Ownership and passengers

John Galban wrote:
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.

Thanks, guys!
Now I have an excuse to tell mother why she shouldn't hide money in my
house when I fly her home after flying her around. She knows I won't
accept it if she hands it to me, so she puts it someplace that I will
find it after a couple days or weeks. Parents... sneaky, aren't they?

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).

Yesterday I planned to fly to a meeting that was 105 nm away. I was
going to take a colleague with me. I was not planning on asking him
to pay 1/2 my flying expenses, but I was planning on turning in my
mileage and tiedown fee for reimbursement, as I would otherwise have
driven my car to the meeting and turned in that mileage.

Is this legal?

(BTW, my company nixed the idea on liability concerns. They want a
waiver for next time but were otherwise in favor of the idea.)

Best,

Greg Hopp
Cols, OH.

For what it's worth, the Canadian regs perspective on the subject can be
found in CARs Part IV - Personnel Licensing & Training, subpart 1, Division
VI item 401.28. Just follow the link:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/REGSERV...01e.htm#401_28
and go down half the page.

Fly safely,
Ross
"Once you're up in the air always make sure you can fly another day..."

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
The FAA is looking for two things when considering the question of whether
a
private pilot was carrying a passenger(s) legitimately. One is evidence
that the passenger is incidentally aboard on a flight that was going to
take
place anyway. Second is that the pilot and passenger have a shared
interest
in the objective of the flight.

In the case of co-ownership, such as in a partnership or flying club (with
stock), would there not be a presumption of shared interest?

For example:

Strictly speaking, if a friend not involved with your aircraft said. "I
need
to go to Podunk on Saturday, how about flying me up there?", the flight
would be questionable if you had no prior intent or independent reason to
fly there.

However, if a co-owner said, "I need to go to Podunk on Saturday and I
can't
fly PIC until I finish this medication, how about flying me down?, I
would
think that your co-responsibility for the aircraft management and
maintenance and similar factors would make this OK.

If you co-owner said, "I need to be on Podunk on Saturday and my wife
would
like to meet me on Saturday, how about flying her up and we'll have
lunch?",
I would think that would be OK even though it would be questionable in the
case of a non-co-owner.

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

Greg Hopp wrote:

Is this legal?

Yes.

George Patterson
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect. - Linus Torvalds, speaking about Linux.

Greg Hopp wrote:

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).


Yesterday I planned to fly to a meeting that was 105 nm away. I was
going to take a colleague with me. I was not planning on asking him
to pay 1/2 my flying expenses, but I was planning on turning in my
mileage and tiedown fee for reimbursement, as I would otherwise have
driven my car to the meeting and turned in that mileage.

Is this legal?


Yes.

In article , Greg Hopp
wrote:
Yesterday I planned to fly to a meeting that was 105 nm away. I was
going to take a colleague with me. I was not planning on asking him
to pay 1/2 my flying expenses, but I was planning on turning in my
mileage and tiedown fee for reimbursement, as I would otherwise have
driven my car to the meeting and turned in that mileage.
Is this legal?
(BTW, my company nixed the idea on liability concerns. They want a
waiver for next time but were otherwise in favor of the idea.)

Gregg, back in the late 1980's early 1990's, NBAA (National Business
Aircraft Association) created a package of documents and advice that
explained how to approach you company officials and obtain permission
to use and be reimbursed for use of personal aircraft for business
related travel. I don't know if they still offer it, but you may want
to contact them. If they don't have anything you can use, contact me, I
still have one or two buried somewhere in a box that I can give you.
Do you fly out of Don Scott?

Dave Butler wrote
Angel Flight and its cousins are special. much snipped
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.

Well, that's fine. But supposing you didn't even take a tax
deduction.

The point remains that Angel Flight and similar operations are
providing both pilot and aircraft, for point-to-point on-demand
flights, day and night, VFR and IFR. And it's all legal, without need
for waivers of any kind - because no money is changing hands.
Therefore, all the nonsense about needing a common purpose even if
costs are not shared is just that - nonsense.

The stuff you posted merely tells the inspectors that whatever their
personal opinion on the issue might be, they are NOT to treat the tax
deduction as money changing hands.

Michael

If you check, I believe you'll find that Angel Flight and similar
organizations have a Memorandum of Understanding on file with the FAA that
lets them do things that would be questionable for a private pilot.

--
Roger Long

Michael wrote:

Well, that's fine. But supposing you didn't even take a tax
deduction.

It doesn't matter if you do. The IRS long ago told the FAA to keep their
cotton-picking fingers out of the tax situation. Take all the deductions you
can; the FAA won't argue about it.

George Patterson
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect. - Linus Torvalds, speaking about Linux.

"Roger Long" om
wrote
If you check, I believe you'll find that Angel Flight and similar
organizations have a Memorandum of Understanding on file with the FAA that
lets them do things that would be questionable for a private pilot.

There is no such thing as questionable. Either it is legal, or it is
not. It ****es me off to no end when people describe operations as
'questionable' and avoiding them 'to be safe.' If you think it
violates a rule, cite it chapter and verse or admit it doesn't.

There is nothing questionable about flying people around for free,
regardless of reason. It only becomes an issue if compensation is
involved. Sharing costs is compensation. Flight time has been ruled
to be compensations, but not if you're paying for it out of your own
pocket.

Does that mean nobody has ever been busted for it? Of course not.
Plenty of FAA inspectors are assholes who simply make up their own
rules; if that weren't the case then there never would have been any
need for the 'guidance' that went into the handbook about not treating
tax deductions as compensation. I think you will find that when you
chase the Memorandum of Understanding down (if it still exists - I
suspect the change to the Inspector's Handbook made it moot, and I've
certainly never heard of it in the years I've been flying for Angel
Flight) that it will also address only the issue of compensation.

You need to realize that just because someone at the FSDO said so
doesn't make it right. FSDO inspectors have been known to do all
sorts of improper things, up to and including hounding pilots to
death. (http://www.avweb.com/pdf/brinell_report.pdf) People do get
violated for no good reason, and that's one of those risks of flying
that you just can't avoid. If the fed wants to get you, he will get
you.

Michael