Angel Flight and part 91 rules

[DesertNomad]

How does Angel Flight not fall into the same rules that prohibit the "airbnb" type rules that the FAA imposes on private pilots? I know there is no exchange of money, but they are still requesting a flight at a specific time and route.

Angel Flight requires 250 hours PIC which I should have later this week and am considering signing up.

 

[MetalCloud]

I would like to sign up when I get to that point, so I'm subscribing to this thread

 

[ircphoenix]

AirBNB you're renting a room. A charter you're renting a plane and a pilot.

To my understanding, Angel Flight is zero compensation. The pilot's aren't paid for their time, aircraft, or fuel. If a pilot can accommodate the schedule of an angel flight requestor, so be it. If the pilot were flying a plane owned by Angel Flight, you now have an issue. If the pilot was being paid for anything more than the remainder after his pro-rata share of the flight, you have an issue. But pilot's time, pilot's dime, pilot's plane... all hunky dory.

 

[Twin_Flyer]

You as the pilot are making a tax deductible charity donation of your aircraft, time, fuel, and any other costs connected to the flight to a 501(c)3 charitable organization. The patients are not charged nor does Angel flight fund the trips. This has all been blessed by the FAA btw. That being said it is one of the most enjoyable and sometime heart breaking thing you can do with an airplane. I think you may fall under AF West region being in NV and they have a very good website that may answer most of the questions you may have. Most regions allow pilots to do ride-a-longs for pilots wanting to get a feel for what it's like to fly missions. I always felt that I was going to spend the money just flying around anyway so I might as well help someone that really needed it.

Hope this helps... Feel free to PM me if you have questions. I will try to answer but remember each region has it's own rules and SOPs.

Fly Safe!!!

 

[murphey]

AFW and the others and similar organizations,mincluding EAA young eagles, are in the category of Public Benefit Flying. FAA has rules that are specific to PBF.

 

[Brad Z]

How does Angel Flight not fall into the same rules that prohibit the "airbnb" type rules that the FAA imposes on private pilots? I know there is no exchange of money, but they are still requesting a flight at a specific time and route.

Angel Flight requires 250 hours PIC which I should have later this week and am considering signing up.

You can even hold out, as long as you're not asking or accepting compensation to do so. The issue is common carriage, which the FAA generally considers to include the following elements: (1) a holding out, (2) to carry people or property, (3) for compensation or hire. If you don't accept money (and the passenger isn't paying money), you're not engaged in common carriage, not running afoul of 61.113 or part 119.

 

[flyingron]

Yep, if you take compensation for even fuel, Angel Flight gets put into a different set of rules (the IRS carved out a limited exception but it does have lots of stipulations). As FlyteNow found out and in their Federal suit, taking of anything counts as "for compensation or hire" including the normally allowable private expense sharing. Marrying this up with holding out makes it illegal common carriage. Note that the undecided in the courts but in the "I'm not going to risk my ticket on it" issue is whether pilots receiving the benefit of logging time are "receiving emuneration" under the rules.

 

[mcmanigle]

Yeah, my understanding is that you only run into trouble if you hit all three of (1) a holding out, (2) to carry people or property, (3) for compensation or hire. The problem is that for this purpose, "compensation or hire" includes taking a pro rata share.

So, for most of the "fly around with a friend" situations we're used to, you can accept a pro rata share because you're not holding out. That's what gets flight boards etc in trouble. Even offering to accept your pro rata share is a problem if you're broadcasting your availability to everyone and anyone.

For the Angel Flight scenario, they're holding out, but not accepting any money at all, not even a pro rata share. (The weird IRS fuel thing notwithstanding and operating under its own exemption.)

So, you can hold out / advertise, or you can take some fuel money, but you can't do both. (Also, as a private pilot, even if you do take some fuel money you have to pay your pro rata share no matter what, but we all know that.)

 

[flyingron]

There's no weird IRS fuel thing. You're free to deduct all legitimate costs as a charitable deduction without doing anything. The FAA beat a hasty retreat on an earlier ruling that taking a deduction amounted to compensation. The "weird fuel thing" is not IRS but the FAA coming to grips with pilots getting fuel reimbursement (http://www.angelflightmidatlantic.org/pilots/fuel-reimbursement-program/)

 

[RotorDude]

As I mentioned in a previous thread about Angel Flight, there is a minor correction to the above.
If you are a PPL flying Angel Flight missions, you may under some circumstances receive payment for all your fuel (and possibly other direct expenses) from Angel Flight. (I personally have never received anything for my own Angel Flights except thanks and satisfaction, so this is theoretical for me.)
However, to get that "free fuel" etc., you need to jump through a number of hoops, of which the worst one that I recall is agreeing to higher minima for low IFR approaches. I consider the latter a safety hazard, not an enhancement, and refuse to jump through this hoop. (The others are not much fun either.)
BTW, the above is based on memory only and may have changed since I last read it, so someone who knows better might want to chime in.

 

[NoHeat]

After seeing the aftermath of a dumbass pilot killing his 2-year-old Angel Flight patient/passenger just a mile from my house, by taking off downwind, in a storm, and toward terrain -- the whole Angel Flight idea strikes me as a very bad idea.

An idea so bad, in terms of the safety of innocent people, that matters such as tax deductibility are sadly irrelevant.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The public benefit flight exemption has an interesting history. A letter was sent to the Chief Counsel, who responded saying it was a Part 135 operation due to compensation in the form of a tax deduction. Fortunately, the person asking was a US senator and the Chief Counsel reversed himself within a few weeks on strictly policy grounds. The FAA followed up with the policy statement that now appears in FSIMS.