You cannot recieve compensation????

[UnAnswerd]

The FAA states that as a private pilot, you cannot receive any type of compensation for your ability to fly an aircraft. Now, I have no intentions of ever violating this law, or any other regulation for that matter. However, I would like to offer a hypothetical question...

Your friend from out of state has come to visit you, and his car breaks down while in your area. The car is perhaps a POS and the repair cost will not be worth it. Your friend decides he will scrap the car and look for a new one once back home. He asks you to fly him home, and offers to pay you $100 to do so. You will have to miss a day of work to fly him home, bills are tight enough already, so you really cannot afford to be generous enough to fly him home for free. Unfortunately, as a private pilot, you cannot do ANYTHING other than fly him home for free. But what if you were to make an agreement with him. Say for instance you tell him that you will indeed fly him home for free, if he agrees to give $100 as a gift. Now, this would still be compensation because you'd be expecting him to give you the gift after the flight. However, what if a personal agreement was made, wherein he swears that he only gave you money as a gift, and did not pay you in any way for the flight???

Of course this is illegal. But what I want to know, is how in the Hell would the FAA ever know about this?????? And even if the FAA did somehow see an exchange of money, what could they do upon hearing that the money was a gift, and was not for the flight????

 

[Sctt@NJA]

Of course this is illegal. But what I want to know, is how in the Hell would the FAA ever know about this?????? And even if the FAA did somehow see an exchange of money, what could they do upon hearing that the money was a gift, and was not for the flight????

That would work pretty good... if you don't want to get caught just don't do anything dumb like post about it on a public message board.... doh!

 

[UnAnswerd]

That would work pretty good... if you don't want to get caught just don't do anything dumb like post about it on a public message board.... doh!

I made it clear I would never violate the regulation. Curiosity does get the best of me though....

 

[Snoopy58]

The fact that it's almost completely undetectable doesn't make it any less illegal, but if the guy gives you the money in cash, and you both keep your mouths shut about it forever, and nobody traces this thread back to you, the chances of it being detected are mighty slim. Of course, it's still illegal.

Now, if your friend paid you the $100 to take care of some detail related to junking the car, and you flew him home for free just to build time, then you're probably on somewhat safer ground.

The FAA has more to worry about than if cash changes hands between friends, so the chances of being found out rest mostly on things like him slipping and saying "yeah, I paid Bill $100 to fly me home, but he made me call it a gift..." in the hearing of the wrong person, or some thing similar.

Being able to get away with something doesn't make it any less an illegal act, and if the FAA wanted to make a case against you, calling it a gift wouldn't be much of a roadbump to them. However, if he doesn't hand you the $ in front of an FAA inspector (while yelling out, "thanks for the lift, good luck on your commercial checkride next week"), they simply aren't going to see it happen.

 

[Sctt@NJA]

I was trying to be funny I guess. But really there are some odd cases with legally getting paid to fly.

For instance I know a state trooper who only has a private pilot license who as just a small part of his duties occasionally flys around in a c-182 for the state. Its part of his job and he gets paid of course. But because it is only incidental to his job and not his primary job he does not need anything more than a private license.

A more grey are here: You are a flight instructor at an FBO. A guy flys his own airplane in to get maint done. He is leaving his plane there and needs to get himself back home. Your boss tells you to fly him home in a flight school airplane (no 135 cert) and you will get paid your regular hourly rate. Legal or no?

More grey: You are a flight instructor. You have a primary student who wants you to fly with him somewhere so he can do some business then fly him back. He has already done all the cross-countries required for his ppl so this flight wouldn't be conducted if it weren't for the business that he wants to conduct. Legal or no?

Next one: Same as the last one except this time the student owns his own airplane. Legal or no?

Plenty of questions and real life scenarios to keep anyone busy and confused as they build time and try to stay out of trouble!

 

[darkvw]

or if his share of the trip home (aircraft rental , gas , ramp fees, etc. ) equals $100 then it's ok. pro rata share of the flight.

 

[Flymach2]

Hi...

On a side note, the following excerpt is from a 1990 Legal Interpretation from the Asst. Chief Counsel, Donald P. Byrne.

"...the agency has repeatedly taken the position that building up flight time is considered compensatory in nature when the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft and would, therefore, be deemed a form of "compensation" to the private pilot under Section 61.118." (Now 61.113).

Regards

 

[wheelsup]

A more grey are here: You are a flight instructor at an FBO. A guy flys his own airplane in to get maint done. He is leaving his plane there and needs to get himself back home. Your boss tells you to fly him home in a flight school airplane (no 135 cert) and you will get paid your regular hourly rate. Legal or no?

Illegal - 135. You're flying him home. Here's a cavet - he agrees to fly home (he IS a pilot) and you ferry the aircraft back empty. I'm thinking this is 91, as its the way charter companies work (when there's paying cargo is 135, when there isn't anything on board its 91). He just pays for using the airplane both ways. Thoughts?

More grey: You are a flight instructor. You have a primary student who wants you to fly with him somewhere so he can do some business then fly him back. He has already done all the cross-countries required for his ppl so this flight wouldn't be conducted if it weren't for the business that he wants to conduct. Legal or no?

I personally say 135 - because the purpose of the flight was business, not training. But I suppose you could sway it either way with how you handle the situation.

Next one: Same as the last one except this time the student owns his own airplane. Legal or no?

That's easy - if the guy owns his plane he can pay whoever we wants to fly it as long as that person acting as PIC has a commercial license and valid 1st or 2nd class medical. It's called being a "corporate pilot" . Isn't this how netjets operates, or is it 135 - not 91?

Plenty of questions and real life scenarios to keep anyone busy and confused as they build time and try to stay out of trouble!

I agree. If it doesn't sound right and you have to go searching for a way to make it legal, how legal can it be!?! If there's ever a question just don't do it.

~wheelsup

 

[FreeFaller]

Am I too far out of Civ flying?
I thought your passengers could pay for their share of the expenses.
i.e. 1/2 the gas, 1/2 the rental, 1/2 the ramp fess, etc. So $100 sounds like an amount that could be covered.
I also like the idea of him paying you $100 to deal with the car and the ride is free.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Am I too far out of Civ flying?
I thought your passengers could pay for their share of the expenses.

Only if the pilot and the passengers are going to the same place for the same reason. Not knowing it doesn't make you too far out. It's not in the FAR or AIM and unfortunately tends to receive zero attention during training. But the "common purpose" doctrine has been around for a long time, referred to in FAA Legal opinions and used with regularity in enforcement proceedings.

From a 1985 FAA Legal opinion (61.118 is the predecessor to 61.113):
==================================================
Additionally, the FAA has interpreted 61.118(b) so that the only allowable share-the-costs operations are those which are bona fide, that is, joint ventures for a common purpose with the expenses being defrayed by all passengers and the pilot. Nor does Section 61.118 permit pilots who want to build up time toward their commercial pilot certificates to carry expense sharing passengers to a destination at which they have no particular business.
==================================================

May favorite example of what a "common purpose" is, though, comes from a 1977 opinion where a pilot asked FAA Legal if he could fly a candidate around for campaign stops for the cost of gas:
==================================================
it is not a joint venture (you are not running for office)
==================================================

 

[Headwind]

The big problem could be insurance, not the FAA. You have an accident and the insurance company is looking for a way out of paying the claim. If your insurance is business & pleasure and they have evidence you got paid then you have no coverage.

HEADWIND

 

[avbug]

The big problem could be insurance, not the FAA.

No, the big problem really is the FAA.

I thought your passengers could pay for their share of the expenses.
i.e. 1/2 the gas, 1/2 the rental, 1/2 the ramp fess, etc. So $100 sounds like an amount that could be covered.

No, that would be the pro rata share you're thinking of. That means that the pilot pays a minimum of his or her pro rata share. If four people are on board, the pilot must pay at least a quarter of the cost of the flight. If two, it's one half. And so on. We don't guess in aviation, and "sounds like an amount that could be covered" sounds a whole lot like guesswork. Doesn't stand up for defense on appeal during enforcement proceedings.

honestly who would ever know?

The FAA, that's who. Who turns you in? You'd be surprised. The single pilot 135 operator on the field who gets wind from the lineboy...sticks in his craw to be carrying a hundred thousand dollar insurance policy and eating ramen while you take away his business. People are funny that way. It could be an innocent remark...I knew an individual who let an offhand comment slip while giving a talk in his church, many years ago. An inspector happened to be visiting and in the congregation, and met the kid in the foyer after the meeting. Busted. Not too nice about it, either. You'd be surprised how easy it is to get caught.

if your friend gives you $$ to drive him somewhere in your car, that is ALSO technically illegal without a taxi license but stuff like that happens everyday

No, and a big bad federal agency isn't chasing around with nothing to do than bust you for it, either. Think about it.

That's easy - if the guy owns his plane he can pay whoever we wants to fly it as long as that person acting as PIC has a commercial license and valid 1st or 2nd class medical. It's called being a "corporate pilot" . Isn't this how netjets operates, or is it 135 - not 91?

Not a good example. Fractional operators are not corporate in nature, and are operating under either 91 subpart K (mirrors Part 135 in part), or Part 135, or both.

or if his share of the trip home (aircraft rental , gas , ramp fees, etc. ) equals $100 then it's ok. pro rata share of the flight.

No, pro rata does not justify an illegal charter, nor does it authorize a private pilot to hold out for business. Remember that holding out doesn't have to be printed, or a verbal offer; it can be by reputation if an individual is known to be available to make the flight. Do the two have a common purpose, and is the original poster already planning on making the trip? No. The original poster is making the trip on behalf of a request from another individual, and has already crossed over into 135 territory. The flight is also being made for compensation, and without the monetary exchange or financial gain, the logging of flight time in connection with the flight is also considered compensation, and may be used in enforcement action against the pilot.

A more grey are here: You are a flight instructor at an FBO. A guy flys his own airplane in to get maint done. He is leaving his plane there and needs to get himself back home. Your boss tells you to fly him home in a flight school airplane (no 135 cert) and you will get paid your regular hourly rate. Legal or no?

Possibly...not enough information is provided. However, with the little bit that is provided, there is no common purpose in making the flight, and you as the instructor have no particular business making the flight, other than for the purpose of conveying an individual to a point other than the point of departure, for hire. That you're getting paid a regular wage doesn't justify the flight.

Probably not too bright an idea, thought it wasn't mentioned, to try justifying it as flight instruction, either. The FAA may justifiably construe that as fraud as you attempt to circumvent the regulation.

More grey: You are a flight instructor. You have a primary student who wants you to fly with him somewhere so he can do some business then fly him back. He has already done all the cross-countries required for his ppl so this flight wouldn't be conducted if it weren't for the business that he wants to conduct. Legal or no?

Again, not enough information, but with what is provided, enforcement action has been held against instructors who have done this very thing. Folks have been trying to justify illegal charters as bonafide instruction for a long time. You may get away with it, but as another poster correctly identified..."getting away with it" does not equate legitimacy.

The purpose of the flight is to conduct business. You cited this as primary instruction, indicating that the student is not capable of making the flight on his or her own. If the student is capable, you're still acting as PIC for the purpose of getting someone from the point of departure to a point other than the point of departure for compensation or hire, and have crossed the magic 135 threshold.

More information needs to be provided as to who owns and has provided the aircraft. The farther the ownership or operational control can be from your own employment, the better. Which takes us to your next question...

Next one: Same as the last one except this time the student owns his own airplane. Legal or no?

Yes, no, maybe so. Again, not enough information, as always. Given that the student has provided the aircraft and has hired the commercially certificated instructor to act as pilot in command, a legitimate business arrangement may be presumed to have occured (contingent upon understanding the full details of the story, of course).

 

[JRSLim]

Quote: 'Lets say there's a friend...'


If you have a friend who needs a ride, let me know - I need the hours and will do it for free. OK, I'll rent the plane tooo.....

 

[100LL... Again!]

Important to remember:

The FARs only apply to non-government operations.

Most state or Federal agencies CHOOSE to use the FARs as their operating policy, though they are not necessarily bound by law to do so. Hence, the state patrol COULD use a recently soloed student to fly traffic enforcement with passengers even, provided it was a government operation.

I know of no agency that uses this leeway, but they could.
Look in FAR 1, I think, for applicability.


One test for illegal 135 is this: Were you going anyway, even if the friend find alternative transportation? If yes, then you are on safer ground.

Next, I would like to address the student pilot-business X-C.
If you are legitimately at the phase of training where the student can plan and fly the cross country, then why can you not couple it with a pusiness trip? This is not, in my opinion, common carriage since you are not holding out for this service to the general public. There is no law preventing a student from conducting business on any of the REQUIRED cross-country trips, nor is there any reg against flying additional cross-country trips.

Here would be my test: Is the student planning the flight and doing all of the flying? Are they doing the duties of PIC? Talking on the radio? Actually achieving meaningful flight experience?

If the CFI plans and flies the trip and calls it X-C dual, then the looks-like-a-duck test applies.


To further that question, you have renter pilot who wants to fly a trip. Can he hire a CFII to come along in case you need to file? Is that 134.5?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Important to remember:

The FARs only apply to non-government operations.

Most state or Federal agencies CHOOSE to use the FARs as their operating policy, though they are not necessarily bound by law to do so. Hence, the state patrol COULD use a recently soloed student to fly traffic enforcement with passengers even, provided it was a government operation.

Excuse me?

 

[100LL... Again!]

Look at the definition of civil aircraft versus public aircraft in FAR 1.

Then look at the number of regs in Part 91 that reference civil aircraft.

Again, this is probably never done, since all agencies that I know of use the FARs as their own internal regulatory policy.

 

[100LL... Again!]

The student-pilot scenario is actually incorrect, but there are numerous regs that reference civil aircraft (vs public) while many regs do not.

Ergo, regs that only refernce civi aircraft do not apply to public aircraft, or else why would these definitions exist?

 

[100LL... Again!]

91.7 Civil aircraft Airworthiness

91.9 Civil Aircraft Flight Manual

Etc.

There MAY be other portions of the law that COULD require compliance with the FARs in their entirety.

There probably are.

However, the FARs provide a certain distinction between these operations that certainly imply that the FARs by themselves do not apply automatically to all aircraft operations - just civil operations.

 

[A Squared]

It's not quite accurate to say that "The FARs only apply to non-government operations." Perhaps a better statement would be that many of the regulations do not apply to the operation of Public Aircraft. Not all government aircraft are public aircraft. The regulations which state "no person may operate aircraft...." apply to civil and public aircrat equally. The ones which say "no person may operate a civil aircraft....." are not applicable to Public Aircraft.

 

[100LL... Again!]

That would be more accurate - government operations that fall under the category of 'public aircraft' operations.