PPL question payment for flight

Well.. maybe not... If you fly 2 people someplace and drop them
off, that tends to be viewed a little differently than you and your
buddies flew someplace, hung out together, then flew back...
This operation sounds like an air-taxi service and that you just
might be "holding out" (i.e. advertising that you can fly people
places)...

John Price
CFII/AGI/IGI
http://home.att.net/~jm.price



"Yossarian" wrote in message
et...
Hypothetical situation: I rent a plane and fly 2 friends to city A. I
drop
them off and fly back. If I pay 1/3 of the rental time and costs going
there and full amount of the return leg, that's legal, right?

"Yossarian" wrote in message
et...
Hypothetical situation: I rent a plane and fly 2 friends to city A. I
drop
them off and fly back. If I pay 1/3 of the rental time and costs going
there and full amount of the return leg, that's legal, right?

What was your reason for going to city A? If all you did was drop them off
then your reason would appear to have been the transportation of your 2
friends. This makes it illegal. If you have a reason to go to city A and
take your friends along and they share the cost, that would be legal.

Mat

--
Matthew Waugh
Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI
http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm

Yossarian wrote:
Hypothetical situation: I rent a plane and fly 2 friends to city A. I drop
them off and fly back. If I pay 1/3 of the rental time and costs going
there and full amount of the return leg, that's legal, right?

Depends. Why did you fly to City A? If your sole motivation was to
convey your friends there, the legality is questionable. It could
be perceived as an air taxi service.

If you had a personal reason to visit City A (eat the World Famous
Braunschweiger, visit the museum, visit friends) and you're simply
taking your friends along but needing to return home before they
do, that's legal with expense sharing as you describe.

Cheers,
Sydney

Kind of smells like a taxi operation to me. Were you going there anyway?

It's easy to get away with stuff like this .. but if something should happen
then it could cause you all sorts of trouble. Or if one of your friends uses
the wrong wording in describing the flight and it gets back to the wrong
people.

I have an easy solution to this. I've just never accepted anything for
someone
riding in my plane. Problem solved.


"Yossarian" wrote in message
et...
Hypothetical situation: I rent a plane and fly 2 friends to city A. I
drop
them off and fly back. If I pay 1/3 of the rental time and costs going
there and full amount of the return leg, that's legal, right?

There was a similar case to this a few years back. Some guy wanted to
build up twin time so he charged some old lady 1/2 the rental to fly
her somewhere and drop her off (as I recall, it was a while ago). The
FAA busted him for "holding out" as 135. The test was that the pilot
would not have gone there if it were not for her so there are two
problems here...

1) You certainly could never charge the passengers for part of the
flight where you flew home without them. I think that's obvious.
2) Since you had no reason or desire to go to this city w/o the
passengers the FAA would argue (and has) that you are operating a 135
charter operation. There is no requirement that make make a profit to
be considered 135 in the eyes of the FAA.


"Yossarian" wrote in message . net...
Hypothetical situation: I rent a plane and fly 2 friends to city A. I drop
them off and fly back. If I pay 1/3 of the rental time and costs going
there and full amount of the return leg, that's legal, right?

Yossarian wrote:

Hypothetical situation: I rent a plane and fly 2 friends to city A. I drop
them off and fly back. If I pay 1/3 of the rental time and costs going
there and full amount of the return leg, that's legal, right?

Yep.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

could have to let pay them all. Because you had also costs to get the
private pilot license!

Roger

don't think so Roger.. you can only "share" flight costs on the particular
flight involved (in the USofA)

BT

You are right BT

FAR Part 61.113
(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the
operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses
involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

But in my eyes you could also charge the passenger for no direct flight
costs such as annual flight member fees, hangar fees. The FAR is not
realy clear in that.

1st paragraph says:
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no
person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command
of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation
or hire

The most important is that you do not flight for hire (earn money) or
compensation (that you fly without) costs!(compensating the costs)

Roger


don't think so Roger.. you can only "share" flight costs on the particular
flight involved (in the USofA)

BT

"Roger Tschanz" wrote in message
...
But in my eyes you could also charge the passenger for no direct flight
costs such as annual flight member fees, hangar fees. The FAR is not
realy clear in that.

No, the FAR is perfectly clear. The ONLY expenses that may be shared are
"fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees". An aircraft owner may
not include non-direct operating expenses such as (but not limited to)
hangar, insurance, maintenance, engine reserve, etc. Any pilot may not
include non-direct operating expenses such as (but not limited to) charts,
headsets, training expenses, training manuals, etc.

The most important is that you do not flight for hire (earn money) or
compensation (that you fly without) costs!(compensating the costs)

The FAR is very clear about "the most important" thing. The FAA obviously
considers even reimbursement for passengers' pro-rata share of direct
operating expenses (such as fuel or rental costs) to be "compensation",
having made a specific exception allowing that type of compensation.

Pete

"Matthew Waugh" wrote in message .com...
"Yossarian" wrote in message
et...
Hypothetical situation: I rent a plane and fly 2 friends to city A. I
drop
them off and fly back. If I pay 1/3 of the rental time and costs going
there and full amount of the return leg, that's legal, right?

What was your reason for going to city A? If all you did was drop them off
then your reason would appear to have been the transportation of your 2
friends. This makes it illegal. If you have a reason to go to city A and
take your friends along and they share the cost, that would be legal.

Mat


Actually, not only must you have a reason for going to city A, but you
must have a common purpose as well. There have been numerous NTSB
decisions in which the pilot paid only his share of the costs, but
because there was no common purpose (e.g., you are both going to see
a baseball game together) the flight was considered an unauthorized
Part 135 flight and thus the pilot was sanctioned.

In one example, NTSB Order EA-4306, a pilot was receiving multi-engine
flight instruction from a CFI. The (non-CFI) pilot on his own
arranged to share costs with two TV reporters who needed
transportation. The passangers paid only thier share of the costs.
Both the pilot and the CFI were found to be operating under Part 135
without proper certification and received suspensions of their pilot
certificates due to the fact that their was no common purpose. The
purpose for the pilot was to receive multi-engine training while the
purpose for the TV crew was to receive transportation. Even though the
CFI was unaware of the arrangement, it was determined that as PIC, he
was responsible for determining the purpose of the passangers, and
knowing that this would be an illegal flight (i.e., not asking
questions does not make you immune).

Other examples I've seen include pilots trying to apply the "shared
expenses" exception to parachute jump operations with the jumpper
paying thier share of the costs. I'm sure there are other examples
more closely resembling the transportation to city A scenario, but I
haven't made a concerted effort to look for them. However, the common
theme of all of these decisions is that the "shared expenses" exception
only applies when there is a "common purpose" among the pilot and
passangers.

Jeffery Hansen, CFI-A