FAR 61.113

idahoflier said:
In Post #3 the OP relayed that he had not yet consulted his CFI. Sorry, IMO that's where questions should start and I stand by that. Sure the OP's CFI may be green and may not have a great depth of knowledge on the subject in which case the OP can share the various opinions he has received on here with the CFI. Or MAYBE he just might have an experienced CFI that is well versed on the subject and can impart first hand experienced knowledge on the subject. But let's go with your worst case scenario and the OP's CFI is clueless on the subject. He never asks the CFI because of the great advise he got on this board. So his CFI is still ignorant. Is that a great outcome?
Click to expand...

Right...but when one posts a reply such as "ask your CFI" as a reply to a legitimate nuanced question that insinuates that: 1) the question is so rudimentary that it should be obvious to all CFIs and Pilots and/or 2) I know and I am not going to tell you as you should have asked your CFI first (see point #1) rather than providing insight to help the OP find the answer. It is just an arrogant response IMO.

Yes, always consult and discuss with your CFI but there are lots for CFIs out there that have a deficiency in their own knowledge base...trust but verify. Sorry...rant over.
 
WDD said:
Wasn't there a new PPL who flew pizzas to a small island in Michigan, and he got busted by the FAA? Didn't make money on delivery - he was just being nice, as he was going there anyway. They said the good will he gained was his payment, or something like that.

OP Since this is infrequent, and you're building hours anyway, M2C is if you want to fly, fly by yourself and don't get reimbursed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the whole "goodwill is compensation" ********.
 
idahoflier said:
In Post #3 the OP relayed that he had not yet consulted his CFI. Sorry, IMO that's where questions should start and I stand by that. Sure the OP's CFI may be green and may not have a great depth of knowledge on the subject in which case the OP can share the various opinions he has received on here with the CFI. Or MAYBE he just might have an experienced CFI that is well versed on the subject and can impart first hand experienced knowledge on the subject. But let's go with your worst case scenario and the OP's CFI is clueless on the subject. He never asks the CFI because of the great advise he got on this board. So his CFI is still ignorant. Is that a great outcome?
Click to expand...
It has zero to do with being green. I've even been asked by DPEs about scenarios like this.
 
WDD said:
Wasn't there a new PPL who flew pizzas to a small island in Michigan, and he got busted by the FAA? Didn't make money on delivery - he was just being nice, as he was going there anyway. They said the good will he gained was his payment, or something like that.


OP Since this is infrequent, and you're building hours anyway, M2C is if you want to fly, fly by yourself and don't get reimbursed.
Click to expand...
There was discussion of the pizza boy here, but did the FAA actually go after him?
 
WDD said:
Wasn't there a new PPL who flew pizzas to a small island in Michigan, and he got busted by the FAA? Didn't make money on delivery - he was just being nice, as he was going there anyway. They said the good will he gained was his payment, or something like that.


OP Since this is infrequent, and you're building hours anyway, M2C is if you want to fly, fly by yourself and don't get reimbursed.
Click to expand...
You mean Ohio? https://sanduskyregister.com/news/307930/smcc-grad-delivers-food-to-kelleys-island/


This is the thread we discussed it: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/door-to-door-air-cargo…-by-a-private-pilot.131155/

Can anyone provide proof he was busted?
 
Lindberg said:
In what state would it not be legal?
Click to expand...

Montana is unique case where good cause for termination must be specifically be demonstrated to avoid a labor law violation. But almost Any state that has wrongful discharge/termination laws may cover it under implied contract of employment and/or good faith covenants.

An employer doesn’t have to list a reason to terminate you in most* right to work states. Your services are no longer needed is just fine.

But to change a travel policy, then fire an employee expressly for failing to follow that policy will expose the employer in most* any state to a labor law challenge. It may also roll up under anti-retaliation laws/regualtions as well.

*California is so unique the major HR credentialing organization has an entirely separate credential just for that state.
 
Shawn said:
Right...but when one posts a reply such as "ask your CFI" as a reply to a legitimate nuanced question that insinuates that: 1) the question is so rudimentary that it should be obvious to all CFIs and Pilots and/or 2) I know and I am not going to tell you as you should have asked your CFI first (see point #1) rather than providing insight to help the OP find the answer. It is just an arrogant response IMO.

Yes, always consult and discuss with your CFI but there are lots for CFIs out there that have a deficiency in their own knowledge base...trust but verify. Sorry...rant over.
Click to expand...

Completely disagree with your assertions. Nowhere does "What did your CFI say?" imply the question is rudimentary. If I had left it at that I would be inclined to appreciate your viewpoint, but I updated my response approx. 2 min later giving the OP my opinion on the subject. I also followed up a short time later with another post with a link to an AOPA article discussing the question. You're acting like none of this happened.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It has zero to do with being green. I've even been asked by DPEs about scenarios like this.
Click to expand...

Apologies I don't understand what you're point is. Are you asserting that a student pilot shouldn't consult their CFI about the FAR's or at least 61.113 because even DPE's are unsure?
 
idahoflier said:
Apologies I don't understand what you're point is. Are you asserting that a student pilot shouldn't consult their CFI about the FAR's or at least 61.113 because even DPE's are unsure?
Click to expand...
No apology necessary.

The point is simply that the understanding of most CFIs and even DPEs (and the average pilot) in this area is rudimentary. Knowledge of the drill down details of private pilot compensation issues and the border between Parts 91 and 135 is limited. That's a reason the private and commercial practical test questions in this area tend to be very simple. I've even heard FAA Inspectors get some of this stuff wrong (directly contrary to Chief Counsel interpretations and NTSB case law) when discussing it in webinars, and others admit they are not sure.

This thread does not involve a student pilot asking about the basics of 61.113 so they can pass a practical test. It's about a business owner asking about the application of the regs to a potential business scenario during a period when illegal charter is an FAA enforcement priority. Very small changes in scenario can make a big difference in result.

I wouldn't tell anyone not to ask anyone about anything, but to understand the limitations of those you ask.
 
EdFred said:
I'm thinking of a different (and much older) situation that was in Ohio. It was the "goodwill is compensation" ruling.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...ps/2013/Hancock_2013_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

And there was a bust that referenced either this.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're referring to this case: https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/5061.pdf

In this case, people paid money to attend a party at a restaurant, of which the cost of admission to the party included air transportation. For unknown reasons, the original charter operator fell through. We'll never know because the restaurant owner refused to talk to the FAA.

The respondent, friends with the owner of the restaurant (and who had done work for the owner in the past), flew these passengers, of whom he did not have any previous relationship with, to the island.

Evidence showed that the respondent was told that the operation would not be legal but did so anyway.

The respondent claimed he was doing his friend a favor.

The FAA held that the pilot would not spend $1,100 of his own money to help out strangers, but instead did so to garner goodwill from the restaurant owner who apparently was in a bind.

To me, reading between the lines, it's not so much about the goodwill issue as it was meeting the expectations of the passengers. The passengers expected a qualified operator and a qualified pilot and got a private pilot. The NTSB ALJ decision doesn't say whether the passengers were informed that they were getting a dude with a plane in lieu of a charter flight, but I suspect they had no clue.

My take: Had the restaurant owner refunded the attendees for a portion of the ticket cost and informed them that air travel wasn't available, and the respondent independently offered to give the attendees a lift with full disclosure that he was not a providing a flight on behalf of the restaurant, the facts would have likely shifted and no action would have been taken against the pilot.

Instead, the respondent was an implicit participant in an illegal charter operation. The passengers *did* pay for the flight; it's just that the money went to the restaurant owner, not the pilot. Goodwill closed the compensation loop of an otherwise slam dunk illegal charter violation.
 
AlphaMike said:
.

OTOH, there's also a case about a company transporting the
Click to expand...
Brad Z said:
Goodwill closed the compensation loop of an otherwise slam dunk illegal charter violation
Click to expand...
I agree with you that there are illegal charter elements having nothing to do with goodwill. And 61.113 does not only talk about compensating the pilot. It's not even the first thing in the reg. 61.113 starts with

Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire;​

But that's the reason I dislike this case. If it was otherwise such a slam dunk, then why the mental gymnastics of creating a far-reaching business goodwill is compensation catch-all?
 
midlifeflyer said:
I agree with you that there are illegal charter elements having nothing to do with goodwill. And 61.113 does not only talk about compensating the pilot. It's not even the first thing in the reg. 61.113 starts with

Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire;​

But that's the reason I dislike this case. If it was otherwise such a slam dunk, then why the mental gymnastics of creating a far-reaching business goodwill is compensation catch-all?
Click to expand...
I suspect it’s because the FAA felt that they might have had a weak case citing compensation alone, particularly since it was packaged in with the cost of the party. But I agree with you. The fact that compensation doesn’t have to go to the pilot is why they created the provision under 91.146 in the 2007 Air Tour rule to facilitate charity flights where someone is paying for the flight, but the money is not going to the pilot.
 
donjohnston said:
I don't think your issue is with the FAA.

The liability is what would make me not consider doing it.
Click to expand...

Regarding passengers, yes.

I always think about liability before taking a passenger.

We can all crash and die - and then what? The dependents of the passengers will sue my estate. If the passenger was a poor retired person without a family or dependents, then maybe no problem, insurance might be enough for that smallish liability. But if it’s a young employee with a dependent spouse and small children, the loss will greatly exceed my insurance coverage, my estate will be crushed, and my family will starve. Not good. So don’t carry your employees as passengers.
 
Brad Z said:
The FAA held that the pilot would not spend $1,100 of his own money to help out strangers, but instead did so to garner goodwill from the restaurant owner who apparently was in a bind.

.
Click to expand...

Damn, hope they never find out about Operation Good Cheer.
 
EdFred said:
Damn, hope they never find out about Operation Good Cheer.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, not that type of good will.

Unless, of course some of those pilots are business owners and are hoping for good business connections through volunteering is this great project. Then, according to the theory of the Murray case, there could be a problem.
 
Brad Z said:
I suspect it’s because the FAA felt that they might have had a weak case citing compensation alone, particularly since it was packaged in with the cost of the party. But I agree with you. The fact that compensation doesn’t have to go to the pilot is why they created the provision under 91.146 in the 2007 Air Tour rule to facilitate charity flights where someone is paying for the flight, but the money is not going to the pilot.
Click to expand...
I think history shows that faced with having to (a) prove facts to build a case on a simple legal theory, or (b) make up a new legal theory, the enforcement branch will choose (b). All the better if it's a broad catch-all theory in the illegal charter arena like this one.
 
farangutan said:
I would type the distance driving via google maps, report that mileage to the company for reimbursement of travel costs. That's how I would set it up for all the employees too. If they all pile into one van or your plane or drive separately the company doesn't have to know the specifics.
Click to expand...

Why?

The GSA publishes a reimbursement rate for flying your plane on business in Federal Government travel rules. So it is accepted by IRS.

I can fly my plane on official USG business and be reimbursed. However, they will only pay up the same cost as flying commercial. When doing the cost comparison you also take into account getting to/from the airport, parking, and such other costs.

Current rate is $1.81 per mile.
 
FYI on Pizza Boy, the start of the news article stated that he flew home each weekend from college.

So he was not even building time by flying the food, it was incidental to his flying home.

Similar to carrying passengers and splitting costs. He was already going there, so not holding out.
 
Aircraft insurance policies generally fall into 2 categories; Commercial , and Pleasure and Use incidental to business. From what I gather from your post, it sounds as though your employees would be traveling with you to meetings, service calls etc, which would fall under the category of incidental to business. You might want to call an I insurance guy and talk to him about coverage for what you want to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top