Insurance to borrow plane?

[gprellwitz]

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

That's the way I understand it. Of course being a named pilot means that they agree ahead-of-time that you are covered, as opposed to being faced with a claim where their financial incentive will be to show in some way that you don't meet the open pilot clause.

 

[poadeleted20]

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!).

While the FAA has suggested that this is true, they also said in Murray, above, that there are other non-monetary forms of compensation which may be realized, so it remains a risk even if you don't log it. Therefore, my advice remains the same -- if you don't have a commercial or ATP, don't do nobody no favors unless you either pay the direct costs of that flight yourself or are willing to accept the risk of FAA action if they find out about it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

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 think that one can go a bit overboard on the "flight time as compensation" schtick. If "flight time" is the only "compensation" I received, it's one of those technicalities that, as a practical matter, I would not personally worry about in the context of doing a favor for a friend. (I'm not recommending that anyone else not worry about it - that's a personal decision on my part).

...and I'm not so sure that being a commercial pilots changes the result.

Now, make a habit of it and have a dozen or so "friends" that you fly around on a regular basis, and well, "if it quacks like a duck..."

 

[poadeleted20]

...and I'm not so sure that being a commercial pilots changes the result.

I believe it does. When it comes to flying someone else's airplane (with no other parties paying for air transportation of passengers or cargo), the issue is that of a pilot accepting compensation from the aircraft operator (in this case, the owner) for pilot services rendered, and a commercial/ATP pilot certificate allows a pilot to make that exchange legally.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I believe it does. When it comes to flying someone else's airplane (with no other parties paying for air transportation of passengers or cargo), the issue is that of a pilot accepting compensation from the aircraft operator (in this case, the owner) for pilot services rendered, and a commercial/ATP pilot certificate allows a pilot to make that exchange legally.

Agreed, but in the scenario I was commenting on, I don't think the friend has his own airplane.

 

[TMetzinger]

I believe it does. When it comes to flying someone else's airplane (with no other parties paying for air transportation of passengers or cargo), the issue is that of a pilot accepting compensation from the aircraft operator (in this case, the owner) for pilot services rendered, and a commercial/ATP pilot certificate allows a pilot to make that exchange legally.

Absolutely. With a commercial pilot cert (and appropriate medical), you can accept compensation in all (direct and indirect forms) when you fly someone elses airplaneHaving the commercial certificate means that I can use a rented plane to take people from my company somewhere for a meeting, even if I don't have to be there. My company rents the airplane (and is the operator), not me, so it's a 91 flight. And I get the bonus of getting paid my normal "engineer" class salary when I do that, and not get paid an "aviation" salary. Of course, if the company needed lots of these flights, they'd probably ask me to start a flight department, lease an airplane, name me chief pilot, and cut my salary in half.

 

[poadeleted20]

With a commercial pilot cert (and appropriate medical), you can accept compensation in all (direct and indirect forms) when you fly someone elses airplane.

Not exactly true. Just because it's someone else's plane doesn't by itself make it legal to "accept compensation in all (direct and indirect forms)." You may accept compensation only from the person who controls the plane and only for your pilot services, and not from someone other than the party who procured the plane who is paying only to be flown somewhere.

Having the commercial certificate means that I can rent a plane to take people from my company somewhere for a meeting, even if I don't have to be there.

No, it doesn't, as you note below:

Technically, my company rents the airplane (and is the operator), not me, so it's a 91 flight.

The FAA Chief Counsel's office was very clear about how this has to be done in an official letter on the subject back in 1990. You cannot do the renting in this case; it must be done by and paid directly by the company, not you.

 

[TMetzinger]

Not exactly true. Just because it's someone else's plane doesn't by itself make it legal to "accept compensation in all (direct and indirect forms)." You may accept compensation only from the person who controls the plane and only for your pilot services, and not from someone other than the party who procured the plane who is paying only to be flown somewhere.

No, it doesn't, as you note below:

The FAA Chief Counsel's office was very clear about how this has to be done in an official letter on the subject back in 1990. You cannot do the renting in this case; it must be done by and paid directly by the company, not you.

It is. The company has the account with the FBO, they pay the bills. I'm just the authorized pilot on the account (meaning I'm the pilot they can give keys to, not the one who authorizes the flight or the payment - cause that would make me the operator). I absolutely understand that I can't pay for it and expense it, unless I have a business reason for the trip, in which case I don't need the commercial cert, as it's an ordinary flight in furtherance of the business.

I understand where my post could have been more clear, but it seems to me that you jumped on it without giving me the benefit of the doubt that I knew what I was talking about, especially since the next sentence made it clear (in my eyes) that the company rented the airplane, not me personally.

So let me change the wording to....

"Having the commercial certificate means that I can use a rented plane to take people from my company somewhere for a meeting, even if I don't have to be there. My company rents the airplane (and is the operator), not me, so it's a 91 flight..."

 

[gismo]

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

That's the way I understand it although in some cases a pilot might be in the gray area OPW wise and putting his name on the policy removes any doubt.

The policy on my taildragger has no OPW at all so only named pilots are covered as PIC.

 

[gprellwitz]

Agreed, but in the scenario I was commenting on, I don't think the friend has his own airplane.

All of my scenarios had the friend as the owner of the plane, or were intended to, at least. My "rant" didn't restate the entire premise, though, so that may not have been clear.

 

[TMetzinger]

That's the way I understand it although in some cases a pilot might be in the gray area OPW wise and putting his name on the policy removes any doubt.

The policy on my taildragger has no OPW at all so only named pilots are covered as PIC.

Sometimes the OPW specifies not only the qualifications of the pilot, but conditions on the reason for the flight (i.e. instruction or maintenance).

Bottom line - you should read and understand your insurance policy as well as you do your airplane flight manual.

 

[midlifeflyer]

All of my scenarios had the friend as the owner of the plane, or were intended to, at least. My "rant" didn't restate the entire premise, though, so that may not have been clear.

Sorry, apparently I missed that completely.

BTW, my earlier comment about doing a friend a favor where the only "compensation" is flight time still stands.

 

[poadeleted20]

So let me change the wording to....

"Having the commercial certificate means that I can use a rented plane to take people from my company somewhere for a meeting, even if I don't have to be there. My company rents the airplane (and is the operator), not me, so it's a 91 flight..."

Thanks -- much better. Keep in mind that when you read the Ferris letter, you see that the pilot can't even sign the receipt for the airplane rental! They don't just want arm's length, they want both arms and maybe a couple of legs.

 

[gprellwitz]

Thanks -- much better. Keep in mind that when you read the Ferris letter, you see that the pilot can't even sign the receipt for the airplane rental! They don't just want arm's length, they want both arms and maybe a couple of legs.

A tangent, but a useful one. An example to make sure I understand.

Givens:
1) I am renting the plane myself
2) I have a Private pilot's certificate
My understanding:
I'm alright flying myself to a conference that I was already planning to attend. the FAA would have no problem with my expensing direct costs, e.g. rental, fuel, and ramp fees.
I'm not alright if I fly our political affairs officer to the state capital for him to meet with the lawmakers if I'm not involved in that process except as a pilot.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

A tangent, but a useful one. An example to make sure I understand.

Givens:
1) I am renting the plane myself
2) I have a Private pilot's certificate
My understanding:
I'm alright flying myself to a conference that I was already planning to attend. the FAA would have no problem with my expensing direct costs, e.g. rental, fuel, and ramp fees.
I'm not alright if I fly our political affairs officer to the state capital for him to meet with the lawmakers if I'm not involved in that process except as a pilot.

Correct.

FWIW, the FAA doesn't care what you get paid/expensed if it is legitimately "incidental" to your business. The IRS is a different topic.