A question on the 'pro-rata' share rule.

First off, CONGRATS!! Regarding the prorata share - I'm in the same boat. 17 years old, no job, and my parents are paying for my flying. If they are already funding your flying then they can't really pay anything else. With your friends, if it is you and a friend the most your friend can pay is half. If you are with 2 friends then you pay 1/3 and your friends pay 1/3 and so on. I heard somewhere that as long as you pay your prorata share that the pax can divide it amongst themselves as they wished.
 
Because your finances are inextricably entwined with that of your parents, their money is your money and your money is their money, so there should be no problem.

(At 17, you have not yet reached the age of majority, so your parents are legally responsible for any debts you incur, hence the statement above.)
 
So that naturally leads to the next question...

If someone has reached the age of 18 and their parents are still paying for their flying 100%, because they have no job, are they in violation of the pro-rata share rule if the parents go along on a flight to a nice destination that the parents wanted to travel to anyway?

Or better...

Can mom and dad pay for the aircraft and gas to have the 18 year old who hasn't moved out of the house yet and doesn't have a job, to fly grandma down to see the other grandkids? How about a 17 year old?

Heh... this'd make for a great EdFred flowchart. :)

How about a married couple who keeps completely separate fiscal accounts all the way to the point of having a PreNup agreement that forcibly maintains separate money even if they divorce someday, and the spouse pays for flying while the other isn't working?

What if the spouse goes along and they fly to a vacation destination the spouse wanted to go to?

Does it suddenly change if the couple isn't married?

Or...

How do barter or future gifts play into the rule? A Private Pilot offers to fly the neighbor's purebred dog he bred to a buyer the next state over, on his own dime. The neighbor gifts a purebred puppy six months later to the friendly Private Pilot who just wanted to fly anyway, so he flew the first dog to its new owner. The breeder says he knows how much the pilot loves dogs, and he'll be "insulted" if he doesn't take his pick of the next litter.

Here's a fun one...

One pilot pays for the entire flight, but the other logs Safety Pilot time. Is the free flight time unintended remuneration?

You can keep this goofiness going all day long. The rule, and its interpretations, are utterly jacked up -- compared to what the intent of the rule was.

Same stupidity surrounds the "no pecuniary interest" law surrounding Amateur Radio.
 
smltk1 said:
I know I can't tell people at school I'll take them up provided they pay for the airplane rental fees and whatnot
Click to expand...
That is largely true, but not completely true. If you and your friends have a common purpose for the flight (say, going somewhere together to see a sporting event or a concert or the like), then you can legally do a pro rata share of the direct expenses of the flight (i.e., rental fees and any landing/parking fees at the other end).

but what about when I take family members up? Since I don't have a source of income yet, what would be the best thing to do in this situation? None of my parents or relatives know about this regulation so as far as they know, they'll just pay everything whenever I take them up..
Click to expand...
Technically, you can't legally operate as the family corporate pilot. However, neither the FAA nor anyone else is going to care what happens inside your immediate family regarding who pays for what.

I have asked my flight instructor about this issue and he told me it was a very gray area. He mentioned that since my parents are paying for my flight training, and in essence, paying all the fees that are associated with renting an airplane, the FAA won't really jump on my case if my parents pay for the flight. Is doing something along like my parent/relative giving me money before the flight then me using that money to pay for the rental fees after the flight allowed?
Click to expand...
Your instructor is correct.

I would like to add that this is ONLY when I take my family on a short flight around the city to show them how it looks like in the air and NOT about me flying my family members around to places and accepting a 'tip' from them after the flight. I'm going to scrounge up money and pay my share whenever I take friends up.
Click to expand...
Your adherence to the rules is commendable, but unnecessary when it involves someone entirely dependent on his/her parents for finances and those aforesaid parents or grandparents.
 
All of that "angels on the head of a pin" ignores the implied, unwritten portion of that rule: "if the FAA becomes aware of the arrangement"

If you think your mom will rat you out to the feds, then you've got bigger problems than I want to think about. That unwritten part of the FARs is there for people you don't quite trust as much as mom, your brother/sister, etc. It's for people like "pilotsharetheride.com" where you're sharing costs with complete strangers...and if you say something wrong to the guy you're sharing with that ****es him off and he calls the FSDO...
 
DavidWhite said:
With your friends, if it is you and a friend the most your friend can pay is half. If you are with 2 friends then you pay 1/3 and your friends pay 1/3 and so on.
Click to expand...
Just remember that there must be a "common purpose" for the flight, i.e., you aren't going somewhere you wouldn't have gone but for them.

I heard somewhere that as long as you pay your prorata share that the pax can divide it amongst themselves as they wished.
Click to expand...
That is correct.
 
denverpilot said:
If someone has reached the age of 18 and their parents are still paying for their flying 100%, because they have no job, are they in violation of the pro-rata share rule if the parents go along on a flight to a nice destination that the parents wanted to travel to anyway?
Click to expand...
Without getting into the legalities, the FAA won't care what happens between parents and their dependent children.

Can mom and dad pay for the aircraft and gas to have the 18 year old who hasn't moved out of the house yet and doesn't have a job, to fly grandma down to see the other grandkids? How about a 17 year old?
Click to expand...
Technically, no. But again, the FAA won't get involved in immediate family business.

How about a married couple who keeps completely separate fiscal accounts all the way to the point of having a PreNup agreement that forcibly maintains separate money even if they divorce someday, and the spouse pays for flying while the other isn't working?
Click to expand...
It now appears that someone is not asking real questions, but just engaging in pot-stirring.

What if the spouse goes along and they fly to a vacation destination the spouse wanted to go to?

Does it suddenly change if the couple isn't married?
Click to expand...
The appearance becomes clearer.

How do barter or future gifts play into the rule? A Private Pilot offers to fly the neighbor's purebred dog he bred to a buyer the next state over, on his own dime. The neighbor gifts a purebred puppy six months later to the friendly Private Pilot who just wanted to fly anyway, so he flew the first dog to its new owner. The breeder says he knows how much the pilot loves dogs, and he'll be "insulted" if he doesn't take his pick of the next litter.
Click to expand...
We now have a clear quid pro quo, and it becomes a commercial operation.

One pilot pays for the entire flight, but the other logs Safety Pilot time. Is the free flight time unintended remuneration?
Click to expand...
This one has actually been asked and answered by the Chief Counsel -- free flight time accrued by a Safety Pilot does not violate 61.113.
 
DavidWhite said:
First off, CONGRATS!! Regarding the prorata share - I'm in the same boat. 17 years old, no job, and my parents are paying for my flying. If they are already funding your flying then they can't really pay anything else. With your friends, if it is you and a friend the most your friend can pay is half. If you are with 2 friends then you pay 1/3 and your friends pay 1/3 and so on. I heard somewhere that as long as you pay your prorata share that the pax can divide it amongst themselves as they wished.
Click to expand...

The rule actually says nothing about what other people pay, only that the PIC must pay his pro-rata share.

So, if you go up with 1 friend, the pilot must pay at least 50%, but can pay up to 100%

If you go up with 2 friends, the PIC must pay at least 1/3. One of the other passengers can pay 2/3, and the third nothing, there's nothing to require that all of the people on the plane pay their pro-rata share.

Take another example. If I go somewhere with a friend and my 8 year old daughter, and my friend offers to pay 2/3 of the cost of the flight, that's entirely permissible. I'm paying 1/3 and that's all I'm required to pay as there are two passengers, even though one of those passengers is my daughter, my daughter (and hence me) is not required to pay a pro-rata share, only the PIC is.
 
JeffDG said:
All of that "angels on the head of a pin" ignores the implied, unwritten portion of that rule: "if the FAA becomes aware of the arrangement"

If you think your mom will rat you out to the feds, then you've got bigger problems than I want to think about. That unwritten part of the FARs is there for people you don't quite trust as much as mom, your brother/sister, etc. It's for people like "pilotsharetheride.com" where you're sharing costs with complete strangers...and if you say something wrong to the guy you're sharing with that ****es him off and he calls the FSDO...
Click to expand...
Read Jeff's words carefully. They provide a pretty good idea of what Inspectors will act on -- and what they won't care about.
 
I don't mind the pinhead questions in this area. It's kind of fun in a truly gray area like this to play that game - but only for the purpose of developing an understanding of the rule.

It's also good to get a practical feel about which of those enforcement cares and doesn't care about.

Jeff - great post :)
 
Intent, folks, intent.

The entire purpose of this rule is to catch people trying to run a business and make a living without a commercial ticket. I don't think anything he is doing even gets close. In other words, personally I wouldn't worry about it.

To the OP - congratulations!
 
onwards said:
Intent, folks, intent.

The entire purpose of this rule is to catch people trying to run a business and make a living without a commercial ticket.
Click to expand...
The fundamental purpose of this rule is to protect the public from operators not providing the documentable and demonstrable level of safety the FAA and Congress want for transportation of people and property for hire.
 
JeffDG said:
All of that "angels on the head of a pin" ignores the implied, unwritten portion of that rule: "if the FAA becomes aware of the arrangement"

If you think your mom will rat you out to the feds, then you've got bigger problems than I want to think about. That unwritten part of the FARs is there for people you don't quite trust as much as mom, your brother/sister, etc. It's for people like "pilotsharetheride.com" where you're sharing costs with complete strangers...and if you say something wrong to the guy you're sharing with that ****es him off and he calls the FSDO...
Click to expand...

I never knew about that website. Seems interesting though there are two "out of medical" people posting to be safety pilots and wanting to get back into flying on there. I thought you had to be a "legal" pilot (including current medical) to act as a safety pilot?

Kimberly
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
I never knew about that website. Seems interesting though there are two "out of medical" people posting to be safety pilots and wanting to get back into flying on there. I thought you had to be a "legal" pilot (including current medical) to act as a safety pilot?

Kimberly
Click to expand...
You do.
 
Ron Levy said:
The fundamental purpose of this rule is to protect the public from operators not providing the documentable and demonstrable level of safety the FAA and Congress want for transportation of people and property for hire.
Click to expand...
...and to protect those who jumped through the hoops and paid the costs of obtaining that documentation.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
I never knew about that website. Seems interesting though there are two "out of medical" people posting to be safety pilots and wanting to get back into flying on there. I thought you had to be a "legal" pilot (including current medical) to act as a safety pilot?

Kimberly
Click to expand...

You don't need to be passenger current or have a current flight review to act as a safety pilot (if you're not acting as PIC), but you do need a medical as a "required crew-member".
 
JeffDG said:
You don't need to be passenger current or have a current flight review to act as a safety pilot (if you're not acting as PIC), but you do need a medical as a "required crew-member".
Click to expand...

Right. And they used (what seems to be) their real first and last names in their profiles. Odd. They were both "out of medical".
 
If you only fly with people you know very well and only take cash then I can't see you getting into trouble. Even though you are technially breaking the law if it is over 66% of your hourly rental fee. If you start advertising cheap airfare or flying with people who you don't know if they work for the FAA or not, and especially if your excepting checks or credit card payments in large sums of money over what the flight would cost.. You maybe get in all kinds of trouble with various agencies.

<---<^>--->
 
JeffDG said:
You don't need to be passenger current or have a current flight review to act as a safety pilot (if you're not acting as PIC), but you do need a medical as a "required crew-member".
Click to expand...

So a serious question...

Change the right seater to a CFII without a medical.

Are they "giving instruction" or "acting as a Safety Pilot"? They don't require a medical to do the former, correct...? As long as the left-seater is PIC.

How about if the guy or gal in the left seat is now under the hood?

Now the flight requires the CFII to be dual-PIC for purposes of the safety of the flight, correct?

The PIC requirement also triggers the 2nd Class Medical suddenly being required, correct?
 
denverpilot said:
So a serious question...

Change the right seater to a CFII without a medical.

Are they "giving instruction" or "acting as a Safety Pilot"? They don't require a medical to do the former, correct...? As long as the left-seater is PIC.

How about if the guy or gal in the left seat is now under the hood?

Now the flight requires the CFII to be dual-PIC for purposes of the safety of the flight, correct?

The PIC requirement also triggers the 2nd Class Medical suddenly being required, correct?
Click to expand...
Once the hood goes on, the right-seater is a "required crewmember" and needs a 3rd Class medical.

91.109 said:
(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.
Click to expand...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91/109

61.3 said:
(c) Medical certificate. (1) A person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of an aircraft only if that person holds the appropriate medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter, or other documentation acceptable to the FAA, that is in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft. Paragraph (c)(2) of this section provides certain exceptions to the requirement to hold a medical certificate.
Click to expand...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61/3
 
If you have questions such as this, call your local FSDO and simply ask them. They, for the most part, are good bunch of people who will bend over backward to help you with any and all questions. That is what they are there for, it's why they get the big bucks.

Getting your information from the horse's mouth beats the heck out of forums such as this one, when your license can be put at risk.

John
 
John Baker said:
If you have questions such as this, call your local FSDO and simply ask them. They, for the most part, are good bunch of people who will bend over backward to help you with any and all questions. That is what they are there for, it's why they get the big bucks.

Getting your information from the horse's mouth beats the heck out of forums such as this one, when your license can be put at risk.

John
Click to expand...

Thanks. But since I don't need a safety pilot I won't be using these guys for that reason. Not even sure if I could be a "good" safety pilot to anyone but legally I suppose I'm now qualified.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Not even sure if I could be a "good" safety pilot to anyone but legally I suppose I'm now qualified.
Click to expand...

Your primary function as a safety pilot is to handle "see-and-avoid" duties for the hooded pilot. He's unable to see outside, so she (see how I mixed the pronouns there!) needs someone to fulfill that responsibility for them.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Not even sure if I could be a "good" safety pilot to anyone...
Click to expand...

That probably depends on how good you are at spotting traffic, judging terrain and obstruction clearance, coordinating with other crew members, judging visibility and cloud clearance, etc.

That last item is necessary because under 61.55(a)(2), if you are not instrument rated, you can't act as safety pilot if the flight is flown under instrument flight rules. The pilot would have to limit him or herself to "practice approaches," which means instrument approaches flown under visual flight rules, requiring the pilot to maintain VFR visibility and distance from cloud criteria.

An exception to the preceding paragraph would be if the pilot doing the flying took off the hood and got an IFR clearance prior to entering IFR conditions. (During the time when the hood is off, no safety pilot is required.)
 
JeffDG said:
You don't need to be passenger current or have a current flight review to act as a safety pilot (if you're not acting as PIC), but you do need a medical as a "required crew-member".
Click to expand...
Not always. You can be a required crew member in a number of situations without a medical, starting with piloting or instructing in gliders, balloons, and LSA's. The reason you need a medical to act as a 91.109 safety pilot is that you are exercising Private Pilot privileges, and 61.23 requires a medical for that (I've never heard of anyone doing hoodwork in a glider, and I can't imagine doing hoodwork in a balloon).
 
denverpilot said:
Change the right seater to a CFII without a medical.

Are they "giving instruction" or "acting as a Safety Pilot"?
Click to expand...
Definitely giving training, but acting as a safety pilot only if the trainee is wearing a vision-restricting device.

They don't require a medical to do the former, correct...? As long as the left-seater is PIC.
Click to expand...
Correct. Instrument training could be given in actual instrument conditions with a no-medical instructor as long as the trainee is PIC-qualified for what they're doing. In addition, the instructor could, in theory, give training to a vision-restricted trainee from the jump seat or a third seat as long as the second control seat is occupied by a qualified safety pilot and either the trainee or the safety pilot is PIC-qualified.

How about if the guy or gal in the left seat is now under the hood? Now the flight requires the CFII to be dual-PIC for purposes of the safety of the flight, correct?
Click to expand...
Not PIC, as the hooded pilot can still, if qualified, act as PIC, but the instructor is then acting at least as a SIC safety pilot, and thus exercising PP privileges, and thus needs a Third Class medical.

The PIC requirement also triggers the 2nd Class Medical suddenly being required, correct?
Click to expand...
The Chief Counsel has said repeatedly that when giving training, even when acting as PIC, an instructor is being paid only for the instructing, not for being a pilot. Thus, only a Third Class medical is required when the instructor is also acting as a required pilot crewmember (PIC or SIC) in addition to giving training.
 
Last edited:
kimberlyanne546 said:
Thanks. But since I don't need a safety pilot I won't be using these guys for that reason. Not even sure if I could be a "good" safety pilot to anyone but legally I suppose I'm now qualified.
Click to expand...


My response was aimed at the op, not you Kimberly. I wasn't following the whole thread.

John
 
Yeah I didn't think a safety pilot was a required crewmember because at any time the PIC can take the hood off. (In case the safety pilot has a heart attack or whatever).

<---<^>--->
 
I was going to mention SIC but I rarely see a CFI log it that way when they can log it as A second required PIC. And of course they still need the medical either way...
 
p1l0t said:
Yeah I didn't think a safety pilot was a required crewmember because at any time the PIC can take the hood off. (In case the safety pilot has a heart attack or whatever).

<---<^>--->
Click to expand...
The safety pilot is indeed a required pilot crew member as long as the pilot flying is hooded. The fact that the pilot flying can take off the hood if anything happens to the safety pilot is irrelevant.
 
denverpilot said:
I was going to mention SIC but I rarely see a CFI log it that way when they can log it as A second required PIC. And of course they still need the medical either way...
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as a "second required PIC.". There'is only one PIC at a time. However, regardless of who is acting as PIC, a CFI giving training can log it as PIC time under 61.51(e)(3), and need not have a medical to be doing that unless also acting as a required pilot crew member.
 
Ron Levy said:
There's no such thing as a "second required PIC.". There'is only one PIC at a time. However, regardless of who is acting as PIC, a CFI giving training can log it as PIC time under 61.51(e)(3), and need not have a medical to be doing that unless also acting as a required pilot crew member.
Click to expand...

Right. In my scenario (student under the hood) they're required to be there. Whether they log it as PIC or SIC (or don't bother logging it at all) they also require a medical. Is there any reason they'd log it as SIC over PIC? I don't really see a reason them to do that, but it's their call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top