Income as pt 91 a/c, owner

[Let'sgoflying!]

Cool, I will make some cash with my plane and I am not pt 135, I don't have an operator certificate, etc.
At first when I was offered this gig, I said - no way, I wouldn't be legal. But a glance at 91.321 makes me think it could be.
Now I just have to research section 3 of that part... anyone know if there is such a law in Texas?
Also, are there any limits on compensation?
I'll have to call my insurance company Monday.

What do you guys think?

 

[EdFred]

What is the gig?

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Whups I jumped the gun. It was a Malibu, not my plane. I can't go anyway - just as well, I'm not voting for them!
I would still like to know about the law, they may well call again.

"(3) By Federal, state or local law, you are required to receive payment for carrying the candidate, agent, or person traveling on behalf of a candidate. For federal elections, the payment may not exceed the amount required by the Federal Election Commission. For a state or local election, the payment may not exceed the amount required under the applicable state or local law."

 

[gismo]

IIRC, Ron Levy has stated that this isn't available to private pilots flying their own airplane, but I can't remember or see why.

 

[Richard]

IIRC, Ron Levy has stated that this isn't available to private pilots flying their own airplane, but I can't remember or see why.

If the pilot is providing the plane and not just his services he is now an operator without the certificate.

I'm paraphrasing and I'm not inclined to go look it up right now so file this under WAG.

 

[poadeleted20]

IIRC, Ron Levy has stated that this isn't available to private pilots flying their own airplane, but I can't remember or see why.

This reg was implemented to eliminate a conflict between FAA rules and those of the Federal Election Commission involving a prohibition on the free use of corporate aircraft to haul candidates around. To make a long story short, you cannot do this unless the PIC has a Commercial Pilot certificate, because while 91.321 exempts you from 121/125/135 compliance, it does not exempt you from 61.113 ("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."), and the campaign is paying for the transportation. You can get the full story if you go in the Federal Register and read the discussion in the NPRM in which the change to 91.321 was published.

 

[gismo]

This reg was implemented to eliminate a conflict between FAA rules and those of the Federal Election Commission involving a prohibition on the free use of corporate aircraft to haul candidates around. To make a long story short, you cannot do this unless the PIC has a Commercial Pilot certificate, because while 91.321 exempts you from 121/125/135 compliance, it does not exempt you from 61.113 ("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."), and the campaign is paying for the transportation. You can get the full story if you go in the Federal Register and read the discussion in the NPRM in which the change to 91.321 was published.

Without reading the NPRM, it sounds like a commercial pilot (with Class II med) could do this in his own plane but I assume 91.409b which requires 100hr inspections would apply. Assuming that was covered (say it was less than 100 hrs since the last annual) are there any other issues besides insurance that might affect a pilot attempting to accept the "required" payment from a politician.

Also do the federal campaign rules prohibit a private individual from giving a candidate a free ride?

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

you cannot do this unless the PIC has a Commercial Pilot certificate

aww rats!


I think the biggest stumbling block is still the reg I quoted:

"(3) By Federal, state or local law, you are required to receive payment for carrying the candidate, agent, or person traveling on behalf of a candidate. For federal elections, the payment may not exceed the amount required by the Federal Election Commission. For a state or local election, the payment may not exceed the amount required under the applicable state or local law."


I need a lawyer. Does that say there has to already be an existing law that denotes the payment a pilot is to receive?
Or maybe its saying you must receive payment if there is such a law?

I'd kinda like to know because he could well call again, and I am itching to get my grubby paws on a Malibu

 

[poadeleted20]

Without reading the NPRM, it sounds like a commercial pilot (with Class II med) could do this in his own plane

I agree.

but I assume 91.409b which requires 100hr inspections would apply.

I agree with your reading.

Assuming that was covered (say it was less than 100 hrs since the last annual) are there any other issues besides insurance that might affect a pilot attempting to accept the "required" payment from a politician.

There may well be FEC issues -- I'm absolutely unknowledgable on those.

Also do the federal campaign rules prohibit a private individual from giving a candidate a free ride?

I don't know, but I suspect they do.