SixPapaCharlie
May the force be with you
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,534
- Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
I need to improve my financial wherewithal
Who has the time?I need to improve my financial wherewithal
Ah, you mean they want to be compensated for part of it! Of course!I think I know EXACTLY why: it's because flying is EXPENSIVE! If passengers share the cost, it means that pilots whose means are limited can afford to fly more.
As my financial wherewithal has improved, my focus on reimbursement has dropped way off.
Web sites such as "pilotsharetheride" or "sharemysky"? Nothing like putting your violation of the rules out in cyberspace where anyone/everyone can see them and you cannot ever erase them.What I want to know is, where are people finding all these passengers who are willing to pay a pro rata share of the costs?
Wouldn't it have been easier to explain to her that you're being compensated in the form of a tax write-off?Web sites such as "pilotsharetheride" or "sharemysky"? Nothing like putting your violation of the rules out in cyberspace where anyone/everyone can see them and you cannot ever erase them.
Seriously, I've had many people over the years ask me if I can fly them somewhere if they pay for it. I've always explained that I cannot legally do that. One time on a Pilots'n'Paws flight, the receiving party tried to pay for the fuel going in my plane. Damn near had to get physical to keep her from shoving her credit card in the self-serve fuel machine, and she still stuck a check in the plane when I wasn't looking. I still hold that check with VOID written across it as proof that I never received compensation for that flight.
Never could happen since you can't see the landings from your table. Maybe 32 but not 16.If you and your friend feel a hankering for looking at the pretty girls in poodle skirts at the Brenham Airport Diner while you enjoy a burger and grade landings from your table, then go right ahead and share costs.
Web sites such as "pilotsharetheride" or "sharemysky"? Nothing like putting your violation of the rules out in cyberspace where anyone/everyone can see them and you cannot ever erase them.
Seriously, I've had many people over the years ask me if I can fly them somewhere if they pay for it. I've always explained that I cannot legally do that. One time on a Pilots'n'Paws flight, the receiving party tried to pay for the fuel going in my plane. Damn near had to get physical to keep her from shoving her credit card in the self-serve fuel machine, and she still stuck a check in the plane when I wasn't looking. I still hold that check with VOID written across it as proof that I never received compensation for that flight.
I need to improve my financial wherewithal
Perhaps.Wouldn't it have been easier to explain to her that you're being compensated in the form of a tax write-off?
Only if you have a business relationship with your passenger.Goodwill can be considered compensation.
I appreciate your position, but you need to appreciate the FAA's position -- they very want much want to keep money out of the equation for Private/Rec/Sport Pilots. In any event, I don't see how not collecting money from your passengers makes it any less fun for them, or that it is only fun for the pilot if s/he does collect money from them.So, you can only carry passengers who will resent you or be indifferent to the flight? Why don't they just go ahead and add a new regulation that say no fun allowed.
The weirdest part to me of the "goodwill" one (which I guess covers flights of business guests not covered by 91.501(b ) or the NBAA exemption) is that one of the cases applying it goes out of its way to apply it. It involved a private pilot who stepped in to help out a restaurateur friend who had sold tickets to the restaurant Super Bowl party. The tickets included air transportation and when the commercial pilot couldn't do it, the private pilot friend stepped in to help out.Goodwill can be considered compensation.
So, you can only carry passengers who will resent you or be indifferent to the flight? Why don't they just go ahead and add a new regulation that say no fun allowed.
The weirdest part to me of the "goodwill" one (which I guess covers flights of business guests not covered by 91.501(b ) or the NBAA exemption) is that one of the cases applying it goes out of its way to apply it. It involved a private pilot who stepped in to help out a restaurateur friend who had sold tickets to the restaurant Super Bowl party. The tickets included air transportation and when the commercial pilot couldn't do it, the private pilot friend stepped in to help out.
It always seemed to me it would have been very easy for the FAA to simply say the private pilot was acting "as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire" [61.113(a)] since the passengers all paid for tickets that included the flight. But the FAA and NTSB seemed to go out of its way to say the pilot himself was being compensated in the form of expected future benefits from the relationship.
"Profit" has never been an issue of whether something is for compensation or hire. I have known small Part 135 operators who had loses over an extended period of time, especially during the recession. Real losses, not just paper ones. Whatever small business they got barely paid the cost of fuel, let alone produce a profit for the operation.
I don't see how not collecting money from your passengers makes it any less fun for them, or that it is only fun for the pilot if s/he does collect money from them.
...As for having people offer, some of you must have the wrong kinda friends. I dont even have a PPL yet and I've already had several friends tell me they wanna go up once I get my license. This is one reason why I'm quite interested in this discussion. I have no desire to cross any lines, but it would be nice if I could LEGALLY share the expense when friends wanna go up with me.
In that case (Administrator v Murray), the pilot already had a business relationship with the restaurateur other than providing the air transportation for which the passengers had paid, and that is that basis on which the FAA hung the "goodwill" issue.The weirdest part to me of the "goodwill" one (which I guess covers flights of business guests not covered by 91.501(b ) or the NBAA exemption) is that one of the cases applying it goes out of its way to apply it. It involved a private pilot who stepped in to help out a restaurateur friend who had sold tickets to the restaurant Super Bowl party. The tickets included air transportation and when the commercial pilot couldn't do it, the private pilot friend stepped in to help out.
It always seemed to me it would have been very easy for the FAA to simply say the private pilot was acting "as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire" [61.113(a)] since the passengers all paid for tickets that included the flight. But the FAA and NTSB seemed to go out of its way to say the pilot himself was being compensated in the form of expected future benefits from the relationship.
The ALJ did not "overlook" that violation in Administrator v. Murphy. Rather, the FAA failed to charge it, and the ALJ can't find you in violation of a regulation the FAA did not charge you with violating.Reminds me of the contortions that an administrative law judge went through to claim that flying IFR in uncontrolled airspace without a clearance was careless or reckless, while overlooking the violation of VFR cloud clearance rules once the flight entered controlled airspace.
For all we know, the party offering the flight has a commercial operating certificate or 91.147 LoA.Not sure how common it is but just saw a ad on Craiglsist for plane trip @ $150.
Irrelevant. All that matters is that it involved an exchange of something of value in return for air transportation (i.e., "air transportation for compensation or hire". Neither the form of compensation nor the issues of profit matter, because while there are some exceptions for non-profit events in 91.146, the word "profit" is not part of the regulations we're discussing.You're confusing the terms "for profit" and "making a profit". There is nothing saying that a "for profit" company has to actually make a profit. I'm quite familiar with this, being a business owner myself. Offering rides in your plane and charging, is a "for profit" enterprise, regardless of whether or not you cover your expenses or make any kind of profit.
Some very limited cases -- as long as all the elements of 61.113 are met (including what has been determined to be the implicit issue of common purpose). But still, profit is not an issue, only "air transportation for hire or compensation" regardless of profit or loss.The discussion as I've interpreted it is about the pro-rata rules. In what cases we are allowed to accept an equal share of expenses from our passengers. NOT for profit, NOT for hire.
No, I'm not.Joking right?
Yes, I do, and it illustrates my point perfectly.Lot's of things are fun if you're not footing the bill. Once you mention to a suspected moocher that they can split costs (disregarding the regs), suddenly you see that many of them will have their enthusiasm wane..."well....I didn't really want to go that bad"...or...."we can go another time".....or
you get the picture
The difference is that 14 CFR 61.113 does not apply to driving your Chevy.Got a question:
What's the difference between saying to a buddy "hey! we can drive my Chevy to Honeck's place and charter a fishing boat and split the costs."
Or saying "hey! we can fly my Cessna to Honeck's place and charter a boat and split the costs."
Or saying "hey! facebook and web friends, I'm flying to Honeck's place next week to go charter fishing, anyone want to cost share?
The difference is that 14 CFR 61.113 does not apply to driving your Chevy.
The ALJ did not "overlook" that violation in Administrator v. Murphy. Rather, the FAA failed to charge it, and the ALJ can't find you in violation of a regulation the FAA did not charge you with violating.
I don't see why he couldn't pay his share to the FBO. As long as you don't pay less than your pro-rata share, that part should be legal.But I'm not being compensated or hired.
The FBO and all the other vendors are being compensated.
If he pays me his pro rata share, it's the same as if he went in and paid the FBO. Provided I swiped the entire fuel bill onto my card, no difference.
I don't see why he couldn't pay his share to the FBO. As long as you don't pay less than your pro-rata share, that part should be legal.
As to your "web buddies"... were they buddies first, that you kept in touch with through Facebook? Or were they part of a segment of the general public you "held out" to? Have you done similar things with them before, like hunting, bowling, hiking? Have you even met them in person? Are they really "buddies"? Or transportation "customers"? I'd think those are the kind of questions the FAA would want to answer if the flight were to fall under suspicion for any reason.
dtuuri
...But apparently it's not that simple. Apparently if I purpose the destination and my friend splits the gas bill to get there, that's not common purpose and I've been compensated. If he proposes the destination then I guess that isn't common purpose either... so I'm being compensated. So unless we are sitting in the same room and come up with the same destination at the same moment out of thin air and decide now is the time to go, any cost sharing is technically no bueno. Stupid....
Use this thread as an example.
I don't know you from Adam, but what if I asked would you be interested in flying with me on a tour to Alaska in my 180 and splitting the costs? What's wrong with that?
That's not holding out even though I met you five minutes ago. In the grand scheme of things, we all have to meet at some point. Qualifying a share by how long or personally you've known them should be irrelevant.
No, it's not. Read the FAA interpretations on point linked above, plus search this site for "compensation".But I'm not being compensated or hired.
The FBO and all the other vendors are being compensated.
If he pays me his pro rata share, it's the same as if he went in and paid the FBO. Provided I swiped the entire fuel bill onto my card, no difference.
Won't matter to the FAA whether he paid you or gave the money to the FBO -- the pilot still got something of value (free/cut-rate flying time) in return for providing air transportation to the passenger. That's the textbook definition of "compensation", or as Dr. Lector put it, "Quid pro quo, Clarisse, quid pro quo."I don't see why he couldn't pay his share to the FBO. As long as you don't pay less than your pro-rata share, that part should be legal.
The regulation makes no differentiation based on number of occurrences, and I for one can see why the FAA would be loath to try to set some sort of numeric limit on the legal number of times a pilot would be allowed to do this.Maybe the FAA should consider whether one is sharing expenses with relative strangers on a regular basis.
The regulation makes no differentiation based on number of occurrences...
...and I for one can see why the FAA would be loath to try to set some sort of numeric limit on the legal number of times a pilot would be allowed to do this.