Ferry Flight

Lindberg said:
Unless Harrington has been overruled, even if the owner does get something in return, it's still ok as long as the pilot pays the costs of the flight or doesn't log it.
Click to expand...
The full cost of the flight, including but not limited to fuel, not just the direct cost of the flight as discussed in 61.113(c) regarding expense sharing. See Part 2, third paragraph, of Harrington. That would include the per-hour share of insurance, storage, maintenance, etc.
 
Ron Levy said:
That was also about he pilot having a business relationship with the owner of the bar, thus creating goodwill (compensation) which the pilot could trade on in the future in return for the bar owner getting his patrons transported (quid pro quo, Clarisse, quid pro quo).
Click to expand...

Right, the pilot was getting compensated something for hauling passengers, still doesn't apply to our example.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
The full cost of the flight, including but not limited to fuel, not just the direct cost of the flight as discussed in 61.113(c) regarding expense sharing. See Part 2, third paragraph, of Harrington. That would include the per-hour share of insurance, storage, maintenance, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes. That's what it says. And if those costs are substantial in any particular case, the FAA might care. Otherwise, I'm guessing de minimis non curat lex. YMMV, consult an attorney, yadda, yadda, yadda.
 
Lindberg said:
Yes. That's what it says. And if those costs are substantial in any particular case, the FAA might care.
Click to expand...
Sorry -- I thought the question was legality, not likelihood of being caught/the FAA actually doing something. We all know this goes on all the time even though it's not legal, and the FAA lacks the time/inclination to bother with it unless someone rubs their face in it, and even then, unless the pilot cops an attitude or is making a business of it, all they'll say is, "Look, it's not legal, so please don't do it again."
 
Henning said:
Oh no, it's more like a through preflight inspection. He's not declaring it airworthy, just safe enough for that flight.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I had control of a burned up Bombardier Challenger. It was sold for salvage. The salvage company sent mechanics to inspect, and pilots to fly it from here to its ultimate grave yard, where it was (is being) parted out. The pressure seals were probably damaged, and the aircraft skin was out of tolerance. They flew if from Indy to somewhere outside of Kansas City. It never got above 10,000 feet.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N604JW

Definitely not "airworthy." But I guess safe for that flight. At least safe enough. (I don't think I would have volunteered to ride along.)
 
Ron Levy said:
Sorry -- I thought the question was legality, not likelihood of being caught/the FAA actually doing something. We all know this goes on all the time even though it's not legal, and the FAA lacks the time/inclination to bother with it unless someone rubs their face in it, and even then, unless the pilot cops an attitude or is making a business of it, all they'll say is, "Look, it's not legal, so please don't do it again."
Click to expand...
Ron, I note that you added the words, "but not limited to," in your post. Those words are not in the letter. And even though "including" means "including but not limited to," lawyers don't always use it that way and courts don't always read it that way, such that many (most?) lawyers, when they mean including but not limited to say "including, but not limited to," even though they know its redundant. Now, only the attorney writing the Harrington letter knows for sure if he intended "full" as in "not a pro rata share," or full as in "comprehensive," but I doubt it's a coincidence that when the FAA talks about direct costs of a flight they usually talk about fuel and oil and he specifically called out those costs.

Even you would have to draw this line somewhere. Do the "full costs" for ferrying the aircraft include amortized shares of the annual (for how many years?); tie-down; light bulbs; tires (what if I'm especially heavy on the brakes?); depreciation; windshield-cleaning products; home-airport line-boy Christmas tips; etc.?

We can have a philosophical discussion about legality, criminality, legal drafting, and doctrines of interpretation if you like. I'm totally down for that. But in the context of real world, practical advice where nothing is risk free (especially in flying), I'm pretty comfortable saying that the situation described by the OP is OK.
 
Lindberg said:
I'm pretty comfortable saying that the situation described by the OP is OK.
Click to expand...
Since the situation described by the OP involves the pilot doing this entirely for his own benefit and not as a favor for or to the advantage of the owner, I would agree. But that doesn't change a single word I wrote regarding the FAA's position on the issue generally where the pilot is providing a service of value to the owner, in which case the pilot must pay the full cost of the flight, and you never know what the FAA might say that entails until the FAA gets involved.
 
Lindberg said:
Ron, I note that you added the words, "but not limited to," in your post. Those words are not in the letter. And even though "including" means "including but not limited to," lawyers don't always use it that way and courts don't always read it that way, such that many (most?) lawyers, when they mean including but not limited to say "including, but not limited to," even though they know its redundant. Now, only the attorney writing the Harrington letter knows for sure if he intended "full" as in "not a pro rata share," or full as in "comprehensive," but I doubt it's a coincidence that when the FAA talks about direct costs of a flight they usually talk about fuel and oil and he specifically called out those costs.

Even you would have to draw this line somewhere. Do the "full costs" for ferrying the aircraft include amortized shares of the annual (for how many years?); tie-down; light bulbs; tires (what if I'm especially heavy on the brakes?); depreciation; windshield-cleaning products; home-airport line-boy Christmas tips; etc.?

We can have a philosophical discussion about legality, criminality, legal drafting, and doctrines of interpretation if you like. I'm totally down for that. But in the context of real world, practical advice where nothing is risk free (especially in flying), I'm pretty comfortable saying that the situation described by the OP is OK.
Click to expand...

OK, no fair using real legal opinions here, you may damage someone's maven status. :rolleyes: :rofl:
 
Ron Levy said:
Since the situation described by the OP involves the pilot doing this entirely for his own benefit and not as a favor for or to the advantage of the owner, I would agree. But that doesn't change a single word I wrote regarding the FAA's position on the issue generally where the pilot is providing a service of value to the owner, in which case the pilot must pay the full cost of the flight,
Click to expand...

You stated your position on the issue and infer that it's the FAA's.


Ron Levy said:
and you never know what the FAA might say that entails until the FAA gets involved.
Click to expand...


:dunno: :rolleyes:
 
I called the faa baltimore and the rep. Said, no problem. I told him where I wanted to fly it and I named the the FBO . He said no problem..." I will fax him the permit right now. " I checked half hour later and sure enough the FBO had it. It was my airplane. Real easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top