Ownership and passengers

Roger Long wrote:

Anyone care to predict what the FAA would (or should) say? Assume costs
shared properly according to seat occupancy.

If you have to ask, you *know* what the FAA will say. "Excuse me, sir. Can we
have that piece of paper we gave you that says you can fly back?"

The solution is simple. Don't share costs for stuff like that. The immediate
expenses of my Maule are about $20 an hour. If I don't like someone well enough
to fly him an hour or two for free, then I don't fly him.

Now, if someone wants to go to Oshkosh and *I* want to go to Oshkosh, it's a
different matter, but that's not the case here.

Don't sweat the small stuff.

George Patterson
God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the
good fortune to run into the ones I like, and the eyesight to tell the
difference.

MRQB wrote:

as a student pilot who busts you and who questions you how do they find out
ect.

The local FAA inspectors bust you. It is typically done either because some
"friend" or vicious FBO complained (the argument usually being that you "took
money away from them" by flying him for less). It can also occur by accident if
an inspector is in the FBO and overhears a chance remark by either you or your
passenger (or sees money change hands). Your chances of the latter are much
reduced on weekends, since few inspectors work weekends (at least in this area).

In short, if you and your passengers keep your mouths completely shut, there's
next to no chance of you getting busted.

George Patterson
God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the
good fortune to run into the ones I like, and the eyesight to tell the
difference.

I'm not sure I agree with your hair-splitting. In everything official I've
seen from the FAA the matter seems to revolve only around whether the pilot
is compensated for acting as a pilot (beyond sharing of expenses). As a
private pilot you are certainly allowed to provide transportation to another
person, provided no compensation is paid, regardless of whether you would
have otherwise undertaken the flight.

--
-Elliott Drucker

wrote in message ...
I'm not sure I agree with your hair-splitting. In everything official I've
seen from the FAA the matter seems to revolve only around whether the pilot
is compensated for acting as a pilot (beyond sharing of expenses).

You haven't looked very hard.

As a
private pilot you are certainly allowed to provide transportation to another
person, provided no compensation is paid, regardless of whether you would
have otherwise undertaken the flight.

This is certainly NOT the case. The FAA has repeatedly struck down ride
share operations that involve no money changing hands (not pilot compensation,.
not even expenxes). There are two things the FAA has interpretted that throw
a monkey wrench into things: non-monetary compensation (such as the accrual
of flight time), and carrying passengers in air commerce (not a private vs. commercial
issue but a part 91 vs. 135 one).

"Roger Long" om
wrote
Both the FSDO and AOPA have told me otherwise.

And they are both flagrantly, egregiously wrong. That's why I'm not
an AOPA member. As for the FSDO - well, they're a bunch of worthless
bloody loonies.

If they were even a little bit right, how could organizations like
Angel Flight possibly operate?

Michael

Michael wrote:

If they were even a little bit right, how could organizations like
Angel Flight possibly operate?

Angel Flight and its cousins are special. See for example
http://www.aircareall.org/tax.htm where it quotes our old friend Rick Cremer
(who used to contribute to this newsgroup):

762019 S15/FAA Topics
23-Feb-95 11:17:31
Sb #ANGEL FLIGHT POLICY
Fm Rick Cremer FAA HQ 72130,3305
To ALL

FAA "ANGEL FLIGHT" POLICY

Recently, the FAA published Change 10 to it's Air Transportation Inspector's
handbook (FAA Order 8400.10). That change included new guidance for our
inspectors concerning Angel Flights. Included below, is the full text of
guidance. What it says, basically, is that if a person takes a charitable tax
deduction for the costs associated with the operation that does not constitute a
for hire or compensation operation.

Best Regards

Rick Cremer FAA HDQ



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.

"Michael" wrote in message om...
"Roger Long" om
wrote
Both the FSDO and AOPA have told me otherwise.

And they are both flagrantly, egregiously wrong. That's why I'm not
an AOPA member. As for the FSDO - well, they're a bunch of worthless
bloody loonies.
Yeah, but it's the bloody loonies who are running the show.

"Dave Butler" wrote:

Angel Flight and its cousins are special.

Only inasmuch as accepting a tax deduction for the charitable flight is not
deemed to be compensatory. Angel Flight pilots still take relative
strangers where they need to go, even if it wasn't exactly the pilot's
original idea to go there.

The notion that it is "questionable" to take a friend (someone known to you)
anywhere he wants to go per his request just because it wasn't the pilot's
prior intention to fly that route that day is an absurdly tortured
interpretation of the rules. If my friend calls me from Fresno because his
car is broken down and he needs a ride home, it doesn't matter whether I go
pick him up in my car or my airplane.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message om...

This is certainly NOT the case. The FAA has repeatedly struck down ride
share operations that involve no money changing hands (not pilot compensation,.
not even expenxes). There are two things the FAA has interpretted that throw
a monkey wrench into things: non-monetary compensation (such as the accrual
of flight time), and carrying passengers in air commerce (not a private vs. commercial
issue but a part 91 vs. 135 one).


The non-monetary compensation (i.e. flight time) issue that I know
of, involved someone else paying for the operating expenses of the
plane. This is not an issue for private pilots who are absorbing the
full cost of the flight. The "absorbing the full cost" is the key,
rather than just not accepting monetary payment.

I think the point that Elliott was trying to make is that there a
few restictions on a private pilot flying someone for any
non-commercial reason, as long as the pilot pays for the cost of the
flight. Does that sound reasonable? I know it doesn't count, but
I've asked several local FSDO inspectors and they agree with that
interpretation.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

On 9-Oct-2003, Craig Prouse wrote:

The notion that it is "questionable" to take a friend (someone known to
you) anywhere he wants to go per his request just because it wasn't the
pilot's
prior intention to fly that route that day is an absurdly tortured
interpretation of the rules.
If my friend calls me from Fresno because his car is broken down and he
needs a ride home,
it doesn't matter whether I go pick him up in my car or my airplane.


Exactly right, so long as no compensation is involved! In fact, the person
would not even have to be "known to you." For example, it's certainly legal
for me as a private pilot to volunteer my (uncompensated) services to fly a
political candidate from one campaign appearance to another.

--
-Elliott Drucker