You cannot recieve compensation????

[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.

 

[100LL... Again!]

For example, I think the CAP is actually private aircraft. I could be incorrect here, though.

 

[midlifeflyer]

LOL! A simple "Excuse me?" and I get 5 separate "clarifications."

 

[A Squared]

LOL! A simple "Excuse me?" and I get 5 separate "clarifications."

AAAhhh,, the power of the supercillious response

 

[lawfly]

Regarding the original post, a private pilot may share the cost of the flight equally with his passenger. A commercial pilot certificate alone, however, would not by itself necessarily permit compensation. If the operation came under FAR 135 (more than 25 miles, etc.) a 135 certificate would also be required, 135 experience requirements, a 135 PIC endorsement, etc. The Feds have been known to pursue commercial-CFIs who conduct de facto 135 charters without satisfaction of the 135 requirements. I know most of you guys already know this, but posting more for the benefit of the original poster and anyone not yet familiar with 135 aspects. Because I still remember a consult about this with a despondent, young CFI, years ago.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Regarding the original post, a private pilot may share the cost of the flight equally with his passenger.

I'm sorry, but I think that this part of the answer suffers from the usual failure to mention the "common purpose" requirement, which very clearly enters into the original poster's scenario.

 

[AVI8V1]

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.....

i've edited my response too many times...

hopefully i'm just not picking up the sarcasm...