Compensation

U

Unregistered

Guest
This story is more or less true, but I changed some of the less important details to preserve my anonymity.

I am a new pilot, with well under a hundred hours. A few weeks ago, I mentioned to a work colleague that I had gotten my ppl and we talked about going for a spin around the area sometime.

A few nights later, he called and asked about a trip from our home base (in Iowa) to the Rapid City, SD area, so he could attend to a family emergency. I was interested in getting some flight hours, and interested in visiting that part of the country, so I agreed. I rented a plane from my club. He reimbursed me for 1/2 of the wet fee for the one-way leg of the trip. He offered to pay all of the expenses, but I refused. I left him near Rapid City and flew back home. I think he took a rental car back home a few days later (approx. 11 hour drive).

Three questions:

1) OK to take compensation for 1/2 the one way trip wet fee?

2) Would it have been OK if he had reimbursed me for 1/2 of the wet fee for the round trip, even though he wasn't on board for the trip back to Iowa?

3) Fast forward to yesterday: He dropped off a birthday gift for me (even though we don't normally exchange gifts) -- a pretty expensive tablet -- and he thanked me for helping him get to SD to deal with the emergency. OK to accept?

Thanks for your input.
 
I wouldnt worry about it, who investigating you? The only time i'd actually worry about it is if you were advertising yourself to fly people around.
 
Hell yeah it is OK, would be rude not to accept it. It is a free country.
 
Unregistered said:
1) OK to take compensation for 1/2 the one way trip wet fee?
Click to expand...

If you abide by the strict interpretation of the regs, this is not OK. It would have been different if you had a conversation with him saying that Hey I'm going to Rapid City tomorrow and he said, well, I need to be in Rapid City, too. Then it would be fine. Although not OK by the regs, I agree it is unlikely that you will be caught and punished for this.

2) Would it have been OK if he had reimbursed me for 1/2 of the wet fee for the round trip, even though he wasn't on board for the trip back to Iowa?
Click to expand...

Distinguish this from him paying 100% of the one-way cost. No, this is not OK.

3) Fast forward to yesterday: He dropped off a birthday gift for me (even though we don't normally exchange gifts) -- a pretty expensive tablet -- and he thanked me for helping him get to SD to deal with the emergency. OK to accept?
Click to expand...

Absolutely yes. Anyone can give a gift to anyone. Who said this had anything to do with your flight? By the way, Happy Birthday! :yes:

-Skip
 
Unregistered said:
1) OK to take compensation for 1/2 the one way trip wet fee?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. He had to go, you wanted to go. Common purpose fits, although some people would argue otherwise since he had the idea first.

2) Would it have been OK if he had reimbursed me for 1/2 of the wet fee for the round trip, even though he wasn't on board for the trip back to Iowa?
Click to expand...
By the letter of the law, no, since he wasn't on board for the trip.

3) Fast forward to yesterday: He dropped off a birthday gift for me (even though we don't normally exchange gifts) -- a pretty expensive tablet -- and he thanked me for helping him get to SD to deal with the emergency. OK to accept?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. His decision to buy you a gift is his and his alone. You neither asked for nor expected such a gift.

And ultimately... nobody will care.

Good job! :)
 
Welcome to the real world of aviation, 'don't ask, don't tell' on stuff like this, it's not what the FAA is looking for. You were helping a buddy out, no worries.
 
So, say I wanted to go for a joy flight with a friend: Would I technically have to pay for all of the flight, or would they be able to pay for half, since I want to go flying as well? Granted, this probably won't change my decision, but it's nice to know.

Also, how would the OP's situation be any different from, say, his friend buying him some flight time for his birthday and coming along on the ride? Heck, I told my parents that to celebrate getting my ticket (when that time comes in the hopefully near future), we could go for a flight to a nice dinner across the state and I'd pay for dinner if they covered the flight time. I'm going to end up getting the better part of that deal! Anyway, it just seems the regs on this are not necessarily fuzzy, but are certainly easily worked around.
 
Like many other situations in life. Need to know is test one. If no, no further tests are required.

RotorAndWing said:
What 2 people do in the privacy of an airplane is there business.

In other words, don't speak of it.

Simple.
Click to expand...
 
Last summer I had much the same situation and have been living in fear ever since, waiting for the FAA and IRS to find me

I was going to visit my sister in north Texas when one of my daughters asked if I could drop her off at her cousin's (my brother's) in central kansas. There was no common purporse, the kansas stop was an hour out of the way and I had no need to go there that weekend. As we were nearing the end of her leg of the flight, my daughter was having a snack and said said "thanks for bringing me to Cami's, would you like some of my M&M's ?"

It's pretty clear that the M&M's were intended as payment for the trip, and I'm ashamed to say that I took those M&M's and ate them on the spot.
 
JHW said:
Last summer I had much the same situation and have been living in fear ever since, waiting for the FAA and IRS to find me

I was going to visit my sister in north Texas when one of my daughters asked if I could drop her off at her cousin's (my brother's) in central kansas. There was no common purporse, the kansas stop was an hour out of the way and I had no need to go there that weekend. As we were nearing the end of her leg of the flight, my daughter was having a snack and said said "thanks for bringing me to Cami's, would you like some of my M&M's ?"

It's pretty clear that the M&M's were intended as payment for the trip, and I'm ashamed to say that I took those M&M's and ate them on the spot.
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl::rofl: I have called the IRS, they promised me 10% of the 25% of the M&Ms you owe.... I do anything for chocolate.:yesnod:
 
You had me at summer.

JHW said:
Last summer I had much the same situation and have been living in fear ever since, waiting for the FAA and IRS to find me

I was going to visit my sister in north Texas when one of my daughters asked if I could drop her off at her cousin's (my brother's) in central kansas. There was no common purporse, the kansas stop was an hour out of the way and I had no need to go there that weekend. As we were nearing the end of her leg of the flight, my daughter was having a snack and said said "thanks for bringing me to Cami's, would you like some of my M&M's ?"

It's pretty clear that the M&M's were intended as payment for the trip, and I'm ashamed to say that I took those M&M's and ate them on the spot.
Click to expand...
 
Skip Miller said:
If you abide by the strict interpretation of the regs, this is not OK. It would have been different if you had a conversation with him saying that Hey I'm going to Rapid City tomorrow and he said, well, I need to be in Rapid City, too. Then it would be fine. Although not OK by the regs, I agree it is unlikely that you will be caught and punished for this.
Click to expand...

That's not a strict interpretation of the regs, it's a strict interpretation of the FAA's loose interpretation of the regs.
 
Last edited:
If you went to the FSDO with this question scenario you would receive a face palm for your efforts.
 
What is the point of this rule? Is it only to prevent a passenger from expecting the same level of certification and safety protocol and he/she would have from a commercial operation?

I give my friends rides in my car all the time. They know I'm not a taxi. Occasionally, if it takes up a lot of my time, they pay me for the gas and hassle. This seem ok. Put wings on it, and everything changes.
 
Unregistered said:
1) OK to take compensation for 1/2 the one way trip wet fee?
Click to expand...
Probably not. The question is whether you and your passenger had a "common purpose" for the trip, which the FAA defines as a need to be at the same destination on the same date. It seems from your post that you crafted your plans to match your passenger's, and that makes it appear as though you did not have a common purpose for the trip. If this ever came to the attention of the FAA, I suspect they'd be asking some questions about whether you had reason to be in Rapid City on that date, and if not, to tell you that you were not legal to accept that money. The fact that you just flew there, dropped him off, and flew right home would probably convince them that you were flying an illegal charter operation.

2) Would it have been OK if he had reimbursed me for 1/2 of the wet fee for the round trip, even though he wasn't on board for the trip back to Iowa?
Click to expand...
Definitely not. Expenses may be shared only on a pro rata per seat basis. Since the passenger wasn't in a seat on that leg, the passenger can't share the expenses of that leg.

3) Fast forward to yesterday: He dropped off a birthday gift for me (even though we don't normally exchange gifts) -- a pretty expensive tablet -- and he thanked me for helping him get to SD to deal with the emergency. OK to accept?
Click to expand...
I suppose the FAA, if they ever got involved in this situation, could in theory consider that additional compensation beyond what is legal (if any compensation at all was legal -- see Question 1). However, the odds of that ever actually becoming an issue are pretty slim -- they'd have you pretty well fried over the drop-off trip already and wouldn't need more to make their case.

As always with questions like this, the odds of the FAA finding out are pretty slim, and depend mainly on whether your passenger complains to them about the flight, or if word of you accepting that money gets around to a local charter operator who resents cut-rate illegal competition. In any event, if this did come to the FAA's attention, the investigating Inspector would probably ask some questions, and on finding out that you've only done this once, and were not straight on the rules, and are a new Pvt Pilot, give you a stern lecture on the situation and drop it at that point -- but make a note of it so if your name comes up again in a similar situation, s/he will know you had been educated and warned.

In summary, what you did was probably illegal but not likely to land you in deep water as long as it was done from ignorance and only once. Learn the rules on this, go, and sin no more.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Absolutely. He had to go, you wanted to go. Common purpose fits, although some people would argue otherwise since he had the idea first.
Click to expand...
The issue would not be who had the idea first, but the fact that the pilot had no business or reason to be in Rapid City, and simply flew the passenger there, dropped him off, and flew home. That strongly suggests a complete lack of common purpose.
 
ebykowsky said:
So, say I wanted to go for a joy flight with a friend: Would I technically have to pay for all of the flight, or would they be able to pay for half, since I want to go flying as well? Granted, this probably won't change my decision, but it's nice to know.
Click to expand...
Under the law (since that seems to be what you're asking, and Henning's cavlier "what the FAA doesn't know doesn't matter" attitude aside), the controlling legal question would be whether you and your passenger had "common purpose" for the flight. I can think of several arguments both ways on that, but I know of no case law on point. The FAA would probably be looking to see if you make a habit of this, indicating an illegal commercial sightseeing operation without the benefit of a 91.147 authorization (and all the accoutrements like drug testing for the pilot and 100-hour inspections for the plane) that section requires. If not, it's probably going to be like I said above for the OP -- counsel, warn, and close the file.

Also, how would the OP's situation be any different from, say, his friend buying him some flight time for his birthday and coming along on the ride?
Click to expand...
That sounds too much like a quid pro quo situation where the passenger is paying 100%. Again, done once, probably no big deal, but if it becomes a habit that comes to the FAA's attention, a potential enforcement action.

Heck, I told my parents that to celebrate getting my ticket (when that time comes in the hopefully near future), we could go for a flight to a nice dinner across the state and I'd pay for dinner if they covered the flight time. I'm going to end up getting the better part of that deal! Anyway, it just seems the regs on this are not necessarily fuzzy, but are certainly easily worked around.
Click to expand...
I've never heard of the FAA getting involved in family finances.
 
Henning said:
If you went to the FSDO with this question scenario you would receive a face palm for your efforts.
Click to expand...
...along with a "don't do it again" lecture. The FAA simply does not want Private Pilots providing air transportation for compensation/hire, and if someone complains, they will fry the pilot involved -- plenty of case law on point. So don't rub their faces in it, and don't do it where anyone else can see it.
 
He talked with his friend pre-emergency about taking him flying and also wanted to build some XC hours. Friend picked destination but both benefited from flight. Sounds like common purpose to me.
 
bqmassey said:
What is the point of this rule? Is it only to prevent a passenger from expecting the same level of certification and safety protocol and he/she would have from a commercial operation?
Click to expand...
Pretty much. When there's no money involved, the FAA appears to feel that the low price (i.e., zero) should tell the passenger to beware, but when the passenger is paying for the ride, there should be additional assurances of safety.

I give my friends rides in my car all the time. They know I'm not a taxi. Occasionally, if it takes up a lot of my time, they pay me for the gas and hassle. This seem ok. Put wings on it, and everything changes.
Click to expand...
That is entirely correct -- when it involves airplanes, the rules are different, and adding money to the equation makes it an issue. I guess the FAA figures that while most folks have the knowledge and experience to tell whether someone is a safe enough driver with a safe enough car, they cannot with a pilot and plane.
 
wickedsprint said:
He talked with his friend pre-emergency about taking him flying and also wanted to build some XC hours. Friend picked destination but both benefited from flight. Sounds like common purpose to me.
Click to expand...
To you, perhaps, but it would not to the FAA. Plenty of case law and interpretations on point best summarized in the Bobertz memo. The pilot must have a reason for being at that destination on that date, and clearly (from the drop-off/return nature of the flight), the OP did not.
 
Last edited:
This trip is done and closed with no foul. The risk on such a flight is it being called to the FAA's attention if something goes wrong and/or someone complains for any reason.

In the future, what would you and your passenger's separate responses to the FSDO interview look like if metal was bent and/or you had a mechanical problem that required you to set down somewhere unconventional?

That's where things might unravel.

Picture pax saying this during the FSDO or news crew interview:

"I feel so bad that Bob's engine quit and he had to land here on the interstate. This is all my fault. I know Bob would never had even been here if I hadn't asked him fly me this far out of his way. That $80 sure won't cover his hassle now."​

I can't find the link now, but I recall a 134.5 flight where the passenger called the FAA to complain about a pilot after significant turbulence was encountered en-route and she was scared out of her wits.
 
Ron Levy said:
The issue would not be who had the idea first, but the fact that the pilot had no business or reason to be in Rapid City, and simply flew the passenger there, dropped him off, and flew home. That strongly suggests a complete lack of common purpose.
Click to expand...

You tend to take a very paranoid view of the regs. Not an insult, just a statement.

Since GA is all about flexibility and schedule, how do you define "need"? Unless there's a specific personal emergency or business requirement (I.e. If you're flying for fun - oh the horror!) you might not have a true specific date you'd need to be there. I'd even argue that would account for most GA trips. If I'm taking vacation with a friend and we're both on flexible schedules, do we "need" to be there the same day?

Now, the fact that the friend approached the OP first I could see being some part of it if you wanted to be technical.

One former FAA lawyer once pointed out that there are about 0 cases where the FAA has gone after private pilots for situations like this. The only time it draws attention is when someone is obviously trying to 134.5 their way around, and even then it usually requires some additional attention.

Summary to the OP: you did the right thing. It's good that you are asking this question, but don't worry about it. Also don't hesitate to help others with GA - that's the best thing you can do with your certificate.
 
Ron Levy said:
The question is whether you and your passenger had a "common purpose" for the trip, which the FAA defines as a need to be at the same destination on the same date.
Click to expand...

Two Questions:

1. If the pilot and passenger each had a need to be at a particular place, but the reasons for those needs to be in that place were different, would that be okay?

For example, the pilot needed to buy a certain thing in that city that was not available for purchase where he or she lived, and the passenger had a need to visit a sick family member in the same city.

2. How strictly is the second part -- "on the same date" -- interpreted?

For example, the passenger had a need to visit a sick family member in a particular city. The pilot -- an art enthusiast -- had always wanted to visit a particular art museum in the same city. There was no need that he do so on that particular date, but it was as good a date as any; and so they shared the trip and expenses.

-Rich
 
Ron Levy said:
The pilot must have a reason for being at that destination on that date, and clearly (from the drop-off/return nature of the flight), the OP did not.
Click to expand...

I wonder how strict the "that date" issue is?

Suppose there was an aircraft for sale at that airport, or a mechanic who specialized in gizmos, or the airport had a ASR approach and the pilot wanted to log one. In these cases, the legitimate interest in going to the specific airport may be there but the exact date is flexible. (It's not as if the pilot needs some cross country time and this airport is as good as any other.) Or, even let's suppose the pilot had planned to go to the airport next week but decided that since his friend wanted to go tomorrow, the pilot could change to kill two birds with one stone. Does this fall afoul of the "exact date" issue?
 
If a pilot has to build XC time, would that not rise to the level of "common purpose?"

Passenger needs to be in XXX by Tuesday. Pilot needs 4 hours of XC time and is just looking for a destination...
 
SkyHog said:
If a pilot has to build XC time, would that not rise to the level of "common purpose?"

Passenger needs to be in XXX by Tuesday. Pilot needs 4 hours of XC time and is just looking for a destination...
Click to expand...

No. That's 134.5

To get common purpose there needs to be a reason for both folks beyond the flying.

Now, if anybody would care... Probably not.
 
To get common purpose there needs to be a reason for both folks beyond the flying.
Click to expand...

A lot of times (flying solo) I fly to another airport with no reason to go there except I just decided to do it. I have no business there other than the flying.
 
somorris said:
A lot of times (flying solo) I fly to another airport with no reason to go there except I just decided to do it. I have no business there other than the flying.
Click to expand...

The common purpose test proposed here would make splitting the cost of glider tows illegal. The flight is 100% the purpose.
 
ClimbnSink said:
The common purpose test proposed here would make splitting the cost of glider tows illegal. The flight is 100% the purpose.
Click to expand...

In their infinite wisdom, the FAA has decided that glider tows are different, even a PP can perform those for hire as 'towing' is not 'carrying' for compensation. Gotta love lawyers.
 
somorris said:
A lot of times (flying solo) I fly to another airport with no reason to go there except I just decided to do it. I have no business there other than the flying.
Click to expand...

The pilot playing golf, the passenger attending an antique fair has been found to be a 'common purpose'.
The passengers competing in a canoe tournament and the pilot attending the tournament as spectator would have been a common purpose, yet they dinged him anyway because he flew several trips and they found that only the first trip was covered under the 'common purpose'.
 
Palmpilot said:
That's not a strict interpretation of the regs, it's a strict interpretation of the FAA's loose interpretation of the regs.
Click to expand...

ding ding ding ding

we have a winner...

quibble: The FAA's interpretation isn't "loose"... it's completely without merit.
 
Here's a question...in what situation(s) would the FAA actually even pursue an issue like this. Assuming it was a cash transaction b/t pilot and passenger and they both have their stories in line, how would the FAA be able to prove anything anyway?
 
Jaybird180 said:
I love these threads

:popcorn:
Click to expand...

It's fortunate most folks don't ask these questions until after being a private pilot, and realize that if one simply stays honest and doesn't act unreasonable or draw attention, nobody will care.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top