Insurance to borrow plane?

[gprellwitz]

A friend asked me to fly his plane about two hours to pick him up, then we'd fly home together. I do have experience in his plane, but I don't meet the open pilot minimums, and my non-owned insurance has a $5000 limit for damage to the non-owned plane. I told him I'd love to, but that I didn't feel comfortable doing it without insurance coverage.

Would you have taken the chance?

 

[bbchien]

No, I would not. Even if you meet the open pilot mins, it just means he's insured, not you. You still have a $5000 deductible.

 

[gprellwitz]

No, I would not. Even if you meet the open pilot mins, it just means he's insured, not you. You still have a $5000 deductible.

The $5000 is my coverage limit (for damage to the non-owned plane), not my deductible. I did it more to cover the deductible if I prang one of the rental planes. I'm basically uncovered should their insurance company decide to subrogate against me. That's something I'm thinking about more and more, and it's got me a a tad worried!

 

[midlifeflyer]

The $5000 is my coverage limit (for damage to the non-owned plane), not my deductible. I did it more to cover the deductible if I prang one of the rental planes. I'm basically uncovered should their insurance company decide to subrogate against me. That's something I'm thinking about more and more, and it's got me a a tad worried!

Your situation vis a vis your friend's insurer, fro a legal standpoint, is identical to your situation vis a vis your rental FBO's insurer.

 

[gprellwitz]

Your situation vis a vis your friend's insurer, fro a legal standpoint, is identical to your situation vis a vis your rental FBO's insurer.

I'd agree if I met his open pilot minimums or was a named insured. Absent that, though?

Say I had a bird strike or some other incident where the fault assigned to me would be minimal, and certainly wouldn't be careless and reckless. Under the rental situation, the FBO's insurance would cover the repair to the plane, my insurance would cover the deductible, the plane would be repaired, and they probably wouldn't attempt to subrogate. Actually, the FBO would probably have the option of not coming after me for the deductible.

With my friend's plane, though, his insurance wouldn't cover it, saying that there wasn't an approved pilot flying it, and my insurance would cover up to the $5000 max to repair the plane. Anything beyond that would have to come out of my pocket or his.

Does this sound accurate? I'm really trying to make sure I have a good handle on this.

 

[bbchien]

Grant, thanks for point out my poor reading. I do that sort of ferrying because I maintain unowned coverage for CFI-ing. As with most things, this sort of work (which is usualy pleasurable but can be deadly to the unwary) is "regulated" by insurance, presence or absence thereof.

 

[TMetzinger]

I recently went through this with various insurers (CFIs, did you know that your non-owned insurance may not cover you if you ferry a plane and aren't giving instruction in it?) for my ferry work.

First, some terms and definitions:
NAMED INSURED. The person(s) who are protected by the policy.
NAMED PILOT. The person(s) who are authorized to operate the airplane.
OPEN PILOT. A list of qualifications, such that anyone who meets those qualifications is authorized to operate the aircraft as if he was a NAMED PILOT.
SUBROGATION. The right of an insurer, after paying out a claim to a NAMED INSURED, to sue a negligent third party to recover their loss.

When operating someone elses airplane, all being a NAMED PILOT or meeting the OPEN PILOT clause does is protect the NAMED INSURED. It does not protect you, and in fact the insurer will likely attempt to subrogate against you to recover the loss.

You can protect yourself in three ways:
1. Become a NAMED INSURED on the owner's policy. At that point you are afforded the same protection as the owner. (This may cause a rise in premium dependent on your qualifications)
2. Become a NAMED PILOT and obtain a waiver of subrogation from the insurance company. At that point, you are protected for any damages you cause to the airplane, any loss the insurance company suffers, but you are still not covered against being sued for damage you cause to other people or property. (The waiver usually costs 10% of the premium).
3. Obtain your own non-owned insurance coverage. This protects you when you are operating an airplane you don't own. Typically called rental insurance, it generally limits the types of airplanes (i.e. SEL below 450 HP) and prohibits commercial operations like ferrying, flight instructing, or pipeline patrol. As Bruce noted, you CAN get commercial coverage for non-owned airplanes. There's CFI coverage, which typically only covers you while you're giving instruction, that's not too bad. You can also get broader coverage but that can quickly become expensive.

What I do for ferrying is insist that I be either be added to the policy as a named insured, or as a named pilot with a waiver of subrogation. I'm working with a lawyer to make sure my ferry contracts will make it plain that the owner has a duty to me to do those things so I can sue him and recover my loss if he doesn't.

Hope this is useful, and welcome any corrections, as this is my own opinion (and that of the last insurance pro I spoke with).

For your situation, Grant, if you are going to be operating the airplane solo, you're exposed to the limit of your non-owned coverage, and your friend is completely exposed. If you damage people or property on the ground, you can bet your friend will be sued, and his coverage will do him no good. Now if he's in the airplane with you, it becomes an interesting question who is the "operator" of the airplane from a damage standpoint.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'd say that with only $5K of your own non-owned hull coverage, unless your friend has a "waiver of subrogation" clause in his policy (or his plane isn't worth more than $5K), the financially-prudent answer is to just say "no."

However regardless of the insurance issue, since you don't have a commercial pilot certificate, you would have to pay the direct cost of the flight time while you're flying the plane to avoid violating 14 CFR 61.113(a), since you would not qualify for any of the exceptions in the following paragraphs of that section.

 

[gprellwitz]

Tim,
That distinction between named insured and named pilot is good; thanks. Named insured appears to be equivalent to what AOPA Insurance meant when they said that only the owner of the plane is protected by the insurance.

I am not sure how common subrogation is when a covered borrower or a renter causes damage. I know of a couple of cases in which it was NOT pursued, and I know of at least one case in which it should have been, IMHO, though I don't know whether it was. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to get at that type of information, because people don't tend to be too forthcoming about it.

It would certainly assist the borrower/renter in determining their risk, however!

And in this instance there is no commercial activity or flight instruction involved. I have the higher ratings, though we're at the same certificate level. If we're in the plane together would it be unwise of me to file an IFR flight plan in my name from an insurance perspective? That's kind of a scary thought!

 

[TMetzinger]

In order to subrogate against you, you have to be both negligent AND the amount of recovery possible needs to be worth the consequences.

So if you're flying a non-owned airplane and you have an accident due to mechanical failure, act of god, or anything else other than negligence on your part (like running out of gas, or flying VFR into IMC and such) the insurer is not likely to subrogate. If they do, and you can convince a jury you weren't negligent, then you don't have to pay.

Insurers are also sensitive to what pursuing a subrogation would do to their business. This is often what keeps them from subrogating against renters unless the loss is large and the negligence is clear - the future business they will lose if they get a rep of being sue-happy is too much to make it worth pursuing.

The nice thing about having non-owned coverage, no matter how much, is that the insurer has a duty to defend you. If you weren't negligent, they are not allowed to settle up to your policy limit and then abandon you. If you were negligent, however, they still have a duty to negotiate the best settlement they can for you, and you can sue THEM if they don't do it.

I'm going to get a commercial liability policy for ferry work, as that is the real financial risk - breaking somebody's airplane is bad, but even new it's only hundreds of thousands if you destroy it, more likely tens of thousands if you merely break it. Killing/maiming someone on the ground is an order of magnitude larger, and having a million in liability gives the insurer plenty of motivation to defend you. I'll insist on a waiver of subrogation for aircraft damage.

Of course, "don't do anything stupid" and you're far more likely to only be "ordinarily" negligent, as opposed to "grossly" negligent (where all bets are off).

 

[TMetzinger]

I'd say that with only $5K of your own non-owned hull coverage, unless your friend has a "waiver of subrogation" clause in his policy (or his plane isn't worth more than $5K), the financially-prudent answer is to just say "no."

However regardless of the insurance issue, since you don't have a commercial pilot certificate, you would have to pay the direct cost of the flight time while you're flying the plane to avoid violating 14 CFR 61.113(a), since you would not qualify for any of the exceptions in the following paragraphs of that section.

I'm not sure a commercial cert is required, as the two people clearly have a pre-existing relationship. As long as Grant doesn't log the time for use toward a new rating, he hasn't received any compensation, and isn't operating for hire. Grant flies up solo (no passengers, no compensation, no violation of 61.113), and the owner flies back, assuming all costs. Now, if the owner isn't qualified to fly the airplane (no medical, etc), then there's an issue on the return flight, as the owner is a passenger, and Grant must pay at least the pro rata share. This would look much more like a "hired" pilot who would need a commercial certificate.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm not sure a commercial cert is required,

I am absolutely, 100%, completely sure that Grant has to pay the direct costs -- otherwise, Grant is clearly providing pilot services (ferrying the airplane) in return for compensation (free flight time).

as the two people clearly have a pre-existing relationship. As long as Grant doesn't log the time for use toward a new rating, he hasn't received any compensation, and isn't operating for hire.

If anything, a pre-existing business relationship would hurt, not help, Grant's case, and with a pre-existing relationship, not logging the time would make no difference. See Administrator v. Murray:

"Nevertheless, compensation need not be direct nor in the form of money. Goodwill is a form of prohibited compensation. Administrator v. Blackburn, 4 NTSB 409 (1982). The evidence establishes that, not only was respondent a friend of Mr. Fitzgerald, but he had done work for him in the past. Interpreting the facts in a way most favorable to respondent and assuming that he really had no expectation of any kind of benefit, strains credulity."​

Grant flies up solo (no passengers, no compensation, no violation of 61.113),

It is that solo leg where things get tricky -- pilot service is being provided, and there are several ways that the FAA could find compensation being provided if Grant doesn't pay for that flight time.

and the owner flies back, assuming all costs.

No problem there -- Grant can accept a free ride home.

Now, if the owner isn't qualified to fly the airplane (no medical, etc), then there's an issue on the return flight, as the owner is a passenger, and Grant must pay at least the pro rata share.

No good -- no "common purpose" for the flight. The FAA's interpretation of 61.113 says Grant must pay all direct costs for all the time he's flying to be FAA-legal.

This would look much more like a "hired" pilot who would need a commercial certificate.

As I understand the FAA's perspective, to them, it all looks like a "hired pilot who would need a commercial certificate." Remember that the FAA Counsel has always said 61.113 will always be interpreted in the strictest fashion. Caveat Aviator!

Look, we've all done stuff like this in our Private Pilot days. The FAA doesn't prosecute because nobody complained. In Grant's case, if the owner doesn't say anything, and Grant doesn't say anything, the FAA will never hear about it and the flight will disappear into the dusts of aviation history. However, if anything bad happens, or if for some reason Grant's friend becomes disenchanted with Grant, or of Grant's friend first asked the local FBO for one of their pilots and then balked at the cost, the FAA may well get involved and Grant will be the apple-mouthed guest of honor at the local FSDO's next pig roast. If Grant's willing to take the risk, that's Grant's choice, but if I were him, I'd want to know about that risk, and while it is small, there is definitely legal risk here unless Grant pays the owner for his flying time.

 

[TMetzinger]

Flight time is only compensation if it is logged, I believe, as it has no "value" otherwise (referring to the case where a pilot logged the free flight time towards a rating, and the FAA said "look at all the money you saved getting that rating because the plane was free -that's compensation"). Grant and the owner have a pre-existing PERSONAL relationship, not a business one. I agree that a business relationship would make it a compensated flight, in that a "favor" for a business partner can be looked upon as compensation (good will for your future business relationship), but not if there's no business relationship, as once again, there's no VALUE gained by Grant here, present or future. The case you quote made that exact point - in that instance there clearly WAS a potential gain to be made in the furtherance of the business relationship.

How would things change (at all) if Grant and the owner were related (brothers, cousins)? I'm 100% sure that the reg is not written to prohibit friends and relatives from lending each other the use of their airplanes.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Everyone has their level of acceptable risk.
This sort of thing (borrowing, even for uses that do not benefit the owner) happens all the time without any extra insurance. I wish it was more like cars, your own insurance covers you to some extent.

 

[TMetzinger]

Everyone has their level of acceptable risk.
This sort of thing (borrowing, even for uses that do not benefit the owner) happens all the time without any extra insurance. I wish it was more like cars, your own insurance covers you to some extent.

If you own and insure your own aircraft, in many cases there is a policy clause that protects you when you fly another airplane. But for those of us who don't own airplanes, you either need non-owned coverage or you need to be covered on the policy for the airplane.

 

[gprellwitz]

This is a great discussion.

Tim is right that our relationship is personal, not business. The plane is owned by an LLC, which previously had it on a rental line, and I did rent it when it was generally available.

It was my assumption when I initially thought of doing it that I would bo covering direct costs (fuel & oil), but that I would not be paying any rental fees for the aircraft. (It is no longer on the line anywhere.)

The plane is a single engine retract, worth > $100,000.

The owner is fully qualified to fly the plane himself, although he does not have an instrument rating.

I already have all the flight minimums for the commercial certificate, which I'm currently working towards, and have no intention of going for an ATP. OTOH, additional retract hours could be viewed in a positive light by an insurance company in setting rates for my own plane.

When talking about the FBO's insurance company, my perception that they would be disinclined to subrogate and the fact that my non-owned insurance would cause them to provide legal defense were two of the factors that led me to select such a low coverage level. Unfortunately, as we've already discussed, that is of limited use in a situation such as this where there would be no other coverage for damage.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'd agree if I met his open pilot minimums or was a named insured. Absent that, though?

Say I had a bird strike or some other incident where the fault assigned to me would be minimal, and certainly wouldn't be careless and reckless.

This is a slightly different scenario.

If you were involved in an incident that wasn't your fault (the bird strike is a good example), there would be no basis for subrogation. Subrogation requires that there be fault. There are some exceptions, but unless you have agreed to be responsible for the airplane while it was in your custody, regardless of fault (a term that is often in rental agreements), there's no legitimate claim against you.

That is, btw, one of the potential "gotchas" with non-owned insurance. If it's fault-based then the not-at-fault liability you pick up in the FBO's rental agreement might not be covered. As I recall, at least some of the non-owned insurers do cover this, but it's something to look at when comparing policies.

With my friend's plane, though, his insurance wouldn't cover it, saying that there wasn't an approved pilot flying it, and my insurance would cover up to the $5000 max to repair the plane. Anything beyond that would have to come out of my pocket or his.

That's pretty accurate.

 

[poadeleted20]

It was my assumption when I initially thought of doing it that I would bo covering direct costs (fuel & oil), but that I would not be paying any rental fees for the aircraft. (It is no longer on the line anywhere.)

Paying those direct costs covers you on the 61.113 issue -- no need to pay the fully allocated cost of the plane (hangar, insurance, etc).

The plane is a single engine retract, worth > $100,000.

Hmmm...a bit more than the $5K coverage you have.

The owner is fully qualified to fly the plane himself, although he does not have an instrument rating.

Then in order to stay squeaky clean legal, don't act as PIC for the trip home if the weather is sub-VMC unless you pay the direct costs for that leg, too.

I already have all the flight minimums for the commercial certificate, which I'm currently working towards, and have no intention of going for an ATP. OTOH, additional retract hours could be viewed in a positive light by an insurance company in setting rates for my own plane.

Yes, they could, which gives them measurable inherent value.

When talking about the FBO's insurance company, my perception that they would be disinclined to subrogate

I don't think I'd bet my assets on such a conversation. Insurance companies are pure money-thinkers. At the end of the day, their decision on subrogation will be based on what the policy says, what happened, and whether they feel they will come out of the action cash-positive, and not at all on anyone's inclinations.

 

[Nav8tor]

NAMED PILOT. The person(s) who are authorized to operate the airplane.
OPEN PILOT. A list of qualifications, such that anyone who meets those qualifications is authorized to operate the aircraft as if he was a NAMED PILOT.

Tim, I don't understand the difference here. How would being a named pilot be of any benefit over and above any other pilot who meets the open pilot qualifications? There must be some reason why there is a distinction between named pilot and open pilot.

Lee

 

[gprellwitz]

Tim, I don't understand the difference here. How would being a named pilot be of any benefit over and above any other pilot who meets the open pilot qualifications? There must be some reason why there is a distinction between named pilot and open pilot.

Lee

Well, if the named pilot didn't meet the open pilot qualifications, for example. If, for example, the insurance company were willing to list me as a named pilot based on my previous experience in the aircraft, despite not having their required open pilot hours. (They require 500, and I only have 400.)

 

[TMetzinger]

Just wanted to say that the wrinkle in post 18 (more time=lower insurance premium=value=compensation) is barely plausible, which is of course all a lawyer needs. But again, if the time is not logged, it has NO value. So I maintain that even if Gregg doesn't pay the direct operating costs of the solo leg, he's not yet gotten any compensation for the flight (don't let him buy you dinner, Gregg!).

 

[Ed Guthrie]

I'd say that with only $5K of your own non-owned hull coverage, unless your friend has a "waiver of subrogation" clause in his policy (or his plane isn't worth more than $5K), the financially-prudent answer is to just say "no."

If the pilot doesn't meet the open pilot warranty clause (or a named pilot) any discussion of a waiver of subrogation is absolutely a nonsense conversation. IOW, if the aircraft is piloted by someone who doesn't meet the open pilot warranty (or a named pilot) then the aircraft isn't insured. Why would the insurance company subrogate if something happens? The aircraft isn't insured for the flight--the insurance company will simply deny payment and walk away from the entire discussion.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

What I do for ferrying is insist that I be either be added to the policy as a named insured, or as a named pilot with a waiver of subrogation.

I'm definitely not a contract lawyer, much less an insurance contract lawyer, but I'd be leery of betting my financial well being on a non-commercial contract when I'm engaged in a commercial activity (ferrying an aircraft for pay). YMMV, but I'd ask my attorney to double check what the local insurance laws will do to me.

 

[TMetzinger]

This one I'm on solid ground, as I have in the past spoken directly with the insurer. If someone hires me to ferry their airplane - I'm operating for compensation, but the aircraft is not being operated for hire, so the insurance is still in full force, the same as if a mechanic test flies it, or you hire a CFI to teach you in it. The insurance absolutely positively is in effect, and as long as I am an additional insured, I'm covered.

This is normal practice. Quite a few aircraft owners out there are NOT pilots, and they hire folks to fly their airplanes, and normal private coverage is sufficient.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

If we're in the plane together would it be unwise of me to file an IFR flight plan in my name from an insurance perspective? That's kind of a scary thought!

If you file and then accept an IFR clearance you are by definition the legal PIC. As the legal PIC for the flight, if you don't meet are neither a named pilot or a pilot meeting the open pilot warranty then the aircraft is not insured during that flight.

 

[TMetzinger]

If the pilot doesn't meet the open pilot warranty clause any discussion of a waiver of subrogation is absolutely a nonsense conversation. IOW, if the aircraft is piloted by someone who doesn't meet the open pilot warranty (or a named pilot) then the aircraft isn't insured. Why would the insurance company subrogate if something happens? The aircraft isn't insured for the flight--the insurance company will simply deny payment and walk away from the entire discussion.

Ed, your first sentence should read:
"If the pilot isn't named or doesn't meet the open pilot warranty clause any discussion of a waiver of subrogation is absolutely a nonsense conversation."

 

[Ed Guthrie]

How would being a named pilot be of any benefit over and above any other pilot who meets the open pilot qualifications? There must be some reason why there is a distinction between named pilot and open pilot.

There are two differences between a named pilot and a pilot meeting the open pilot warranty:

1. When the pilot's qualifications are vetted. The named pilot is vetted before the accident, the open pilot warranty pilot will be vetted after the accident.

2. The named pilot's experience must meet or exceed the experience presented to the insurance company prior to issuing the policy; the open pilot warranty pilot must meet the open pilot warranty. FWIW, it is not completely unknown for the open pilot warranty to contain requirements that one or more named pilots on the policy do not meet.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Ed, your first sentence should read:
"If the pilot isn't named or doesn't meet the open pilot warranty clause any discussion of a waiver of subrogation is absolutely a nonsense conversation."

Yeah, now that you point it out, I needed to move the parenthetical comment in sentence #2 forward into sentence #1. Edited and done.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

This one I'm on solid ground, as I have in the past spoken directly with the insurer. If someone hires me to ferry their airplane - I'm operating for compensation, but the aircraft is not being operated for hire, so the insurance is still in full force, the same as if a mechanic test flies it, or you hire a CFI to teach you in it. The insurance absolutely positively is in effect, and as long as I am an additional insured, I'm covered.

This is normal practice. Quite a few aircraft owners out there are NOT pilots, and they hire folks to fly their airplanes, and normal private coverage is sufficient.

Good to know. Thanks. Wait, thought about this a minute. Any CFI teaching in my aircraft isn't insured (personally) while providing instruction. I'm insured. The aircraft is insured. The CFI is not. If the CFI wasn't flying for pay the CFI would be.

 

[TMetzinger]

My point was that when YOU hire someone to fly YOUR airplane, your insurance is in force, even though money is changing hands. If that insurance is going to cover the hired pilot, he needs to be an additional insured.

If a CFI or ferry pilot wants coverage of their own, and not have to be explicitly covered on your policy, then they have to get COMMERCIAL non-owned aircraft insurance (as I said way back in post #7). CFIs are a comparitively large population (insurance wise) and can get a cheaper rate on coverage than an ordinary commercial ferry pilot. Most CFI policies will cover the CFI when he's flying a non-owned airplane solo, as long as it's to or from an instruction flight. Some policies will explicitly exclude ferry flying, others permit it.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

you either need non-owned coverage or you need to be covered on the policy for the airplane.

We did it lots in the past, and accepted the risk. I guess times have changed.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This one I'm on solid ground, as I have in the past spoken directly with the insurer. If someone hires me to ferry their airplane - I'm operating for compensation, but the aircraft is not being operated for hire, so the insurance is still in full force, the same as if a mechanic test flies it, or you hire a CFI to teach you in it. The insurance absolutely positively is in effect, and as long as I am an additional insured, I'm covered.

Are you really sure about that? I'm not. Sounds like the aircraft might be insured, but not you. I don't really see a non-commercial owner policy covering a professional pilot who is earning money by flying it.

Who gave you the information? Was it in writing? The reason I ask if that not too long ago I had a case involving and accident. My client received 3 different interpretations of a coverage provision from 3 different people all working for the insurer. All three were wrong.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Tim, I don't understand the difference here. How would being a named pilot be of any benefit over and above any other pilot who meets the open pilot qualifications? There must be some reason why there is a distinction between named pilot and open pilot.

Someone (usually the owner after a certain amount of dual) will often be a "named pilot" without meeting the "open pilot" requirements.

Some insurance companies use the term for other purposes also. For sample, as I recall, AVEMCO permits renting to a certain umber of "named pilots" without the airplane being considered to be in a "club."

 

[gprellwitz]

Just wanted to say that the wrinkle in post 18 (more time=lower insurance premium=value=compensation) is barely plausible, which is of course all a lawyer needs. But again, if the time is not logged, it has NO value. So I maintain that even if Gregg doesn't pay the direct operating costs of the solo leg, he's not yet gotten any compensation for the flight (don't let him buy you dinner, Gregg!).

I presume you mean Grant, not Gregg. Of course you could mean Greg, but one of our Greg's is a 777 FO, so you probably don't mean him....

As you say, a small grain of truth is all a lawyer would need to drag it into court, and that == $$$. I should also make it clear that at this point I've already regrettably declined my friend's request, much as I would have liked to have been able to help him.

 

[gprellwitz]

If you file and then accept an IFR clearance you are by definition the legal PIC. As the legal PIC for the flight, if you don't meet are neither a named pilot or a pilot meeting the open pilot warranty then the aircraft is not insured during that flight.

That's the way I read it too, even though the owner and named insured is in the plane with me. This, of course, means that they'd pay off on the high risk scud-running with their insured as PIC, but not on the relatively low-risk legal IFR flight with someone else (who actually has more hours) as PIC. Then again, no one (in their right mind) ever claimed that insurance made sense.

 

[gprellwitz]

I'm definitely not a contract lawyer, much less an insurance contract lawyer, but I'd be leery of betting my financial well being on a non-commercial contract when I'm engaged in a commercial activity (ferrying an aircraft for pay). YMMV, but I'd ask my attorney to double check what the local insurance laws will do to me.

To clarify, this is not an (intentional) for pay endeavor. Any intimation of "pay" is incidental, and I'd be acting to stamp it out, to the point of periodically sticking myself in the thigh with a hat-pin to cause pain sufficient to override any pleasure I might derive from flying.

 

[gprellwitz]

<rant>Have I mentioned that I really hate the FARs that make it difficult, if not impossible, for me to do a favor for a friend without a commercial certificate?

I also really hate the insurance companies that make it so difficult to have a modicum of financial security while doing the above? Okay, I spend 6 - 8 hours of my time to ferry a plane for a friend, with supposed "compensation" that may drop hypothetical insurance on a hypothetical plane in my future by, say, $20/year. Because of this, should I have an incident while flying, I'm liable to have a violation on my ticket and, depending on the severity, be tens of thousands of dollars in debt or even lose my home? How on earth does this make sense?</rant>

 

[midlifeflyer]

<rant>Have I mentioned that I really hate the FARs that make it difficult, if not impossible, for me to do a favor for a friend without a commercial certificate?

What's difficult of not impossible about taking a friend somewhere and not charging him?

 

[Nav8tor]

Someone (usually the owner after a certain amount of dual) will often be a "named pilot" without meeting the "open pilot" requirements.

Some insurance companies use the term for other purposes also. For sample, as I recall, AVEMCO permits renting to a certain umber of "named pilots" without the airplane being considered to be in a "club."

So if a pilot meets the open pilot requirement means there is no advantage to being a named pilot?

 

[gprellwitz]

What's difficult of not impossible about taking a friend somewhere and not charging him?

I need to either a) not log a flight* and pay for the direct costs so I can do a favor so there's no hint of compensation, or b) get a commercial certificate.

I did warn you that it was a rant, and rants tend to involve hyperbole!


* Yes, you could log a flight without the intention of using it for ratings or showing time for the insurance company, but how would you prove your intent in logging the flight?