Flight Instructors transporting passengers

[NikolaJokic]

Hello all,

From online research, I understand flight instructors cannot fly passengers for hire. My question is would it be against certain regulations for a flight instructor to transport passengers if they received no financial compensation?

Thank You

 

[Clip4]

A flight instructor also holds a commercial pilots certificate. If the passengers independent of the instructor or his employer supply the aircraft, the instructor may exercise the privilege of his commercial pilot certificate and be compensated for the flight.

If the instructor is not independent of the aircraft, owns or employed by the owner, the instructor may also exercise private pilot privileges when he shares a common purpose with the passengers for the flight and may share the expenses of the flight equally with the passengers, but he may not be paid for this flight.

 

[Kritchlow]

A flight instructor also holds a commercial pilots certificate. If the passengers independent of the instructor or his employer supply the aircraft, the instructor may exercise the privilege of his commercial pilot certificate and be compensated for the flight.

If the instructor is not independent of the aircraft, owns or employed by the owner, the instructor may also exercise private pilot privileges when he shares a common purpose with the passengers for the flight and may share the expenses of the flight equally with the passengers, but he may not be paid for this flight.

A long, technical way of saying maybe… but I doubt it.

 

[bflynn]

If they receive no compensation, it’s just a flight. You can do anything you want.

 

[GeorgeC]

would it be against certain regulations for a flight instructor to transport passengers if they received no financial compensation?

Flight time can be considered compensation:
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/faa-perspective-on-compensation.39062/

 

[mandm]

If 4 people in the airplane, even with a PPL, you can split the costs 4 ways legally. I think it’s more along the lines that the PPL must cover their share of flying so not even sure the rules on how the other 3 passengers split the costs.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Hello all,

From online research, I understand flight instructors cannot fly passengers for hire. My question is would it be against certain regulations for a flight instructor to transport passengers if they received no financial compensation?

Thank You

The FAA has very broadly defined "compensation" to include far more than financial compensation. Free flight time. Hoped for future business benefit. Basically, anything given in exchange for the flight that has some value.

There are some specific legitimate ways around that but there is no way to tell if any of them applies without a lot more detail on the specific scenario. Even @Clip4's correct statement about what a commercial pilot may do when not the one providing the airplane doesn't really answer the question.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

I have done scenic flights for passengers. The rules are that we have to land at the same airport we departed from, and I have to be on the company's drug testing program and hold at least a second class medical.

 

[EdFred]

Hello all,

From online research, I understand flight instructors cannot fly passengers for hire. My question is would it be against certain regulations for a flight instructor to transport passengers if they received no financial compensation?

Thank You

Who is providing the plane, and what class medical does the flight instructor have?

 

[sarangan]

The FAA has very broadly defined "compensation" to include far more than financial compensation. Free flight time. Hoped for future business benefit. Basically, anything given in exchange for the flight that has some value.

There are some specific legitimate ways around that but there is no way to tell if any of them applies without a lot more detail on the specific scenario. Even @Clip4's correct statement about what a commercial pilot may do when not the one providing the airplane doesn't really answer the question.

If the flight instructor explains to the passengers about basics of flight, does it make it an instructional flight? Just wondering.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Who is providing the plane, and what class medical does the flight instructor have?

You point out the problem with the question. The answer may have nothing whatsoever to do with the privileges and limitations of a flight instructor. Might be about commercial pilots in an owner's airplane. Might be about one of the tasks in 119.1 which are open to commercial pilots without an operating certificate. It might even be about private pilots and shared expenses. Maybe he's truing to revisit Mangiamele

 

[midlifeflyer]

If the flight instructor explains to the passengers about basics of flight, does it make it an instructional flight? Just wondering.

In an era where the FAA is cracking down on what it views as illegal charter, mostly "sham" dry leases but including "sham" demo flights, "sham" discovery flights, and "sham instruction"? An FAA that went after a warbird operator for it but apparently found it easier to reinterpret the experimental regulations to preclude even instruction without a waiver? Offhand, I'd say no, even if they give each of them a logbook recording it as dual and included a TSA endorsement.

 

[MauleSkinner]

If the flight instructor explains to the passengers about basics of flight, does it make it an instructional flight? Just wondering.

Ask the guy who got violated for “giving instruction” in his 414 (I think…twin Cessna of some kind).

 

[Clip4]

I have done scenic flights for passengers. The rules are that we have to land at the same airport we departed from, and I have to be on the company's drug testing program and hold at least a second class medical.

And the company must have a letter of authorization from the FSDO.

 

[Clip4]

If the flight instructor explains to the passengers about basics of flight, does it make it an instructional flight? Just wondering.

Gosh honest Mr. FAA inspector, I always give cross country training before solo training.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

And the company must have a letter of authorization from the FSDO.

That is correct.

 

[Pinecone]

If 4 people in the airplane, even with a PPL, you can split the costs 4 ways legally. I think it’s more along the lines that the PPL must cover their share of flying so not even sure the rules on how the other 3 passengers split the costs.

Also common purpose. The PPL has to be making the trip even if no one else came along.

So no telling people, hey, I will fly where you want to go if you pay half the gas.

 

[bflynn]

if they received no financial compensation?

OMG everyone, Read The Friendly Screen!

There is no compensation, this is not a 61.113 question. It is just a pilot taking people on a flight.

 

[Brad Z]

By the way, if the pilot is not providing flight instruction, the fact that they hold a flight instructor certificate is irrelevant.

But as noted, if there is not compensation, there is no issue.

My question is would it be against certain regulations for a flight instructor to transport passengers if they received no financial compensation?

Okay...so no financial compensation. But how about other forms of compensation? Goodwill? Quid pro quo? A discount on a service transaction? The FAA has taken a very broad view of what is compensation. If you're receiving anything more than "warm and fuzzies", there's a good chance you're being compensated, even if that compensation is not $$.

 

[aftCG]

How about sexual favors? Asking for a friend

 

[GaryM]

Okay...so no financial compensation. But how about other forms of compensation?

 

[Anthem]

OMG everyone, Read The Friendly Screen!

There is no compensation, this is not a 61.113 question. It is just a pilot taking people on a flight.

this is incorrect. The FAA treats compensation as anything gained. It doesnt have to be "financial" to be deemed compensation. and as someone else stated, you have to have the common purpose satisfied.

 

[midlifeflyer]

OMG everyone, Read The Friendly Screen!

There is no compensation, this is not a 61.113 question. It is just a pilot taking people on a flight.

I guess you'll need to do a little reading on what the FAA considers "compensation."

I'd start with this one since it covers things from food and lodging to free flight time. Then move to this case, which is one of the more ridiculous ones.

That's why no one can really answer the question - not enough information. Here's language from one of the other "compensation" interpretations:

We note that whether a private pilot is receiving something of value in exchange for acting as pilot in command is determined on a case-by-case basis and depends greatly on the purpose and objective of the flight.​

This is also known as the "quacks like a duck" rule.

 

[EdFred]

I guess you'll need to do a little reading on what the FAA considers "compensation."

I'd start with this one since it covers things from food and lodging to free flight time. Then move to this case, which is one of the more ridiculous ones.

That's why no one can really answer the question - not enough information. Here's language from one of the other "compensation" interpretations:

We note that whether a private pilot is receiving something of value in exchange for acting as pilot in command is determined on a case-by-case basis and depends greatly on the purpose and objective of the flight.​

This is also known as the "quacks like a duck" rule.

most ridiculous thing in that second case:

The law judge, who had the
opportunity to witness respondent’s demeanor, judged his
credibility and rejected his Good Samaritan argument. The law
judge was unable to accept respondent’s claim that he would
freely transport people he did not know at a personal expense of
over $1000 simply for pleasure.

So, Lifeline Pilots, Angel Flight, Wings of Mercy, Operation Good Cheer, or, hell, the flight Kelvin and I did back in 2009 to get Donna home for a final Christmas we all get compensated how? I don't know any of the people I fly on those flights. I've transported people AND cargo (the horror!) a number of times out of my own pocket. That ruling should be overruled/cancelled/whatever based on the fact that people do this all the time, every day and spend 1000's a year helping people we don't know.

 

[TommyG]

These happen every day.

 

[Lindberg]

most ridiculous thing in that second case:

The law judge, who had the
opportunity to witness respondent’s demeanor, judged his
credibility and rejected his Good Samaritan argument. The law
judge was unable to accept respondent’s claim that he would
freely transport people he did not know at a personal expense of
over $1000 simply for pleasure.

So, Lifeline Pilots, Angel Flight, Wings of Mercy, Operation Good Cheer, or, hell, the flight Kelvin and I did back in 2009 to get Donna home for a final Christmas we all get compensated how? I don't know any of the people I fly on those flights. I've transported people AND cargo (the horror!) a number of times out of my own pocket. That ruling should be overruled/cancelled/whatever based on the fact that people do this all the time, every day and spend 1000's a year helping people we don't know.

He didn't say no one would do it; he said he didn't believe the respondent did it.

 

[bflynn]

This is also known as the "quacks like a duck" rule.

It looks and quacks like a private pilot.

It was explicitly stated in post #1 that there's no compensation. This is a pilot giving people a ride somewhere and paying for it themselves. You don't lose the ability to fly personally for no compensation just because you become a commercial pilot.

 

[bflynn]

this is incorrect. The FAA treats compensation as anything gained. It doesn't have to be "financial" to be deemed compensation. and as someone else stated, you have to have the common purpose satisfied.

What do you think would be gained? It's a prerequisite of the entire discussion that there's no compensation.

I'm very, very aware of the wide variety of compensation - flight time, dinner at the destination, even good will like future business. But none of that is here.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It looks and quacks like a private pilot.

It was explicitly stated in post #1 that there's no compensation.

I disagree. It was explicitly said

My question is would it be against certain regulations for a flight instructor to transport passengers if they received no financial compensation?

My assumption from reading it is that there is no money changing hands. Your assumption is that absolutely nothing of value is being received in exchange for transportation. That's OK and you may well be correct, but I don't agree it was "explicit" and I don't have the liberty of making the same assumption as you.

 

[bflynn]

But how about other forms of compensation? Goodwill? Quid pro quo? A discount on a service transaction?

Those would be compensation, therefore not present.

 

[bflynn]

I disagree. It was explicitly said

My assumption from reading it is that there is no money changing hands. Your assumption is that absolutely nothing of value is being received in exchange for transportation. That's OK and you may well be correct, but I don't agree it was "explicit" and I don't have the liberty of making the same assumption as you.

As with Brad, if there was something of value exchanged, that WOULD be compensation. It would also violate the condition of the question.

 

[Anthem]

What do you think would be gained? It's a prerequisite of the entire discussion that there's no compensation.

I'm very, very aware of the wide variety of compensation - flight time, dinner at the destination, even good will like future business. But none of that is here.

My question is would it be against certain regulations for a flight instructor to transport passengers if they received no financial compensation?

And where are you making that assumption that there is no compensation ? You reference original poster - I’ve quoted the original. He doesn’t say no compensation. He says no “financial compensation” - so any and all other forms are in play.

 

[midlifeflyer]

most ridiculous thing in that second case:

The law judge, who had the
opportunity to witness respondent’s demeanor, judged his
credibility and rejected his Good Samaritan argument. The law
judge was unable to accept respondent’s claim that he would
freely transport people he did not know at a personal expense of
over $1000 simply for pleasure.

So, Lifeline Pilots, Angel Flight, Wings of Mercy, Operation Good Cheer, or, hell, the flight Kelvin and I did back in 2009 to get Donna home for a final Christmas we all get compensated how? I don't know any of the people I fly on those flights. I've transported people AND cargo (the horror!) a number of times out of my own pocket. That ruling should be overruled/cancelled/whatever based on the fact that people do this all the time, every day and spend 1000's a year helping people we don't know.

Personal opinion on what the case is about.

A bunch of people paid for Part 135 transportation. It was no longer available. Murphy was a stand for the 135 operation. That's not just a duck. It's a Muscovy duck! And, from the FAA's perspective, it's the worst kind - exactly what all those rules are designed to prevent- the traveling public which knows nothing about aviation paying for non-Part 135/121 transportation. We can argue with that validity and necessity of that protection, but that's the way it is.

So the FAA was gonna get this guy one way or the other.

The FAA could have gone an entirely different route. After all those passengers paid for transportation by air. Before getting to the exceptions, the broad rule in 61.113(a) is:

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; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.​

Leaving out the "good will," the pilot may not have been acting as PIC for compensation, but he was acting as PIC of an aircraft carrying passengers who paid.

I have a feeling they didn't because of evidentiary issues. Dunno whether it was uncooperative witnesses or the costs of presentation, I think that's what happened. So they take a relationship and build it into something it may or may not have been. And sell it to the fact finder (judge). Problem is, we don't have a transcript so we don't know how much the FAA developed the relationship. We don't know what the pilot's "demeanor" was. Maybe it was Jon Lovitz doing his "yeah, that's right! That's the ticket" bit. Maybe not. Maybe just a horrible decision all the way around. "Good will" compensation can be meaningful or it can be a convenient way to get to conduct where theyr can't really prove it. It wouldn't be the first time.

Lifeline, Angel Flight, etc are different. Those are charitable endeavors where the FAA has carved out a exception, and even that's limited to taking the charitable deduction for out of pocked costs (absent a "135 Light" waiver for fuel reimbursement)

 

[Lindberg]

It looks and quacks like a private pilot.

It was explicitly stated in post #1 that there's no compensation. This is a pilot giving people a ride somewhere and paying for it themselves. You don't lose the ability to fly personally for no compensation just because you become a commercial pilot.

Huh? Post #1 says no financial compensation. I try not to ignore words the author chose to include. I assume he included "financial" because there might be other forms of compensation, especially in this context where it makes a difference.

 

[EdFred]

Lifeline, Angel Flight, etc are different. Those are charitable endeavors where the FAA has carved out a exception, and even that's limited to taking the charitable deduction for out of pocked costs (absent a "135 Light" waiver for fuel reimbursement)

The problem is, I've done those flights out from under the umbrella of 501(c) entities. Money out of my own pocket. Don't even know the person. Just a call from someone (without any sort of ability to make it worth my while in any aspect) of "hey [this person you don't know] needs some help, can you?" So I do. But according to the judge, no one would ever do something like this. So I'm getting what for compensation according to the judge?

 

[midlifeflyer]

The problem is, I've done those flights out from under the umbrella of 501(c) entities. Money out of my own pocket. Don't even know the person. Just a call from someone (without any sort of ability to make it worth my while in any aspect) of "hey [this person you don't know] needs some help, can you?" So I do. But according to the judge, no one would ever do something like this. So I'm getting what for compensation according to the judge?

As stated, I don't see any problem with that scenario even with that stupid decision. No exchange of value, current or expected, for your volunteering. Not believing that it was purely out if the goodness of their heart is a fact determination based in testimony and documentary evidence. Context is everything, offhand non relevant comments by the judge aside.

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

From online research, I understand flight instructors cannot fly passengers for hire. My question is would it be against certain regulations for a flight instructor to transport passengers if they received no financial compensation?

@midlifeflyer - Would a twist on this be allowed?
Is it allowed by regulation for a commercial pilot (with Class II Med) to be paid by aircraft owner to pilot owner's aircraft with owner's family and/or owner's friends, whether owner is present in aircraft or not, and where owner is not receiving compensation (of any sort) for the flight nor are the other passengers providing any compensation (of any sort) to anybody for the flight?

 

[TCABM]

I wonder if the OP is getting a homework answer out of all this.

 

[Albany Tom]

My bet is that OP is a new CFI and being asked to fly by the company he's instructing for, and wants to check to see if it's OK. In which case, good idea to check out what you're doing and not blindly trust any employer, unless you're working for your mom.

 

[bflynn]

He says no “financial compensation” - so any and all other forms are in play.

isn’t all compensation financial in some form? If it’s good will, the issue isn’t that someone likes you, it’s that they’re to exchange it for money somewhere else. If they buy you dinner, the issue is financial. All compensation is about a financial exchange, right?