Need to share the cost?

Skydreamer2015

Skydreamer2015

Pre-Flight
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
59
Display Name
Display name:
Skydreamer2015
If a commercial pilot wanted to provide pilot services for free to fly a plane that is being rented entirely by a friend that wants flown out of town, is that legal? The pilot is still getting the benefit of the flight time, but zero monetary gain. I have been told that even gaining free flight time in exchange for flying an individual is considered compensation in the eyes of the FAA. True? False? Or it's another one of those, it's all in the interpretation?
 
True. free flight time can be considered compensation.

Yes, a commercial pilot can fly a plane for compensation, even if it is free flight time.

Your proposed trip would be your friend is renting the plane and hiring a pilot to fly it for him.
 
Skydreamer2015 said:
If a commercial pilot wanted to provide pilot services for free to fly a plane that is being rented entirely by a friend that wants flown out of town, is that legal?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "being rented"? Is the rental place a facility you have a history with? Who would the rental company tell the FAA had operational control of the flight?

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
What do you mean by "being rented"? Is the rental place a facility you have a history with? Who would the rental company tell the FAA had operational control of the flight?

dtuuri
Click to expand...
Isn't this obvious? The renter would act as PIC. Which might be a problem if he's not instrument rated and he needs a clearance.

But FBO and insurance rules don't affect legality. It would be perfectly legal for a commercial pilot to act as PIC for free, as long as he's rated in category and class and has necessary endorsements and ratings, and a valid Class 2 medical.

The FBO might want the renter in the left seat, which might possibly present a problem. Still, it doesn't affect legality.
 
This sounds like some of the stuff I have heard of (though not in club planes and not for free). I believe it is kind of a gray area. Customer does a "dry lease" on a plane (let's say a PC-12). Customer is not a pilot. The customer also has to find his own pilot, so the guy managing the plane happens to "know someone" he refers to him. Customer pays for fuel. This is, of course, to skirt part 135 ops. My understanding is that if the plane is a rental and it is not a sight seeing flight (i.e. plane lands at the same airport it departed from) then the plane and pilot cannot be provided by the same company/organization or it becomes part 135. It seems like the OP's scenario matches this model. Customer rents plane, customer finds his own pilot (not provided by the school). The only question is the gas, if he is renting it wet. I am not an expert, though. Also, it is unlikely that a school/rental place would rent to a non-pilot. Then the question becomes, what if the plane is rented in the name of the commercial pilot, then the commercial pilot is providing both the plane and the piloting, so does that then become part 135?
 
mtuomi said:
What's wrong with that, when the pilot is a commercial pilot?
Click to expand...
Yeah. That's got me scratching my head what the problem could be. But I'll take a stab at it. Here goes. The FAA is in cahoots with the Labor Department and it's a violation of the Minimum Wage rules.
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. That's got me scratching my head what the problem could be. But I'll take a stab at it. Here goes. The FAA is in cahoots with the Labor Department and it's a violation of the Minimum Wage rules.
Click to expand...

An hour of flight time definitely is worth more than minimum wage :)

Key word is operational control, I think this would be legit. I don't see the rental place having any operational control in this case, so no 135 rules are being bent.
 
Skydreamer2015 said:
I have been told that even gaining free flight time in exchange for flying an individual is considered compensation in the eyes of the FAA. True? False?
Click to expand...
Pretty ignorant, but yea it's true.
 
If the plane and pilot are being supplied by the same person or company, it's Part 135. Think through how it would look in the hearing if something happened or it were reported to the FAA, and then decide.
 
mtuomi said:
What's wrong with that, when the pilot is a commercial pilot?
Click to expand...

Nothing as long as the pilot has a Class II medical, the plane has a 100 hr and the pilot is totally independent of the rental process and no way affiliated with the people owning the plane.
 
Skydreamer2015 said:
If a commercial pilot wanted to provide pilot services for free to fly a plane that is being rented entirely by a friend that wants flown out of town, is that legal?
Click to expand...
What a number of people have at least suggested, in there hypothetical situation posted, the past I put in bold is the real question.

If indeed the non-pilot friend is the one renting the airplane, nothing wrong with the situation, even if the pilot is paid big bucks.

But "renting the plane" in this context means more than "paying for the plane." As others said, it involves something the FAA calls "operative control." I'm simplifying, but In this context, one thing it means is that, the lessor has given the renter friends has full responsibility for the airplane, including any damage that might issue to it, and the right to select anyone as a pilotwho meets some objective qualifications,, not just from a select group okayed by lessor.

I've seen situations like that, always involving a relatively complex "dry lease" contract, but never one involving an FBO rental.

BTW, "share the cost" is in the title of the thread but is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. The scenario sounds like a trip for the benefit of the friend, not a "common purpose" flight. so even cost sharing would be improper.
 
Bobanna said:
It sounds to me that the "pilot" is the one who would rent the plane and be compensated by the (non-pilot) friend. Would the FBO rent to a non-pilot? If they(even) would, how could there be any insurance coverage renting an airplane to a non-pilot? If the FBO rents to the pilot, and he receives compensation for the flight it is pretty clear that the pilot has assumed full operational control of the flight. 135 regs pertain.
Click to expand...

It is not unusual for planes to be rented to companies and the company provides the insurance and the pilot. Common at an FBO? No, but it occurs.
 
No idea how it would work now, but the OP's arrangement is how I got my first airplane ride. My mom booked a 150 at a the local FBO (N704UY, crazy how that number sticks with me), then my uncle who was a CFII and ATP rated pilot met us at the airport and took me up. Pretty sure he was just flying, not paying for the ride in any way, and as far as I know the FBO rented to my mom, a non-pilot, or at least she paid 100% of the cost. This would have been in 1989, so I'm sure insurance and liability at FBOs is different, and this was a local sightseeing flight and not out of town, but it's one data point. No idea if it was FAA kosher or not, and nobody seemed to care.

Patrick
 
This is really no different than a non pilot buying an aircraft and hiring a commercial pilot to fly it for them. You guys are getting all wrapped up in the rental thing, which is not a thing. The person wanting to fly rents the aircraft, that puts the operational control on the renter. Operational control is not the same as PIC by the way. The company renting the aircraft may want to know who is going to fly it or put their own stipulations on it, but that is completely beside the point, as is how much or how little the pilot is being paid. The hired pilot is flying a plane that is supplied by the person hiring them. Totally legal, and also the EXACT scenario given to me by the DPE during the oral portion of my Commercial Pilot checkride.

What would make the flight not legal is if the pilot owned the plane being used, or if they rented it themselves.
 
StinkBug said:
What would make the flight not legal is if the pilot owned the plane being used, or if they rented it themselves.
Click to expand...
I think that's what people are saying. Nobody renting airplanes by the hour rents them to non-pilots except under carefully written legal contracts, which I suspect aren't worth much if they're ever put to a test. If the traveler looks and sounds more like a passenger than an owner/operator, a passenger s/he is sure to be.

"Leasing" arrangements are different. The FAA is hip to "wink and a nod" rentals where the PIC is shuffling invoices. That said, the OP's scenario isn't likely to draw much attention unless something goes wrong or the "friend" happens to bring along a non-friend too. A ramp check then could prove dicey.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
Flight time as compensation is a silly concept to begin with. It is typical of government over regulation in that it just puts honest people in a bind if they want to log the hours and not logging the hours is just stupid IMO you flew them after all. If you need a friend to pickup your plane from annual and he does it as a favor I don't see the issue I doubt the FAA or a judge would either in most cases.

If the concern is preventing people from running commercial operations and there is a law against that then use it. It is like cell phone laws, why do I need a cell phone law when I already have a distracted driving law? I guess the issue is the FAA can violate you like most other law enforcement these days for just about anything if they really want to. I suspect they are not likely to unless something bad happens.
 
dtuuri said:
I think that's what people are saying. Nobody renting airplanes by the hour rents them to non-pilots except under carefully written legal contracts, which I suspect aren't worth much if they're ever put to a test. If the traveler looks and sounds more like a passenger than an owner/operator, a passenger s/he is sure to be.

"Leasing" arrangements are different. The FAA is hip to "wink and a nod" rentals where the PIC is shuffling invoices. That said, the OP's scenario isn't likely to draw much attention unless something goes wrong or the "friend" happens to bring along a non-friend too. A ramp check then could prove dicey.

dtuuri
Click to expand...
They'd be worth plenty if they were properly written and the real transaction reflected what was in it. But that's a big "if" and an even bigger "and".

I agree it would be very unlikely way to do an FBO-type hourly rental business. The simplest example has already been mentioned - whether for insurance or business reasons, most FBOs typically want more control over who is flying the airplane than a legit dry lease would allow.
 
dtuuri said:
I think that's what people are saying. Nobody renting airplanes by the hour rents them to non-pilots except under carefully written legal contracts, which I suspect aren't worth much if they're ever put to a test. If the traveler looks and sounds more like a passenger than an owner/operator, a passenger s/he is sure to be.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question. The question was is it legal, and it is. If you can find someone to rent you a plane you can hire a pilot to fly it.

The policies of the person renting the plane are a totally separate issue, and have no bearing on whether it's legal or not.
 
StinkBug said:
That wasn't the question. The question was is it legal, and it is. If you can find someone to rent you a plane you can hire a pilot to fly it.

The policies of the person renting the plane are a totally separate issue, and have no bearing on whether it's legal or not.
Click to expand...
Well, Mark's and your opinions might hold true in theory, but I doubt it in the OP's case. The friend "wants flown out of town". That doesn't sound like a person interested in operating an airplane, it sounds like a person interested in transportation only. My bet is a judge would say the same thing.

dtuuri
 
StinkBug said:
That wasn't the question. The question was is it legal, and it is. If you can find someone to rent you a plane you can hire a pilot to fly it.

The policies of the person renting the plane are a totally separate issue, and have no bearing on whether it's legal or not.
Click to expand...
I will disagree with you there.

The question was, it it legal, and it may be. There are a lot of details that make a "yes" or a "no" impossible. For example, if by "the person renting the plane" you mean the FBO, rather than the customer, its policies can indeed make a big difference to whether, if the FAA had a reason to look, the FAA would consider it a true "dry lease."
 
dtuuri said:
Well, Mark's and your opinions might hold true in theory, but I doubt it in the OP's case. The friend "wants flown out of town". That doesn't sound like a person interested in operating an airplane, it sounds like a person interested in transportation only. My bet is a judge would say the same thing.

dtuuri
Click to expand...
And of course, my statement was completely "in theory" since I don't know any of the details of the relationship, haven't reviewed the contract, etc, etc, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top