Ferry Pilot Question

KennyFlys said:
I can't see how flight involving exchange of ownership between the old and new owner would be an issue. I suppose an inspector could nitpick it but it's doubtful.
Click to expand...
Many of these things are doubtful, but it's that doubt (and associated fear) that cause the anxiety!:frown3:
 
I prefer option 3, I keep my insurance until I deliver it, and then give the new owner a bill of sale as he hands me a check including the cost of the trip.
 
KennyFlys said:
If you're part of the sales team and flying an aircraft into the airshow for your own demonstration purposes, it should count under the same rule. If you fly it in and then leave it behind... I'd have to say a rule has been broken.
Click to expand...

If you fly it in, and then LEAVE, I agree. Your whole work effort was flying the plane.

If you fly it in, WORK THE SHOW (meeting and greeting, helping make sales), and then someone else flies it back, then I disagree - the flight was incidental to your job as a sales rep.

It's probably moot since most of the guys who work these shows are CFIs and hold commercial certs anyway.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Actually, I'm going based by what you have posted here in the past - That if the *person* needs to get to the *place* regardless of the method, that it's OK if they take the plane.
Click to expand...
That's the "incidental to employment" exception. As I understood the question, this person isn't an employee of the non-profit corporation, and so would fall outside the scope of 61.113(b).
 
NC19143 said:
When I sell my aircraft, the title changes, And I deliver the aircraft, am I a ferry pilot?
Click to expand...
The only question is who's paying for the delivery flight. If the buyer is explicitly paying extra for the delivery, then the PIC will need a CP/ATP, especially after ownership changes. If, however, the transaction doesn't occur until you arrive at the buyer's end, and there's no explicit fee for delivery, and you pay for the delivery costs out of your own pocket (even if that pocket will be reloaded from the selling price), I see no problem.
 
Ron Levy said:
The only question is who's paying for the delivery flight. If the buyer is explicitly paying extra for the delivery, then the PIC will need a CP/ATP, especially after ownership changes. If, however, the transaction doesn't occur until you arrive at the buyer's end, and there's no explicit fee for delivery, and you pay for the delivery costs out of your own pocket (even if that pocket will be reloaded from the selling price), I see no problem.
Click to expand...

If the delivery price was built into the purchase price, there is no way anyone would ever know.

You can take this to the ridiculously absurd real quick if you want. I think maybe we are getting there.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
If the delivery price was built into the purchase price, there is no way anyone would ever know.
Click to expand...
You take my point, sir.
You can take this to the ridiculously absurd real quick if you want. I think maybe we are getting there.
Click to expand...
Agreed. At some point, it's just pindancing with angels -- purely theoretical/academic.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's the "incidental to employment" exception. As I understood the question, this person isn't an employee of the non-profit corporation, and so would fall outside the scope of 61.113(b).
Click to expand...

I thought it was more "incidental to the mission" than employment in particular. Is there an opinion that restricts being incidental or common purpose to employment situations only?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I thought it was more "incidental to the mission" than employment in particular. Is there an opinion that restricts being incidental or common purpose to employment situations only?
Click to expand...
Here's what it says in the reg:
(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and
(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.
Click to expand...
Nothing in there about "mission," just "business or employment." If the pilot has no connection with the business (and in the example case, it appears not), then this section does not apply.
 
Ron Levy said:
Here's what it says in the reg:
(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and
(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.
Click to expand...
Nothing in there about "mission," just "business or employment." If the pilot has no connection with the business (and in the example case, it appears not), then this section does not apply.
Click to expand...

"Business" is not defined in 61.1 or 1.1, so I think it's well within the realm of reasonable to consider the non-profit organization the pilot's "business." It just seems like the FAA likes to get in people's business. :rolleyes:
 
Geez, by the time you guys settle my question I could have walked to the plane and carried it back piece by piece! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Just kidding, I find these comments and points pretty entertaining.

Thanks again.
 
Geico266 said:
Geez, by the time you guys settle my question I could have walked to the plane and carried it back piece by piece! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Just kidding, I find these comments and points pretty entertaining.

Thanks again.
Click to expand...

Just go fly it home, and say nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top