Head slap!

[Hang 4]

This brings up a different question, but it could be a grey area as well. You take family or friends flying, you have for this scenario lets say a PPL, a 172, and of course no commercial use insurance. They show up to go flying and are so happy that you are taking them, they hand you some cash because they know planes don't fly for free.
Right?
Wrong?
Who cares?
What does that do to your insurance policy if something happens, even a minor incident?

As long as it's less than 50% of the cost of the flight, then no issue.

 

[RyanB]

This brings up a different question, but it could be a grey area as well. You take family or friends flying, you have for this scenario lets say a PPL, a 172, and of course no commercial use insurance. They show up to go flying and are so happy that you are taking them, they hand you some cash because they know planes don't fly for free.
Right?
Wrong?
Who cares?
What does that do to your insurance policy if something happens, even a minor incident?

That’s the most common situation of them all LOL

 

[Grum.Man]

Yea nothing legal about this at all. He could establish a price of a sight seeing flight within 25 miles of the departure airport and charge half of that of which he would then have to donate to a charitable organization. But I believe even that is limited to four flights a year or something like that.

 

[geezer]

The way this works in real life, if it is a true charity flight:

I bid hundreds of dollars for a flying trip to a destination of my choice, and return.

The pilot received no money at all, and wrote the cost of the flight as a charitable contribution.

We donated to him overnight accommodations for him and his wife.
We flew from Washington DC to a resort near Myrtle Beach, NC.
Next day, we flew up the coast of NC and VA, stopping to wade in the ocean at Billy Mitchel airport, to Norfolk, and home.

My bid was way more than the cost of the trip, but he received none of the bid. His only benefit was the overnight room, Which was free to me, so no cost to either of us.

I have done charitable flights at College Park MD, benefit the airport, half a dozen flights in one day, multiple FAA officials present, and one of them doing charity flights too.

Our club insurance covered such activities, as long as we are not compensated for the flights.

 

[k9medic]

That's a valid point. This is the litmus test - If the pilot is never compensated then it is not a commercial flight.

For discussion (I know the answer)-

When you start to break down "pro-rata" shares then it can really get confusing. Expense per seat? Expense per flight hour? Expense for total flight time?

I have made multiple trips to/from the Bahamas dropping off supplies. On the return trips, I am always full with people coming back. My round trip flight is 6 hours from home base. From the Bahamas to the first port of entry, it's 1.5 hours. Let's say the cost to operate my plane is $150/ flight hour.

So where do you draw the line? Do you collect per seat per flight hour for the time that you had the people with you or does it now become something more?

If I fly to/from and bring 5 folks back with me and the total flight round trip is $900, do you then have a $150 per person pro rata share since it's the cost of the entire flight or do you have a $37.50 pro rata share since the passengers are only on the aircraft for 1.5 hours? Remember, you had to fly 6 hours round trip anyway...

 

[Grum.Man]

Were you compensated for hauling the supplies down? Doesn’t matter either way really as you can only ask for 1/2 the cost of the flight, not per seat. How ever you decide that total up to the passengers is up to you I suppose. You can charge whoever asked you to carry supplies half the operating cost of the 3 hour flight. Then you can ask the passengers for 1/2 the expenses for the 1.5 return flight, the other 1.5 is coming out of your pocket.

 

[RyanB]

My bid was way more than the cost of the trip, but he received none of the bid. His only benefit was the overnight room, Which was free to me, so no cost to either of us.

This is where the FAA regs are total hogwash. You can say his ‘only’ benefit was the free overnight room, but he essentially got free flight time out of the whole deal. Yet, if a private pilot wants to ferry an airplane for someone else and have them cover the costs, than the flight time is considered compensation . Talk about double standards...

 

[k9medic]

Were you compensated for hauling the supplies down? Doesn’t matter either way really as you can only ask for 1/2 the cost of the flight, not per seat. How ever you decide that total up to the passengers is up to you I suppose. You can charge whoever asked you to carry supplies half the operating cost of the 3 hour flight. Then you can ask the passengers for 1/2 the expenses for the 1.5 return flight, the other 1.5 is coming out of your pocket.

No compensation for flying the supplies down - not even gas money. It all came out of my own pocket.

I'll muddy the water for you all as part of this conversation - I'm an ATP rated and current, flying this flight in a plane that I rented from my own company (have to comply with 100hr inspections, etc...) Flight was conducted under part 91.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Better be careful out there. The FAA has an entire staff of Inspectors that are tasked with hanging around airports and questioning every plane that stops there if they are splitting cost. They even demand receipts and full break down of expenses. And they carry calculators.

You've been warned..............

 

[RyanB]

Haha!

 

[k9medic]

You laugh... One of the passengers with me whipped out some cash as we were clearing customs. I thought, oh Lord, this is it.

 

[cgrab]

Old FAA motto: We're not happy until you're not happy.
New FAA motto: If you're not confused, we'll keep trying.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Old FAA motto: We're not happy until you're not happy.
New FAA motto: If you're not confused, we'll keep trying.

Even newer FAA slogan: "At the FAA, we've upped our standards. So up yours!"

 

[dbahn]

The FAA does consider flight time as a form of compensation, and would likely consider the hotel room compensation even though it was free to the passenger, the argument being that the passenger was simply passing compensation to him through to the pilot. My recollection is that they first limited that consideration only to hours used for aeronautical experience but subsequently expanded that to hours logged because it often too ambiguous to determine. In this case, I think if the pilot did not log the flight, had paid for a room, and did not list it as a charitable contribution then he has an argument that it was not subject to either Part 135 or Part 91 requirements.

 

[Clip4]

Prove what? The question was "Why SHOULD something like this be illegal?" The angle the FAA takes on this is public safety...

Hell yes this should be illegal. When it come to pilot skills most private pilots suck. Anyone buying that trip certainly doesn’t know it.

 

[dbahn]

Prove what? The question was "Why SHOULD something like this be illegal?" The angle the FAA takes on this is public safety...

Like it or not the FAA is charged with ensuring the safety of paying passengers. It's all about oversight of the entire operation beginning with the pilot certification but including maintenance, substance abuse prevention, and other components of the operation itself, which is why Part 135 (and even Part 91.147) is so burdensome.

 

[GRG55]

This brings up a different question, but it could be a grey area as well. You take family or friends flying, you have for this scenario lets say a PPL, a 172, and of course no commercial use insurance. They show up to go flying and are so happy that you are taking them, they hand you some cash because they know planes don't fly for free.
Right?
Wrong?
Who cares?
What does that do to your insurance policy if something happens, even a minor incident?

Where you live the TC rules are pretty clear.
If they are going the same place you were going in any case (in other words you are not dropping them off at a destination you weren't planning to go yourself as the pilot and aircraft owner) your passengers can legally pay to help offset direct incurred costs such as fuel, oil, landing & parking fees directly applicable for that trip.

 

[dbahn]

There's about 17,000 planes that went to Airventure this year , so at least 17,000 pilots. And most of them have a sense of camaraderie, of being part of a friendly group. But obviously not all are, the poster of this topic sees himself as a vigilante about some other pilot's personal flying which has no direct interaction or effect on the op. That's a sad kind of jealousy. Maybe he grew up with older kids who stole some of his Halloween candy.

P S if you were really concerned about the safety of this flight, better manners might be to call the phone number and give your take on it to the pilot privately.

He's done that via email, and the pilot who offered the flight has responded.

I'm writing him an email right now. Thanks for the idea to direct him to this page. I think that's a great idea.

And for anyone that thinks I'm jealous or trying to bust him, you are wrong. If I were trying to get him in trouble, I wouldn't have hid his name and email and I wouldn't have posted here. I would have sent it to the FSDO.

Follow up. I sent the pilot an email explaining that this may be against the FAR's. Here's his response:

"Hi Lance, Thanks for the heads up about this. I’ll look into the FARs. I had heard of some other pilots doing similar things, and it’s possible they are unaware, too. I’ll let them know, too."

 

[Palmpilot]

This is where the FAA regs are total hogwash. You can say his ‘only’ benefit was the free overnight room, but he essentially got free flight time out of the whole deal. Yet, if a private pilot wants to ferry an airplane for someone else and have them cover the costs, than the flight time is considered compensation . Talk about double standards...

One of the FAA Chief Counsel interpretations on the subject says that compensation from the flight time can be avoided by not logging the time.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or.../harrington - (1997) legal interpretation.pdf

 

[Palmpilot]

That's a valid point. This is the litmus test - If the pilot is never compensated then it is not a commercial flight.

That's only half of the litmus test. The other half is that if anyone is being paid for the flight, then the aircraft is carrying passengers for compensation or hire even if the pilot isn't being compensated.

§61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

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

 

[idahoflier]

Hell yes this should be illegal. When it come to pilot skills most private pilots suck. Anyone buying that trip certainly doesn’t know it.

Whoa there! Where did I say it shouldn't be illegal? I don't believe I have shared MY personal opinion on the rules pertaining to charitable flights one way or the other...

 

[Clip4]

Whoa there! Where did I say it shouldn't be illegal? I don't believe I have shared MY personal opinion on the rules pertaining to charitable flights one way or the other...

Prove what? The question was "Why SHOULD something like this be illegal?" The angle the FAA takes on this is public safety...

I just answered your question.

 

[idahoflier]

Like it or not the FAA is charged with ensuring the safety of paying passengers. It's all about oversight of the entire operation beginning with the pilot certification but including maintenance, substance abuse prevention, and other components of the operation itself, which is why Part 135 (and even Part 91.147) is so burdensome.

Ummm... I appreciate the attempt at education, but I don't need it. My post you are quoting was in reply to the person saying I'm correlating charitable flights with accidents and my point was that it is the FAA that is doing that. If you read my posts I said more than once the rules are for PUBLIC SAFETY...

 

[idahoflier]

I just answered your question.

Please read my comments from the beginning. What question did I have that you think you were answering???

 

[Clip4]

Please read my comments from the beginning. What question did I have that you think you were answering???

I thought I copied it. If not apologies extended.

 

[idahoflier]

I thought I copied it. If not apologies extended.

No worries. Please read Rgbeard's post #5, question 2. He is the person that had the question, not me...

I'm going to wrap up my "contributions" to this thread. Blue Skies everyone!

 

[dbahn]

Ummm... I appreciate the attempt at education, but I don't need it. My post you are quoting was in reply to the person saying I'm correlating charitable flights with accidents and my point was that it is the FAA that is doing that. If you read my posts I said more than once the rules are for PUBLIC SAFETY...

"Public safety" starts with the FAA regulating the conditions required to even solo an aircraft. It's a broad term and the "public" being protected under those regulations generally involves the pilot and persons on the ground. Additional requirements are added to carry non-paying passengers - generally friends and family under Part 91. I was making the distinction between those levels vs. a whole different level of protection for paying passengers "which is why Part 135 and even (Part 91.47) is so burdensome".

The reason that's important is that even some newly minted commercial pilots assume that it's OK to charge people for flights using their own plane. (It's more common than some people want to believe, including me.) But the only way that can be done is either under the requirements of 91.146 and 91.147 or else a Part 135 certificate. There are simply different levels of public safety and different levels of FAA oversight, with a sharp distinction occurring when flights are made "for hire".

(Part 91.146 relates to charity flights and is different from 91.147 in that the pilot cannot be compensated in the former but can in the latter. Part 91.147 has many of the elements of a Part 135 operation, including the drug and alcohol testing, stricter certification of mechanics, and the limitation to a 25 sm radius around a single defined airport, among others.)

 

[lancie00]

There's about 17,000 planes that went to Airventure this year , so at least 17,000 pilots. And most of them have a sense of camaraderie, of being part of a friendly group. But obviously not all are, the poster of this topic sees himself as a vigilante about some other pilot's personal flying which has no direct interaction or effect on the op. That's a sad kind of jealousy. Maybe he grew up with older kids who stole some of his Halloween candy.

P S if you were really concerned about the safety of this flight, better manners might be to call the phone number and give your take on it to the pilot privately.

Boy are you wrong. I do NOT consider myself a vigilante and am not jealous of this guy at all. I think that this SHOULD be legal!!! However, it's not, and this exposes this pilot to investigation by the FAA. I posted this to try to get people to THINK before they do something like this that endangers their PPL.

And if you would have read all of the posts, you would have known that I DID CONTACT THE PILOT PRIVATELY!!! And as I said in post 31, he told me "Hi Lance, Thanks for the heads up about this. I’ll look into the FARs. I had heard of some other pilots doing similar things, and it’s possible they are unaware, too. I’ll let them know, too."

He actually seems like a nice guy that appreciates the fact that I TRIED TO HELP HIM NOT GET IN TROUBLE.

 

[Bill Greenwood]

Lance, I went back and read all of it, and see where you said you wrote and email and he responded positively. I would have done a phone call , but no matter. But you first several posts didn't mention contacting him and seemed very punitive, that was the impression I got.
Thanks for doing it right in the end.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

That's a valid point. This is the litmus test - If the pilot is never compensated then it is not a commercial flight. ...

So, if the pilot writes off the cost of the flight (assuming he gets none of the $400) on his income taxes as a charitable donation, he's screwed?

 

[dbahn]

So, if the pilot writes off the cost of the flight (assuming he gets none of the $400) on his income taxes as a charitable donation, he's screwed?

Technically, yes (assuming that it ever came to the attention of authorities and that they chose to pursue it). He can't deduct the flight as charity because the charity exemption in Part 91.146 doesn't allow point to point flights. Charity is also specifically defined in that regulation, and I'm just guessing that the event would more likely fall under the "community event" provision. Part 91.146 only allows sightseeing flights within a 25 sm radius of the departure airport, which this event clearly violates. He also would be required to notify the FSDO at least seven days prior to making the flight, and provide specific information and documentation in that letter. And while we don't know if he did that or planned to do that, the information is then already in the FAA's hands, so they would have no trouble processing it as a violation.

The bottom line, which echos the OP's original statement is that, "for anyone that doesn't know, this is illegal and if you didn't know that, you need to look it up before offering to do it. (FAR 91.146)". That's excellent advice, IMHO. It appears to me that the pilot offering the flight wasn't "stupid" but he was "uninformed".

 

[Clip4]

91.146 Passenger-carrying flights for the benefit of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event.
(a) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

Charitable event means an event that raises funds for the benefit of a charitable organization recognized by the Department of the Treasury whose donors may deduct contributions under section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. Section 170).

Community event means an event that raises funds for the benefit of any local or community cause that is not a charitable event or non-profit event.

Non-profit event means an event that raises funds for the benefit of a non-profit organization recognized under State or Federal law, as long as one of the organization's purposes is the promotion of aviation safety.

(b) Passenger carrying flights for the benefit of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event identified in paragraph (c) of this section are not subject to the certification requirements of part 119 or the drug and alcohol testing requirements in part 120 of this chapter, provided the following conditions are satisfied and the limitations in paragraphs (c) and (d) are not exceeded:

(1) The flight is nonstop and begins and ends at the same airport and is conducted within a 25-statute mile radius of that airport;

(2) The flight is conducted from a public airport that is adequate for the airplane or helicopter used, or from another location the FAA approves for the operation;

(3) The airplane or helicopter has a maximum of 30 seats, excluding each crewmember seat, and a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds;

(4) The flight is not an aerobatic or a formation flight;

(5) Each airplane or helicopter holds a standard airworthiness certificate, is airworthy, and is operated in compliance with the applicable requirements of subpart E of this part;

(6) Each flight is made during day VFR conditions;

(7) Reimbursement of the operator of the airplane or helicopter is limited to that portion of the passenger payment for the flight that does not exceed the pro rata cost of owning, operating, and maintaining the aircraft for that flight, which may include fuel, oil, airport expenditures, and rental fees;

(8) The beneficiary of the funds raised is not in the business of transportation by air;

(9) A private pilot acting as pilot in command has at least 500 hours of flight time;

(10) Each flight is conducted in accordance with the safety provisions of part 136, subpart A of this chapter; and

(11) Flights are not conducted over a national park, unit of a national park, or abutting tribal lands, unless the operator has secured a letter of agreement from the FAA, as specified under subpart B of part 136 of this chapter, and is operating in accordance with that agreement during the flights.

(c) (1) Passenger-carrying flights or series of flights are limited to a total of four charitable events or non-profit events per year, with no event lasting more than three consecutive days.

(2) Passenger-carrying flights or series of flights are limited to one community event per year, with no event lasting more than three consecutive days.

(d) Pilots and sponsors of events described in this section are limited to no more than 4 events per calendar year.

(e) At least seven days before the event, each sponsor of an event described in this section must furnish to the responsible Flight Standards office for the area where the event is scheduled:

(1) A signed letter detailing the name of the sponsor, the purpose of the event, the date and time of the event, the location of the event, all prior events under this section participated in by the sponsor in the current calendar year;

(2) A photocopy of each pilot in command's pilot certificate, medical certificate, and logbook entries that show the pilot is current in accordance with §§61.56 and 61.57 of this chapter and that any private pilot has at least 500 hours of flight time; and

(3) A signed statement from each pilot that lists all prior events under this section in which the pilot has participated during the current calendar year.

 

[Palmpilot]

...He can't deduct the flight as charity because the charity exemption in Part 91.146 doesn't allow point to point flights....

The IRS has their own rules on what constitutes a valid charitable deduction, and I doubt that aviation regulations figure into that at all.

 

[dbahn]

The IRS has their own rules on what constitutes a valid charitable deduction, and I doubt that aviation regulations figure into that at all.

Taken directly from the definition cited in the post previous to yours, they figure "something IRS related" into it.

Charitable event means an event that raises funds for the benefit of a charitable organization recognized by the Department of the Treasury whose donors may deduct contributions under section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. Section 170).

I didn't bother to look up the IRS regulations, but I'm guessing that they're pretty specific.

 

[Palmpilot]

Taken directly from the definition cited in the post previous to yours, they figure "something IRS related" into it.



I didn't bother to look up the IRS regulations, but I'm guessing that they're pretty specific.

The quoted passage shows the FAA referencing IRS and Treasury rules. That's not the same thing as the IRS referencing FAA rules.

 

[cgrab]

Hell yes this should be illegal. When it come to pilot skills most private pilots suck.

I resemble this remark. As a private pilot I would not be comfortable doing on demand flights.

 

[Shuswap BC]

Where you live the TC rules are pretty clear.
If they are going the same place you were going in any case (in other words you are not dropping them off at a destination you weren't planning to go yourself as the pilot and aircraft owner) your passengers can legally pay to help offset direct incurred costs such as fuel, oil, landing & parking fees directly applicable for that trip.

You are 100% correct!

I actually asked it to bring a new twist to the conversation already taking place. It likely differs somewhat in every country, but in Canada yes they make it abundantly clear.

 

[BigBadLou]

Lots of good feedback in this thread.
However, I saw a hilarious ad somewhere in Redneckville, MI where a pilot and airplane owner offered to take a couple up in his modified airplane. The rear seat were removed and replaced with a mattress. So you could pay to join the mile-high club in a tiny tin can.
While the pilot might have a commercial license, I always wondered whether one needs a license in the state of MI to operate a brothel. Or to state laws not apply above ground?

 

[Palmpilot]

Lots of good feedback in this thread.
However, I saw a hilarious ad somewhere in Redneckville, MI where a pilot and airplane owner offered to take a couple up in his modified airplane. The rear seat were removed and replaced with a mattress. So you could pay to join the mile-high club in a tiny tin can.
While the pilot might have a commercial license, I always wondered whether one needs a license in the state of MI to operate a brothel. Or to state laws not apply above ground?

Seems to me that has more in common with a hotel than a brothel.

 

[BigBadLou]

Seems to me that has more in common with a hotel than a brothel.

Oops, did I forget to mention his wife is a sub-contractor?? My bad.