Can a PPL do it?

[alfadog]

I hear ya. What if they told the kid to be on the look out for any GA private plane going to the destination airport and if he could get them to bring it for free they'd mail the kid a reward?

My relatively uninformed opinion would be that the FAA would not have a leg to stand on there if they objected. The logbook is not being carried for compensation and a reward is being offered for something that does not involve Johnny's ticket.

 

[poadeleted20]

And I can be thankful to anyone I like who does me favors. Maybe in wishing you luck I further your education with a couple hours flight training?

Again, think of the duck (and I ain't talking about the AFLAC duck). The question you have to ask if the favor involves providing air transportation is whether what you do creates the appearance of a quid pro quo. If it appears that way, you'll have to find another way of saying "thanks."

 

[Palmpilot]

I hear ya. What if they told the kid to be on the look out for any GA private plane going to the destination airport and if he could get them to bring it for free they'd mail the kid a reward?

I think the FAA might say that although the private pilot would not be flying persons or property for hire, he or she would still be flying an aircraft that is carrying persons or property for hire, because a payment is being made to someone for the flight. It might hinge on whether the FAA could make a case that the private pilot "knew or should have known" that a payment was being made. See 61.113(a).

 

[poadeleted20]

I hear ya. What if they told the kid to be on the look out for any GA private plane going to the destination airport and if he could get them to bring it for free they'd mail the kid a reward?

Then the kid is not providing air transportation (the other GA pilot is) and the other GA pilot is not receiving compensation (the kid is). Nobody is providing air transportation for compensation/hire, so no rules are violated.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think the FAA might say that although the private pilot would not be flying persons or property for hire, he or she would still be flying an aircraft that is carrying persons or property for hire, because a payment is being made to someone for the flight. See 61.113(a).

There is a case on point, and the NTSB said that as long as the pilot was not receiving any compensation and was unaware of the payment to the person arranging the transport, the pilot is off the hook.

See Administrator v. Derkazarian.
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4791.pdf

 

[Palmpilot]

There is a case on point, and the NTSB said that as long as the pilot was not receiving any compensation and was unaware of the payment to the person arranging the transport, the pilot is off the hook.

I think I remember a case where a guy made a flight for free as a favor to a friend, and didn't know payment was being made, but it was decided that he was being compensated in goodwill that might lead to future business dealings, or something like that.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think I remember a case where a guy made a flight for free as a favor to a friend, and didn't know payment was being made, but it was decided that he was being compensated in goodwell for possible future business dealings, or something like that.

You're thinking of Administrator v. Murray, where there was a prior business relationship, and the goodwill created was viewed as compensation. Since Johnny has no proor or existing business relationship with BSS, goodwill is not an issue. The possibility of a future business relationship where none exists or ever existed should not be an issue.
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/5061.pdf

 

[alfadog]

Then the kid is not providing air transportation (the other GA pilot is) and the other GA pilot is not receiving compensation (the kid is). Nobody is providing air transportation for compensation/hire, so no rules are violated.

I agree. If Johnny is getting ready to drive the book over and a fellow shows up at the FBO with the same destination and is willing to carry it for free with no mention of compensation and leaves ignorant of such then Johnny is free to ask for and receive a finder's fee. However that is the less likely scenario than Johnny does it on the down low (and risks his ticket) or drives it over and is late for school.

 

[N801BH]

Again, think of the duck (and I ain't talking about the AFLAC duck). The question you have to ask if the favor involves providing air transportation is whether what you do creates the appearance of a quid pro quo. If it appears that way, you'll have to find another way of saying "thanks."

Speakin of ducks................................

The captain flys a duck............ Piaggio P.180 Avanti (twin-turboprop) (P180/Q -...

 

[Palmpilot]

You're thinking of Administrator v. Murray, where there was a prior business relationship, and the goodwill created was viewed as compensation. Since Johnny has no proor or existing business relationship with BSS, goodwill is not an issue. The possibility of a future business relationship where none exists or ever existed should not be an issue.
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/5061.pdf

Yes, that's the case I was thinking of. Here's another case that supports the principle you're referring to, since one of the reasons they let the pilot off was because he did not have a prior business relationship:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4791.PDF

The scenario that FlyerQ posed said "any GA private plane going to the destination airport." That scenario does not exclude a fact pattern similar to Murray, although I admit that it's not highly likely. That's why I said "maybe."

While I was looking for the link to the Murray case, I ran across one that applies the "knew or should have known" test that I mentioned (see page 5):

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4306.PDF

 

[JeffDG]

Because the duck is quacking loudly.

Also, under Mangimele, you can fly incidentally to a business, but if you carry passengers or property (like the logbook), that exception evaporates.

 

[Palmpilot]

Also, under Mangimele, you can fly incidentally to a business, but if you carry passengers or property (like the logbook), that exception evaporates.

And therefore you must fly naked!

 

[LearDriver]

Wouldn't this flight be operated under 134.5?

 

[NateDawgSC]

Let's keep this one going...I am in the process of finishing up my private pilot license. Furthermore, I work for a law enforcement agency that also has an aviation unit (helicopters). I was told that I would be able to fly in the unit w/o getting a commercial license, since no paying passengers or cargo is on board. I guess it falls under "incidental" to my job??? Right or am I destined to working on my commercial eventually?

 

[John Baker]

As long as he notifies the nearest FSDO that he is planning on flying a log book in a C-172, and will be paid his costs, I see nothing wrong with him doing that.

I know that all private pilots see it as their personal responsibility, and duty, to notify their nearest FSDO of anything they might be planning, if it involves flying and cash renumeration.

Otherwise, how will the FAA bust us if we are not forthright with them about everything we do? It's not like they have secret agents watching our every move you know.

-John

 

[RJM62]

Let's keep this one going...I am in the process of finishing up my private pilot license. Furthermore, I work for a law enforcement agency that also has an aviation unit (helicopters). I was told that I would be able to fly in the unit w/o getting a commercial license, since no paying passengers or cargo is on board. I guess it falls under "incidental" to my job??? Right or am I destined to working on my commercial eventually?

I think there's a general exemption for government employees. Someone who's usually right about these sort of things once told me that technically, pilots flying for law-enforcement agencies don't need licenses at all under federal law.

I don't know as fact whether that's true, however, and I'm too tired to look it up. Perhaps someone smarter than me, like Capt. Ron, has the answer at his fingertips.

-Rich

 

[John Baker]

Let's keep this one going...I am in the process of finishing up my private pilot license. Furthermore, I work for a law enforcement agency that also has an aviation unit (helicopters). I was told that I would be able to fly in the unit w/o getting a commercial license, since no paying passengers or cargo is on board. I guess it falls under "incidental" to my job??? Right or am I destined to working on my commercial eventually?

Your first post, and a good one. Welcome aboard POA Nate. If you are flying as the main part of your job, and are on the payroll, it is not "incidental" to your job, it is your job. You are being paid to fly.

However, I think Rich might be right. If you are indeed exempt from FAA regulations (I don't know if you are or not) there still might be liability issues involved, such as you crashing and causing harm or damage to property or lives. This would be an important issue that should be taken up with your department.

I also think that until you are IFR rated, I doubt if your flying could be little more than incidental to your work. If you have to get your IFR, you might as well get your commercial.

-John

 

[skidoo]

Seems like its all being looked at from the wrong approach. Perhaps it would have been better if it went like this.

Call to Johnny - hey do you have that logbook over there?
Johnny - Yes, it is right here.

OH, great. We you like you to be here for a meeting at xx time. We will be discussing that logbook, so you may want to bring it with you.

Johnny decides to fly to the meeting and bring the logbook with him at his costs.

At the meeting, Johnny agrees to leave the logbook for xx$.

 

[kkoran]

Untrue story I heard about happening somewhere else.

Bobs Shack of Soaring runs a 135 operation all over the US moving anyone who will pay. One day one of there planes departs a small airport and the pilot leaves the planes logbook behind. The plane is grounded until its return, but the crew is out of duty time to get a car and drive the 200 miles or so to retrieve the logbook.

So, the company (BSS) calls the FBO where the logbook is left. Johnny answers the phone and sure enough the logbook is right there. BSS asks Johnny if he can deliver the logbook as there is no other curriour service in the town.

Johnny says he has school tomorrow but could probably fit it in if he flew a C-172 he has access to. Company (BSS) says that's fine and would be willing to pay for whatever cost Johnny incurrs as its vital they get that logbook to their plane by tomorrow morning when they have a VIP flight scheduled.

Johnny doesn't know. Wants to ask the FBO boss. BSS says that's fine but doesn't think the boss will ever agree as he'll be motivated to use his own charter service for massive profit with the late call out fees and all.

BSS is fine with Johnny driving it over. 4 hours from now is just as good as 2 hours. BSS does not care. As incentive BSS offers Johnny payment to drive his car over equal to the cost of whatever the C-172 rental would have been.

So, here's the question:

Can Johnny drive his car and accept payment related to the Cessna rental? Can Johnny elect to fly instead? Remember, BSS doesn't care one way or the other. If he can't fly why not? It's totally his choice to save time for himself as he has school the next day.

Discuss.

Captain,

Please explain how the pilots are out of duty time. There are no duty time limits associated with driving a car. In fact, there is nothing to prevent them from flying back to get the the log book since the flight could be made under Part 91.

 

[Captain]

If the crew is not on duty it is on rest. If it is on rest it must be free from all company obligations. Driving a car 400 miles is a company obligation.

How would the public feel if the pilots of their 757 we up all night stamping those little plastic wings for the kids? No, pilots are to rested while on rest and that means the company can't make them do anything.

No driving, no stamping plastic wings, nothing. Heck, the company is only allowed to call once. If they call twice the rest clock resets. The FAA is very clear about rest and I think the violation for making the pilots drive might surpass whatever they might do about Johnny.

 

[Captain]

KAVL. What FAR did you violate?

Holly cow!

You answered that so fast I missed it. Yes, KAVL. I wasn't sure if you'd figure out the 'VNR' thing but assumed you would. Just didn't think it'd go so quick.

As to busted FARs, I don't know yet. I'm convinced every flight could be violated if the FAA tried hard enough. It's pretty hard to be 'familiar with every aspect of a flight' and just starting an engine without ropes around your plane and sentries could be construed as 'careless and reckless'.

 

[alfadog]

Seems like its all being looked at from the wrong approach. Perhaps it would have been better if it went like this.

Call to Johnny - hey do you have that logbook over there?
Johnny - Yes, it is right here.

OH, great. We you like you to be here for a meeting at xx time. We will be discussing that logbook, so you may want to bring it with you.

Johnny decides to fly to the meeting and bring the logbook with him at his costs.

At the meeting, Johnny agrees to leave the logbook for xx$.

I think the FAA would take a dim view of any "cleverness" that involves Johnny actually piloting and that their adjudicators would agree with them.

 

[poadeleted20]

Let's keep this one going...I am in the process of finishing up my private pilot license. Furthermore, I work for a law enforcement agency that also has an aviation unit (helicopters). I was told that I would be able to fly in the unit w/o getting a commercial license, since no paying passengers or cargo is on board. I guess it falls under "incidental" to my job??? Right or am I destined to working on my commercial eventually?

If your agency's aircraft are "public aircraft" rather than civil aircraft, that would be true -- you don't need any FAA certificate to fly a public aircraft. The "incidental to employment" clause of 61.113 has nothing to do with it.

Sec. 61.3

Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.

[(a) Pilot certificate. No person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person--

Civil aircraft means aircraft other than public aircraft.

Thus, with public aircraft, it's entirely up to your agency or its overarching government what qualifications are necessary to fly them; the FAA is not involved.

 

[poadeleted20]

As long as he notifies the nearest FSDO that he is planning on flying a log book in a C-172, and will be paid his costs, I see nothing wrong with him doing that.

I know that all private pilots see it as their personal responsibility, and duty, to notify their nearest FSDO of anything they might be planning, if it involves flying and cash renumeration.

Otherwise, how will the FAA bust us if we are not forthright with them about everything we do? It's not like they have secret agents watching our every move you know.

You forgot to put the :sarcasm: smiley on your post.

 

[poadeleted20]

Seems like its all being looked at from the wrong approach. Perhaps it would have been better if it went like this.

Call to Johnny - hey do you have that logbook over there?
Johnny - Yes, it is right here.

OH, great. We you like you to be here for a meeting at xx time. We will be discussing that logbook, so you may want to bring it with you.

Johnny decides to fly to the meeting and bring the logbook with him at his costs.

At the meeting, Johnny agrees to leave the logbook for xx$.

It's a nice thought, but the ALJ would be unable to hear it in court over the cacophony of quacking.

 

[skidoo]

It's a nice thought, but the ALJ would be unable to hear it in court over the cacophony of quacking.

What is the ALJ? And, why would anyone be in court?

 

[FlyerQ]

What is the ALJ? And, why would anyone be in court?

Administrative Law Judge.

Regarding being in court, they got caught - how dunno.

 

[kkoran]

If the crew is not on duty it is on rest. If it is on rest it must be free from all company obligations. Driving a car 400 miles is a company obligation.

How would the public feel if the pilots of their 757 we up all night stamping those little plastic wings for the kids? No, pilots are to rested while on rest and that means the company can't make them do anything.

No driving, no stamping plastic wings, nothing. Heck, the company is only allowed to call once. If they call twice the rest clock resets. The FAA is very clear about rest and I think the violation for making the pilots drive might surpass whatever they might do about Johnny.

Crew rest required before flying is a different, though related, concept from duty time limits which deal with how long one can fly after starting work.

 

[bigblockz8]

He can fly in a sense. Tell BSS to hire him at the rate of $XXX (this being the rental cost) and then fire him an hour later. Hire me and I will fly a 172 to "work" and bring the logbook along. Once I land he can have his logbook. Hire me to do a load of laundry or something. I'll do the laundry and I will accept $XXX/hr for it. This is shady of course but I can see certain folks I know doing something like that.

 

[FlyerQ]

He can fly in a sense. Tell BSS to hire him at the rate of $XXX (this being the rental cost) and then fire him an hour later. Hire me and I will fly a 172 to "work" and bring the logbook along. Once I land he can have his logbook. Hire me to do a load of laundry or something. I'll do the laundry and I will accept $XXX/hr for it. This is shady of course but I can see certain folks I know doing something like that.

That's similar to my suggestion he gets a signed contract to provide Unicycle training. Would it hold up? Most likely depends on the discovery. If he had a thriving unicycle training business prior to getting the call, provided the training, and the purchaser continued training until becoming a proficient unicyclist then perhaps. If it appeared to be a ruse to support an otherwise unlawful flight - forget it.

 

[poadeleted20]

He can fly in a sense. Tell BSS to hire him at the rate of $XXX (this being the rental cost) and then fire him an hour later. Hire me and I will fly a 172 to "work" and bring the logbook along. Once I land he can have his logbook. Hire me to do a load of laundry or something. I'll do the laundry and I will accept $XXX/hr for it. This is shady of course but I can see certain folks I know doing something like that.

Again, there isn't an ALJ on the bench who won't see through such a transparent deception. If anything, such a flawed attempt to circumvent the rules will probably only aggravate the situation because it shows both a knowledge of the rules and the deliberate intent to violate them. When going before the aviation powers that be, "oops, sorry" is a much better thing to say than "darn, I didn't think you'd catch me."

 

[N801BH]

....... When going before the aviation powers that be, "oops, sorry" is a much better thing to say than "darn, I didn't think you'd catch me."

+1...

 

[John Baker]

You forgot to put the :sarcasm: smiley on your post.

Actually, coming from me, it would more like;

-John

 

[AdamZ]

Johnny should charge BSS as much as he can get from them at a minimum the cost of the RT rental of the 172. He should then send the Log book FedEx Early A.M. delivery for $65.00 and pocket the rest of the money.

 

[Captain]

I'm pretty sure Bobs Shack of Soaring looked into FedEx. In fact, I can say with absolute certainty that and about six other idea were looked into before the trigger was pulled to authorize Johnny's round trip rental rate...in this untrue story that I heard happened somewhere else.

 

[Everskyward]

BSS: "Hey Johnny, I'll give you $100 if you get that logbook to me tonight."

Johnny: "OK"

 

[poadeleted20]

Johnny should charge BSS as much as he can get from them at a minimum the cost of the RT rental of the 172. He should then send the Log book FedEx Early A.M. delivery for $65.00 and pocket the rest of the money.

Brilliant!

...and then use that money to fly any where he wants any time he wants.

And since the quoted advice comes from an attorney, you can be sure there is no issue of criminal fraud, either. :wink2:

 

[poadeleted20]

BSS: "Hey Johnny, I'll give you $100 if you get that logbook to me tonight."

Johnny: "OK"

Works fine as long as Johnny doesn't pilot an airplane to make it happen.

 

[Jim Logajan]

It's a nice thought, but the ALJ would be unable to hear it in court over the cacophony of quacking.

"We also know, from a decision included in the parties' Supplemental Joint Appendix, that in 1992 an administrative law judge rejected the FAA's attempt to sanction an Alaskan guide pilot in a situation comparable to that in Marshall. Cecil V. Humble, a guide, a pilot and the manager of the Rainy Pass fishing and hunting lodge in Alaska, sold a hunting package to two men, who were accompanied by their wives. After staying at the lodge for a few days, the wives decided to leave before the hunt ended. Humble, who did not have part 135 credentials, flew them back to Anchorage. Citing a Civil Aeronautics Board pronouncement but not the decision in Marshall, the ALJ ruled that the flight was merely "incidental" to Humble's business, "simply an adjunct to the hunting package for which they had contracted," and therefore Humble did not need to comply with part 135. Supp. Joint App. 235."​

Hard to reconcile that ALJ's decision and interpretation with your self-amused view. However, you have in the past shown no indication you were ever aware of Administrator v. Marshall (1963) or how the judge in Alaska Professional Hunters Ass'n, Inc. v. FAA (1999) noted that the FAA had in fact for over 30 years allowed private pilots in certain circumstances to cover their entire flight costs from passenger payments.

 

[poadeleted20]

"We also know, from a decision included in the parties' Supplemental Joint Appendix, that in 1992 an administrative law judge rejected the FAA's attempt to sanction an Alaskan guide pilot in a situation comparable to that in Marshall. Cecil V. Humble, a guide, a pilot and the manager of the Rainy Pass fishing and hunting lodge in Alaska, sold a hunting package to two men, who were accompanied by their wives. After staying at the lodge for a few days, the wives decided to leave before the hunt ended. Humble, who did not have part 135 credentials, flew them back to Anchorage. Citing a Civil Aeronautics Board pronouncement but not the decision in Marshall, the ALJ ruled that the flight was merely "incidental" to Humble's business, "simply an adjunct to the hunting package for which they had contracted," and therefore Humble did not need to comply with part 135. Supp. Joint App. 235."
​

Hard to reconcile that ALJ's decision and interpretation with your self-amused view. However, you have in the past shown no indication you were ever aware of Administrator v. Marshall (1963) or how the judge in Alaska Professional Hunters Ass'n, Inc. v. FAA (1999) noted that the FAA had in fact for over 30 years allowed private pilots in certain circumstances to cover their entire flight costs from passenger payments.

You should read the full case, including the CAB pronouncement. The case you cite was strictly limited to hunting guides in Alaska. In all other cases (such as Administrator v. Murray, cited above), the inclusion of air transportation as part of a package deal was ruled a commercial operation requiring a 135 certificate or better by whoever provides the air transportation. Just ask Carnival cruise lines about how they operate their own airline -- it ain't Part 91.

In addition, the FAA has never allowed private pilots to cover their entire flight costs from passenger payments. At best, only during a 91.146 flight may the direct costs of a flight with passengers be reimbursed (and only by the charity, not by the passengers), and outside of the very limited confines of those 91.146 charity flights, the pilot must pay his/her own pro rata share of the direct costs and cannot collect that portion from the passengers. Also, the indirect costs must always be borne by the private pilot. So, there are no circumstances where a Private Pilot may recover "their entire flight costs from passenger payments."