Legality of a flight

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

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

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.

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

"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)

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

"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)