 -0800, "Maxwell" > said:
>
>>
>> "Helen" > wrote in message
>> news:PmG_i.9313$Vp3.521@trnddc05...
>>
>>> The FAA can consider the logging of "free flight time" as compensation.
>>>
>>
>> Can you reference case that they actually have?
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf
>

That order doesn't say that.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

C J Campbell > wrote in
news:2007111412152311272-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

> On 2007-11-14 10:47:07 -0800, "Maxwell" > said:
>
>>
>> "Helen" > wrote in message
>> news:PmG_i.9313$Vp3.521@trnddc05...
>>
>>> The FAA can consider the logging of "free flight time" as compensation.
>>>
>>
>> Can you reference case that they actually have?
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf
>

That's not a ferry flight. That's carrying pax for hire. The parachutists
paid to fly.
So, both the letter and spirit of the law were clearly violated in this
case.
Any private pilot can carry his friend up and have him jump out of his
airplane. the chutist can even kick in for gas...


Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:34:57 -0800, C J Campbell
> wrote in
<2007111411345743658-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>:

>Best way to head off such
>trouble is to simply call the FSDO in advance and get their take on it.

Right. And get the FSDO Inspector to cite the regulation(s) upon
which his interpretation is based.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (Paul Tomblin) said:
>Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were flying
>it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the buyer. A CFI in
>the club said I can't, because it's a commercial operation, even though
>I'm not getting paid. Is he right?

Oh well, the point is now moot. The new owner decided to pick it up
himself. Darn.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
A fool and his money are soon flying more airplane than he can handle.

[B A R R Y]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:27:12 -0600, "Maxwell" >
wrote:
>
>If your club is not specifically charging the new owner to deliver the
>aircraft,
>
>and you are not receiving compensation for delivering it,
>
>you are good to go.
>
>I have never heard of a case where accruing hours during a flight was
>considered compensation.
>

As a club member, don't you own the aircraft?

And as Maxwell points out, no consideration or compensation is
involved in delivery.

I have a partner in my airplane. If one of us ferries the airplane to
the radio shop, etc... we don't pay the kitty for flight time, the
kitty pays for the gas.

I'd do it.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Nov 14, 12:36 pm, Helen > wrote:
> The FAA can consider the logging of "free flight time" as compensation.
>
> Helen
>
>

If you use that time to qualify for a rating or to satisfy recency
experience, then they might have a case. Labeling any flight time as
compensation is bogus. You can log whatever you want. You can even log
flights you made at your local video arcade. The FAA has no business
looking into your personal logs except the ones you submit to them as
satisfying the required recency experience, which better be true and
correct. They would need a court order to ask for all other
information such as personal logbooks and financial records, and you
would have to have done something very serious for them to go that
far. For that matter, you can't accept money for driving your grandma
to the drug store either. That is commercial operation.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Nov 13, 7:01 pm, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were flying
> it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the buyer. A CFI in
> the club said I can't, because it's a commercial operation, even though
> I'm not getting paid. Is he right?
>

I don't think the CFI is correct. It is not a commercial operation,
but I still would not want to stick my neck out to do the ferry
flight.
Has the airplane been sold, or is the sale pending? If it has been
sold, then you have to know whose insurance you are flying under. What
if the new owner says there are some dents in the fuselage that
weren't there when he made the deal? It's not worth it unless the
buyer is a famly member or personal friend. I would stay out of it.

[Travis Marlatte]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
> ambiguities as those we're discussing. A service that you get for free
> that you would otherwise have to pay for is recorded in the credits
> column, and just that could qualify the service as a commercial
> transaction. If that service is of sufficient value, it *will* be of
> interest to the IRS and thus the FAA and so forth, regardless of the
> year-end financial picture.


I don't think so. As a PPL, your analysis could apply to any of my
passengers. They are getting a flight for free that otherwise they would
have to pay for.

"...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 part seems to refer to the aircraft. i.e. it is the aircraft that
is carrying passengers or property for hire and a PPL is prohibited from
acting as PIC of such an aircraft. If that's not the case, then a PPL could
volunteer to take paying passengers (or cargo). The second part seems to
apply to the pilot and we know that required flight experience is considered
compensation.

So a PPL could volunteer to deliver a plane for a ferry service. The ferry
service is being paid. The PPL is not being compensated (not even logging
the time) or hired. The plane isn't carrying any passengers or property for
hire. That sounds like a doable mission according to the letter of the FARs.
I suspect that the FAA could make the arguement that the nature of the
flight is beyond the trained judgement of the PPL.

What about this one...
Could I advertise a no-cost ferry business? Not much different than
borrowing a friends plane except that I'm advertising. I'm not being
compensated. I won't log the hours. The plane is not carrying anything and
isn't for hire. In this case, there isn't a ferry service that is getting
paid either. Again, I think the FAA could make an argument, since I am
entering into a contract with the general public, that the flights warrant a
commercial license.

The wording has probably lasted this long because there are not that many
people with the time and net-worth to be flying around not making any money.
Doing it for the logged flight hours has been held up as compensation so it
must be un-logged, volunteer flying.

How about a teenage PPL who just wants to go flying (and log it). His
parents are so desperate to get him off the couch that they pay for all his
flight time. Sounds like compensated flying.
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in
. net:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> t...
>> ambiguities as those we're discussing. A service that you get for
>> free that you would otherwise have to pay for is recorded in the
>> credits column, and just that could qualify the service as a
>> commercial transaction. If that service is of sufficient value, it
>> *will* be of interest to the IRS and thus the FAA and so forth,
>> regardless of the year-end financial picture.
>
>
> I don't think so. As a PPL, your analysis could apply to any of my
> passengers. They are getting a flight for free that otherwise they
> would have to pay for.
>
> "...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 part seems to refer to the aircraft. i.e. it is the aircraft
> that is carrying passengers or property for hire and a PPL is
> prohibited from acting as PIC of such an aircraft. If that's not the
> case, then a PPL could volunteer to take paying passengers (or cargo).
> The second part seems to apply to the pilot and we know that required
> flight experience is considered compensation.
>
> So a PPL could volunteer to deliver a plane for a ferry service. The
> ferry service is being paid. The PPL is not being compensated (not
> even logging the time) or hired. The plane isn't carrying any
> passengers or property for hire. That sounds like a doable mission
> according to the letter of the FARs. I suspect that the FAA could make
> the arguement that the nature of the flight is beyond the trained
> judgement of the PPL.
>


Nope.

They'd do him for that.

Mone's changing hands for moving the airplane, it's a commercial
operation.


> What about this one...
> Could I advertise a no-cost ferry business? Not much different than
> borrowing a friends plane except that I'm advertising. I'm not being
> compensated. I won't log the hours. The plane is not carrying anything
> and isn't for hire. In this case, there isn't a ferry service that is
> getting paid either. Again, I think the FAA could make an argument,
> since I am entering into a contract with the general public, that the
> flights warrant a commercial license.
>
> The wording has probably lasted this long because there are not that
> many people with the time and net-worth to be flying around not making
> any money. Doing it for the logged flight hours has been held up as
> compensation so it must be un-logged, volunteer flying.
>
> How about a teenage PPL who just wants to go flying (and log it). His
> parents are so desperate to get him off the couch that they pay for
> all his flight time. Sounds like compensated flying.
> -----------------------------

Please tell me you don;'t work for the FAA. Last thing needed there is
an imaginative policeman.


Bertie

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Travis Marlatte > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> t...
>> ambiguities as those we're discussing. A service that you get for
>> free that you would otherwise have to pay for is recorded in the
>> credits column, and just that could qualify the service as a
>> commercial transaction. If that service is of sufficient value, it
>> *will* be of interest to the IRS and thus the FAA and so forth,
>> regardless of the year-end financial picture.
>
> I don't think so. As a PPL, your analysis could apply to any of my
> passengers. They are getting a flight for free that otherwise they
> would have to pay for.
>
Taking passengers to locations for their purposes and that you would not
otherwise be going is specifically disallowed in the FARs, regardless of
whether you charge for the "service". OTOH, such activities as taking
co-workers to a work site or taking friends somewhere (or nowhere) that
you are going is specifically allowed.

> "...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 part seems to refer to the aircraft. i.e. it is the
> aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for hire and a PPL
> is prohibited from acting as PIC of such an aircraft.
>
The first part refers to "...no person who holds a private pilot
certificate...", and the rest spells out what that person cannot do.

> If that's not
> the case, then a PPL could volunteer to take paying passengers (or
> cargo). The second part seems to apply to the pilot and we know that
> required flight experience is considered compensation.
>
See above.

> So a PPL could volunteer to deliver a plane for a ferry service. The
> ferry service is being paid. The PPL is not being compensated (not
> even logging the time) or hired. The plane isn't carrying any
> passengers or property for hire. That sounds like a doable mission
> according to the letter of the FARs. I suspect that the FAA could
> make the arguement that the nature of the flight is beyond the
> trained judgement of the PPL.
>
That can get you into hot water for reasons in my previous post.

> What about this one...
> Could I advertise a no-cost ferry business?
>
No.

This really is a question of elementary accounting and both the letter and
intent of the FARs. I think it would help you to actually read the FARs to
get a better handle on this as it really is not all that murky an issue.

Neil

[Maxwell]

"Travis Marlatte" > wrote in message
. net...

> volunteer to take paying passengers (or cargo). The second part seems to
> apply to the pilot and we know that required flight experience is
> considered compensation.
>

How do we know this? Is there are ruling somewhere?

[Maxwell]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Recently, Travis Marlatte > posted:
>
>
> Taking passengers to locations for their purposes and that you would not
> otherwise be going is specifically disallowed in the FARs, regardless of
> whether you charge for the "service". OTOH, such activities as taking
> co-workers to a work site or taking friends somewhere (or nowhere) that
> you are going is specifically allowed.


>> Could I advertise a no-cost ferry business?
>
> No.
>

Why not?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Maxwell > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Recently, Travis Marlatte > posted:
>>
>>
>> Taking passengers to locations for their purposes and that you would
>> not otherwise be going is specifically disallowed in the FARs,
>> regardless of whether you charge for the "service". OTOH, such
>> activities as taking co-workers to a work site or taking friends
>> somewhere (or nowhere) that you are going is specifically allowed.
>
>
>>> Could I advertise a no-cost ferry business?
>>
>> No.
>>
>
> Why not?
>
Well, I'll clarify my statement. You can _advertise_ whatever you want,
and mainly risk only getting sued for false advertising. However,
_operating_ a no-cost ferry business witout a commercial rating is likely
to get you in hot water.

Neil

[Gatt]

"Helen" > wrote in message
news:8ft_i.6111$VB6.5184@trnddc06...
> Just call AOPA. All of our membership dollars pay those folks to sit
> around reading the FAA legal interpretations. You'll be surprised at some
> of the petty cases the FAA has taken on under this rule to prosecute well
> meaning pilots.

Do you have any examples?

-c

[Gatt]

"Helen" > wrote in message
news:Nbt_i.6091$VB6.694@trnddc06...
> And additional...
> http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/article.cfm?article=1467

Thanks, Helen. A couple of thoughts:

"The FAA's position on sharing expenses is not supported by the language of
61.118(b), but pilots need to be aware of the FAA's policy. Current FAA
enforcement policy is so strict that if a private pilot ferries an airplane
at no charge, with no passengers on board, the FAA position is that the free
flying time is compensation for the private pilot, and therefore a violation
of 61.118. "
So the CFI was correct. At some point, I'd be likely to say that the FAA
could kiss my ass. As a private pilot, the risk of a 90-day suspension
isn't enough to offset the hazards of not remaining current because you
can't afford to. (As a commercially-licensed pilot with a small fraction of
the time as many of the PPL holders out here, I guess the FAA has decided
I'm more qualified to "cope with the demans of charter flying" so it's not
my problem.)

Lastly, the comment: "Private pilots can build time cheaply and safely."

I wonder what combination of prescription drugs and lack of oxygen would
prompt somebody to say something that absurd.

-c

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Gatt" > wrote in
:

>
> "Helen" > wrote in message
> news:Nbt_i.6091$VB6.694@trnddc06...
>> And additional...
>> http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/article.cfm?article=1467
>
> Thanks, Helen. A couple of thoughts:
>
> "The FAA's position on sharing expenses is not supported by the
> language of 61.118(b), but pilots need to be aware of the FAA's
> policy. Current FAA enforcement policy is so strict that if a private
> pilot ferries an airplane at no charge, with no passengers on board,
> the FAA position is that the free flying time is compensation for the
> private pilot, and therefore a violation of 61.118. "
> So the CFI was correct. At some point, I'd be likely to say that the
> FAA could kiss my ass. As a private pilot, the risk of a 90-day
> suspension isn't enough to offset the hazards of not remaining current
> because you can't afford to. (As a commercially-licensed pilot with a
> small fraction of the time as many of the PPL holders out here, I
> guess the FAA has decided I'm more qualified to "cope with the demans
> of charter flying" so it's not my problem.)
>
> Lastly, the comment: "Private pilots can build time cheaply and
> safely."
>
> I wonder what combination of prescription drugs and lack of oxygen
> would prompt somebody to say something that absurd.
>


hear hear,


Bertie
>
>
>

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in
> :
>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> <...>
>>>
>>> OK, what about sending one of our club members up to collect an airplane
>>> that's been at a radio shop?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Who is paying for the gas?
>>
>
> Pilot pays for nothing.
>
> Let's break it down into two examples then.
>
> One, he's part of a flying club, pays dues monthly, let's say he washes
> airplanes and what not for flying time,

If he/she/it "paid" for this flight by working for the club - then they
"paid" their own way. Not much the FAA can do.

and in the second example he's just
> a friend of a guy who hasn't got time to schlepp his airplane to the field
> where the radio shop is. He's just doing it as a favor to the owner.

Then he/she/it is getting "free hours" which, if someone gets a bug up their
butt, could be a problem.

>
> I've known both of these to have happened in the distant past (with the
> flying club an FAA inspector was one of the members and knew)
>

I'm sure it hapens a lot. I assume in these cases, the FAA inspector didn't
think it was worth making a fuss about. 1 hour of "free" time? Big Whoop. On
the other hand, if someone is looking for an excuse to cause trouble...

There is no shortage of a-holes out there.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in
news:44idnaGpF44DJ6HanZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>> OK, what about sending one of our club members up to collect an
>>>> airplane that's been at a radio shop?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Who is paying for the gas?
>>>
>>
>> Pilot pays for nothing.
>>
>> Let's break it down into two examples then.
>>
>> One, he's part of a flying club, pays dues monthly, let's say he
>> washes airplanes and what not for flying time,
>
> If he/she/it "paid" for this flight by working for the club - then
> they "paid" their own way. Not much the FAA can do.
>
> and in the second example he's just
>> a friend of a guy who hasn't got time to schlepp his airplane to the
>> field where the radio shop is. He's just doing it as a favor to the
>> owner.
>
> Then he/she/it is getting "free hours" which, if someone gets a bug up
> their butt, could be a problem.
>
>>
>> I've known both of these to have happened in the distant past (with
>> the flying club an FAA inspector was one of the members and knew)
>>
>
> I'm sure it hapens a lot. I assume in these cases, the FAA inspector
> didn't think it was worth making a fuss about. 1 hour of "free" time?
> Big Whoop. On the other hand, if someone is looking for an excuse to
> cause trouble...
>
> There is no shortage of a-holes out there.
>

Well, as I said, it was years ago and the FAA, PITA though it may have
been back then, wasn't anything like as anal as it is now.
For instance, in one 135 operation I did some part time for, single
engine "over the top" was pretty common. Anyone who has ever looked at
the rules for this and actually remembered them should get some sort of
award. So, the way it worked was, you didn't do anything too stupid
during an over the top flight and when you got back you looked it up and
matched your flight to one of the many options in the book. The FAA were
OK with that, too. Commone sense prevailed.
I wouldn't imagine that's the case nowadays.

Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
> Recently, Maxwell > posted:
>
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Recently, Travis Marlatte > posted:
>>>
>>>
>>> Taking passengers to locations for their purposes and that you would
>>> not otherwise be going is specifically disallowed in the FARs,
>>> regardless of whether you charge for the "service". OTOH, such
>>> activities as taking co-workers to a work site or taking friends
>>> somewhere (or nowhere) that you are going is specifically allowed.
>>
>>
>>>> Could I advertise a no-cost ferry business?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>
>> Why not?
>>
> Well, I'll clarify my statement. You can _advertise_ whatever you want,
> and mainly risk only getting sued for false advertising. However,
> _operating_ a no-cost ferry business witout a commercial rating is likely
> to get you in hot water.
>

My mistake Neil, I just saw the anser in another post.

[Maxwell]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Recently, Gatt > posted:
>
>> "Helen" > wrote in message
>> news:Nbt_i.6091$VB6.694@trnddc06...
>>> And additional...
>>> http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/article.cfm?article=1467
>>
>> Thanks, Helen. A couple of thoughts:
>>
>> "The FAA's position on sharing expenses is not supported by the
>> language of
>> 61.118(b), but pilots need to be aware of the FAA's policy. Current
>> FAA enforcement policy is so strict that if a private pilot ferries
>> an airplane at no charge, with no passengers on board, the FAA
>> position is that the free flying time is compensation for the private
>> pilot, and therefore a violation of 61.118. "
>> So the CFI was correct.
>>
> Note that the relevant condition is that the flying time is free. If the
> pilot picks up the expense (possibly only > 50% of the expense), then
> there is no issue with this policy.
>

That's what I'm wondering. Based only on the AOPA link, I didn't run down
the individual rulings noted:

The FAA has no policy or regulations on setting rental rates.

If I want to ferry someone's plane, they should rent it to him for a $1 an
hour.

And since I can rent a Skyhawk for $100 hour, I can charter the three empty
seats for $75 and hour.

And I can advertise either service.

Really not trying to be a smart ass, or insult anyone. It just seems there
is still a hole here you could drive a truck through, or you better have a
rental agreement on you, and well breifed passengers if you ever get ramped
checked. Because if you are a private pilot, you may have to prove you are
always paying for everything.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gatt > posted:

> "Helen" > wrote in message
> news:Nbt_i.6091$VB6.694@trnddc06...
>> And additional...
>> http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/article.cfm?article=1467
>
> Thanks, Helen. A couple of thoughts:
>
> "The FAA's position on sharing expenses is not supported by the
> language of
> 61.118(b), but pilots need to be aware of the FAA's policy. Current
> FAA enforcement policy is so strict that if a private pilot ferries
> an airplane at no charge, with no passengers on board, the FAA
> position is that the free flying time is compensation for the private
> pilot, and therefore a violation of 61.118. "
> So the CFI was correct.
>
Note that the relevant condition is that the flying time is free. If the
pilot picks up the expense (possibly only > 50% of the expense), then
there is no issue with this policy.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Maxwell > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Recently, Gatt > posted:
>>
>>> "Helen" > wrote in message
>>> news:Nbt_i.6091$VB6.694@trnddc06...
>>>> And additional...
>>>> http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/article.cfm?article=1467
>>>
>>> Thanks, Helen. A couple of thoughts:
>>>
>>> "The FAA's position on sharing expenses is not supported by the
>>> language of
>>> 61.118(b), but pilots need to be aware of the FAA's policy. Current
>>> FAA enforcement policy is so strict that if a private pilot ferries
>>> an airplane at no charge, with no passengers on board, the FAA
>>> position is that the free flying time is compensation for the
>>> private pilot, and therefore a violation of 61.118. "
>>> So the CFI was correct.
>>>
>> Note that the relevant condition is that the flying time is free. If
>> the pilot picks up the expense (possibly only > 50% of the expense),
>> then there is no issue with this policy.
>>
>
> That's what I'm wondering. Based only on the AOPA link, I didn't run
> down the individual rulings noted:
>
> The FAA has no policy or regulations on setting rental rates.
>
> If I want to ferry someone's plane, they should rent it to him for a
> $1 an hour.
>
That would be a very short ferry with fuel at current prices, not to
mention maintenance etc.

> And since I can rent a Skyhawk for $100 hour, I can charter the three
> empty seats for $75 and hour.
>
> And I can advertise either service.
>
> Really not trying to be a smart ass, or insult anyone. It just seems
> there is still a hole here you could drive a truck through, or you
> better have a rental agreement on you, and well breifed passengers if
> you ever get ramped checked. Because if you are a private pilot, you
> may have to prove you are always paying for everything.
>
As PP, You can not "charter 3 empty seats", period. As PP, you must pay >
50% of the cost of the flight, so if that cost is set at $100/hr., you
must pay at least $51/hr. regardless of how the other $49/hr. gets picked
up. IMO, you're trying too hard to justify an activity and in doing so
making some serious misinterpretations of rules that are pretty clear.

Neil