PPL Privileges and Carrying of Passengers

dmspilot said:
You are giving them something by flying them somewhere they want to go, isn't that the whole point of this discussion? What else is required?
Click to expand...

No it is not the point. What value is the pilot getting? What value is the passenger giving? Feeling good is not goodwill, it requires something of value which is absent in the OP’s example. There is no compensation.

You are proving my warning that if you take it far enough, you can convince yourself that you can never carry passengers because every one of them creates goodwill/compensation. But you would be wrong.

OMG, I’be gotten sucked into yet another 61.113 thread.
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
What value is the pilot getting? What value is the passenger giving? Feeling good is not goodwill, it requires something of value which is absent in the OP’s example. There is no compensation.
Click to expand...

Do you not understand what goodwill is? It's intangible by nature.

The "something of value" you are looking for, is the flying of the friend to his business meeting. How is that valueless?

bflynn said:
You are proving my warning thaT if you take it far enough, you can convince yourself that you can never carry passengers because every one of them create goodwill/co,pens action. But you would be wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not attempting to convince myself of anything.

You would be wrong if you think goodwill cannot be considered compensation, as the FAA has said that it can be. It's not my argument, it's the FAA's argument.
 
dmspilot said:
Do you not understand what goodwill is? It's intangible by nature.

The "something of value" you are looking for, is the flying of the friend to his business meeting. How is that valueless?
Click to expand...
But in this case isn’t the value flowing in the wrong direction?
 
Kritchlow said:
But in this case isn’t the value flowing in the wrong direction?
Click to expand...

The pilot gives something of value (the flight) to the businessman, and the pilot receives goodwill, which is intangible, from the businessman in return. FAA chief counsel letters and other writings have indicated that the goodwill could be considered compensation. The goodwill earned by the pilot could be redeemed for something of value in the future.
 
dmspilot said:
The pilot gives something of value (the flight) to the businessman, and the pilot receives goodwill, which is intangible, from the businessman in return. FAA chief counsel letters and other writings have indicated that the goodwill could be considered compensation. The goodwill earned by the pilot could be redeemed for something of value in the future.
Click to expand...
Wow. I’m certainly not well versed on this, but that really sounds like they are stretching.
 
dmspilot said:
As has been said, OP is paying for the flight so he's not being compensated flight time, he's paying for it. But what I think Bob might have meant is that the FAA says that the goodwill earned by performing the flight can be considered compensation. Not that I agree with it--I don't believe in thought crimes.
Click to expand...
My recollection is that the goodwill thing came up in a case when there was a likelihood of future business dealings arising between the pilot and the beneficiary of the flight.
 
dmspilot said:
The pilot gives something of value (the flight) to the businessman, and the pilot receives goodwill, which is intangible, from the businessman in return. FAA chief counsel letters and other writings have indicated that the goodwill could be considered compensation. The goodwill earned by the pilot could be redeemed for something of value in the future.
Click to expand...
I think you are reading way to much into it.
Palmpilot said:
My recollection is that the goodwill thing came up in a case when there was a likelihood of future business dealings arising between the pilot and the beneficiary of the flight.
Click to expand...
That has been true in all the cases I've read on the subject. "Good will" is not a phrase the FAA made up. It's a pretty long-standing business concept.

I don't know enough about the OP's scenario to have an opinion, but the overall concept of FAA "compensation" is the pilot receiving something of value from the passenger in exchange for providing a flight service.
 
bflynn said:
you can convince yourself that you can never carry passengers because every one of them create goodwill/co,pens action.
Click to expand...
You don't have to have a passenger to be compensated. " Compensation can also take the form of accumulation of flight time." so even if you are flying solo, in your own airplane (or paying the rental fees), paying all of the expenses, by logging the time you are being compensated and are in violation of the regs - particularly if you are logging the time towards some type of rating or job. For example - suppose you are a student pilot renting an airplane for your solo cross country. It's clear that there is no "common purpose" because there is no one else in the airplane to have a purpose in common with. Plus, you had no "purpose" of your own to make the flight to the destination - particularly if you just gassed up and made the return trip. Yet, you are clearly accumulating flight time towards some higher goal - something of particular value! Clear violation.
 
dmspilot said:
You are giving them something by flying them somewhere they want to go, isn't that the whole point of this discussion? What else is required?
Click to expand...
Yes you are giving them something by flying them but are they giving you something in return? That something in return is what constitutes compensation. And if you did receive something such as a free lunch, that lunch or other something would have to exceed the passengers pro rata share of the flight before you’d even approach a situation that would even pique the interest of the FAA.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
You don't have to have a passenger to be compensated. " Compensation can also take the form of accumulation of flight time." so even if you are flying solo, in your own airplane (or paying the rental fees), paying all of the expenses, by logging the time you are being compensated and are in violation of the regs - particularly if you are logging the time towards some type of rating or job. For example - suppose you are a student pilot renting an airplane for your solo cross country. It's clear that there is no "common purpose" because there is no one else in the airplane to have a purpose in common with. Plus, you had no "purpose" of your own to make the flight to the destination - particularly if you just gassed up and made the return trip. Yet, you are clearly accumulating flight time towards some higher goal - something of particular value! Clear violation.
Click to expand...
Assuming that was tongue in cheek, you make the point perfectly. It's not a violation because the flight time is not being provided by someone else in exchange for a service.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
You don't have to have a passenger to be compensated. " Compensation can also take the form of accumulation of flight time." so even if you are flying solo, in your own airplane (or paying the rental fees), paying all of the expenses, by logging the time you are being compensated and are in violation of the regs - particularly if you are logging the time towards some type of rating or job. For example - suppose you are a student pilot renting an airplane for your solo cross country. It's clear that there is no "common purpose" because there is no one else in the airplane to have a purpose in common with. Plus, you had no "purpose" of your own to make the flight to the destination - particularly if you just gassed up and made the return trip. Yet, you are clearly accumulating flight time towards some higher goal - something of particular value! Clear violation.
Click to expand...

That is pure absurdity. Certainly you don’t really believe....

Oh, wait... I see what you did there... sarcasm.

:D
 
SkyDog58 said:
Yes you are giving them something by flying them but are they giving you something in return? That something in return is what constitutes compensation. And if you did receive something such as a free lunch, that lunch or other something would have to exceed the passengers pro rata share of the flight before you’d even approach a situation that would even pique the interest of the FAA.
Click to expand...
Almost. I would stop before the "And." Once you start talking about pro rata share, you get into the "common purpose" issue.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Assuming that was tongue in cheek
Click to expand...
It cracks me up that you felt the need to include that disclaimer.

But, we do need to acknowledge some of the reasons that the FAA has become such an ******* about this sort of thing - too many creative operators and too many creative pilots desperate to build time. "I will let you use my airplane to tow my banners, but I won't pay you since you are only a private pilot", etc.
 
Kritchlow said:
Wow. I’m certainly not well versed on this, but that really sounds like they are stretching.
Click to expand...
If you look at its application, the real situations in which it applies are less of a stretch, although some still sound a bit silly.

There's actually a reg which deals with good will as compensation, although it doesn't mention the term. The 91.501(b)(5) authorization to carry business guests on large aircraft without "charge, assessment or fee" is addressing it.
 
robert lomax said:
now,, anytime, i fly my plane, alone, just for the fun of it,,,
im not going to smile or enjoy it in any way.
i wouldnt want to be accused of compensating my self!
Click to expand...
Well, if such flight was to cook the water from your planes oil, I suppose you must be compensating yourself in efforts to avoid a pre-mature engine overhaul?
 
Last edited:
Oh, my God. I am so bummed out. I was planning to take my grandson up this morning so we could fly out for lunch and back. Last weekend I flew his brother an hour south to drop him off with his other grandparents. I didn't charge anything, but it's possible these kids could possibly help out when I get old and need lawn work done, or even (gasp) theoretically one of them could get filthy rich and pay for our retirement villa. And those Young Eagles flights I've done!! Crap, who knows how many of those kids might remember that some day and do something nice for us in return. All it takes is one little fruit basket and I'm clearly going to lose my certificate. May as well get it over with now. I'll go down to the FSDO tomorrow and turn myself in.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
It cracks me up that you felt the need to include that disclaimer....
Click to expand...
I think the need to include the disclaimer is illustrated by a failure to make distinctions that is evidenced in a couple of the articles linked in this thread.
 
Last edited:
robert lomax said:
now,, anytime, i fly my plane, alone, just for the fun of it,,,
im not going to smile or enjoy it in any way.
i wouldnt want to be accused of compensating my self!
Click to expand...
And since you shared the expenses of the flight with yourself, you must prove that you had a common purpose with yourself. (This can be a real problem for schizophrenics.) ;)
 
Regarding flight-time-as-compensation, even when that is a legitimate issue, in the Harrington letter the FAA stated that the compensation could be avoided by not logging the flight time.
 
Palmpilot said:
Only when someone other than the pilot is paying for the flight time.
Click to expand...
From that FAA article it appears that it doesn't matter who is paying; if you fly on someone else's request, even if you pay for the entire flight, you've received compensation.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
From that FAA article it appears that it doesn't matter who is paying; if you fly on someone else's request, even if you pay for the entire flight, you've received compensation.
Click to expand...
See later in the thread for why that doesn't make sense.

FAA personnel outside the Chief Counsel's office are not necessarily authoritative when it comes to interpretation of regulations.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I think you are reading way to much into it.
Click to expand...

I'm not, I'm only explaining what good will is and how it could be seen as compensation. If you think I have concluded that OP's flight is illegal, you have read too much into my post.
 
bobmrg said:
Another article to read, this one from the FAA Aviation Safety Bulletin:

www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2010/media/SepOct2010-ComeFlyWithMe.pdf

The link in the article is no good.

Bob
Click to expand...
That one was also cited in post #12.

Here's an up-to-date version of the link in the article:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...c/practice_areas/regulations/Interpretations/

I didn't notice this when I looked at the article earlier, but it makes an important distinction that limits the applicability of flight-time-as-compensation:

Many pilots believe that they can easily avoid the
compensation or hire restrictions of the regulations
by making other arrangements. The FAA, however,
interprets “compensation” very broadly. For
example, the FAA has long held that logging flight
time for the conduct of a flight is compensation.
Most of us, and especially those of us seeking that
coveted left seat at a major air carrier, know how
valuable flight time can be. So, if someone requests
that you use your superior piloting skills to take them
to that resort of their choice and you decline any
monetary payment, but still log that flight time while
not paying the costs of operating the aircraft, you’ve
received compensation. [emphasis added]
​
Since the OP is talking about paying the costs himself, the implication of the above is that flight-time-as-compensation would not apply to the flight he's talking about.
 
Last edited:
Piling on....

Mr. Larry Williams
Larry Williams and Associates
3579 Sanford Drive
Murfreesboro, TN 37130
This letter responds to your request for a legal interpretation of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations § 61.113 regarding the limitations on private pilots acting as Pilot in Command (PIC) of an aircraft carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire.
Section 61.113(a) states that, "no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a 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." Section 61.113 also provides several exceptions to the general rule stated in § 61.113(a), which are listed in paragraphs (b) through (h).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has construed compensation broadly. Compensation "does not require a profit, a profit motive, or the actual payment of funds." Legal Interpretation to Joseph Kirwan (May 27, 2005). Rather, compensation is the receipt of anything of value. The FAA has previously found that reimbursement of expenses (fuel, oil, transportation, lodging, meals, etc.), accumulation of flight time, and goodwill in the form of expect future economic benefit could be considered compensation. Legal Interpretation to John W. Harrington (Oct. 23, 1997); Blakey v. Murray, NTSB Order No. EA-5061 (Oct. 28, 2003).
The scenario you present is a mechanic who, as part of his duties, conducts flight tests after performing maintenance on the aircraft, and does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. The mechanic holds a private pilot certificate with a valid third class medical certificate. This situation is covered under § 61.113(b), which states that, "[a] private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if (1) the flight is only incidental to that business or employment and (2) the aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire." As these flight tests are incidental to his employment as a mechanic, the mechanic is not in violation of § 61.113 when conducting these flight tests.
We hope this response has been helpful to you. If you have additional questions regarding this matter, please contact my staff at (202) 267-3073. This response was prepared by Neal O'Hara, an attorney in the Office of the Chief Counsel, International Law, Legislation and Regulations Division, and was coordinated with the General Aviation and Commercial Division of the Flight Standards Service.
Sincerely,
Mark W. Bury
Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation
and Regulations, AGC-200



My emphasis.

Bob
 
dmspilot said:
I'm not, I'm only explaining what good will is and how it could be seen as compensation. If you think I have concluded that OP's flight is illegal, you have read too much into my post.
Click to expand...
And I specifically said I was not answering the OP's question since I don't know enough.

But I was not saying I think yo think the OP's flight is illegal.

I am saying you are reading too much into what good will treated as compensation is, even as applied by the FAA..
 
bobmrg said:
Piling on....

Mr. Larry Williams
Larry Williams and Associates
3579 Sanford Drive
Murfreesboro, TN 37130
This letter responds to your request for a legal interpretation of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations § 61.113 regarding the limitations on private pilots acting as Pilot in Command (PIC) of an aircraft carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire.
Section 61.113(a) states that, "no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a 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." Section 61.113 also provides several exceptions to the general rule stated in § 61.113(a), which are listed in paragraphs (b) through (h).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has construed compensation broadly. Compensation "does not require a profit, a profit motive, or the actual payment of funds." Legal Interpretation to Joseph Kirwan (May 27, 2005). Rather, compensation is the receipt of anything of value. The FAA has previously found that reimbursement of expenses (fuel, oil, transportation, lodging, meals, etc.), accumulation of flight time, and goodwill in the form of expect future economic benefit could be considered compensation. Legal Interpretation to John W. Harrington (Oct. 23, 1997); Blakey v. Murray, NTSB Order No. EA-5061 (Oct. 28, 2003).
The scenario you present is a mechanic who, as part of his duties, conducts flight tests after performing maintenance on the aircraft, and does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. The mechanic holds a private pilot certificate with a valid third class medical certificate. This situation is covered under § 61.113(b), which states that, "[a] private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if (1) the flight is only incidental to that business or employment and (2) the aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire." As these flight tests are incidental to his employment as a mechanic, the mechanic is not in violation of § 61.113 when conducting these flight tests.
We hope this response has been helpful to you. If you have additional questions regarding this matter, please contact my staff at (202) 267-3073. This response was prepared by Neal O'Hara, an attorney in the Office of the Chief Counsel, International Law, Legislation and Regulations Division, and was coordinated with the General Aviation and Commercial Division of the Flight Standards Service.
Sincerely,
Mark W. Bury
Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation
and Regulations, AGC-200



My emphasis.

Bob
Click to expand...
...and mine. "Could be" is not "will be." Could be involves the identification of specific facts and circumstances which will make a difference. Two scenarios:

1. A flight school airplane was repaired away fro home base. Private pilot is offered the opportunity to pick it up and bring it homw after repairs, without having to pay for the flight time. That's flight time as compensation (whether the FAA cares or not). The private pilot is providing a flight service and is receive a direct benefit in exchange - free flight time.

2. Grandma and Grandpa pay all the costs of their grandson's flight training. No violation. The grandparents are doing it for love, not in exchange of providing a flight service to them.
 
benyflyguy said:
What I mean is when I got my ppl, and recently when restarting and buying into a small club, I have friends, and some casual acquaintances that I wouldn’t call friends, just come out and ask to be flown all over.
I had recently someone ask for me to pick them up in DC and fly them to north of Boston for the day. Her and her two kids one 6 and other 2yo!! Then home that night!!! I told her she was crazy.
Click to expand...

That will continue... Seems like every time it comes up that I’m a pilot and have a plane the next words are: cool, you can fly me to.... I think it has more to do with getting something for nothing on their part.
 
bobmrg said:
Piling on....

Mr. Larry Williams
Larry Williams and Associates
3579 Sanford Drive
Murfreesboro, TN 37130
This letter responds to your request for a legal interpretation of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations § 61.113 regarding the limitations on private pilots acting as Pilot in Command (PIC) of an aircraft carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire.
Section 61.113(a) states that, "no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a 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." Section 61.113 also provides several exceptions to the general rule stated in § 61.113(a), which are listed in paragraphs (b) through (h).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has construed compensation broadly. Compensation "does not require a profit, a profit motive, or the actual payment of funds." Legal Interpretation to Joseph Kirwan (May 27, 2005). Rather, compensation is the receipt of anything of value. The FAA has previously found that reimbursement of expenses (fuel, oil, transportation, lodging, meals, etc.), accumulation of flight time, and goodwill in the form of expect future economic benefit could be considered compensation. Legal Interpretation to John W. Harrington (Oct. 23, 1997); Blakey v. Murray, NTSB Order No. EA-5061 (Oct. 28, 2003).
The scenario you present is a mechanic who, as part of his duties, conducts flight tests after performing maintenance on the aircraft, and does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. The mechanic holds a private pilot certificate with a valid third class medical certificate. This situation is covered under § 61.113(b), which states that, "[a] private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if (1) the flight is only incidental to that business or employment and (2) the aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire." As these flight tests are incidental to his employment as a mechanic, the mechanic is not in violation of § 61.113 when conducting these flight tests.
We hope this response has been helpful to you. If you have additional questions regarding this matter, please contact my staff at (202) 267-3073. This response was prepared by Neal O'Hara, an attorney in the Office of the Chief Counsel, International Law, Legislation and Regulations Division, and was coordinated with the General Aviation and Commercial Division of the Flight Standards Service.
Sincerely,
Mark W. Bury
Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation
and Regulations, AGC-200



My emphasis.

Bob
Click to expand...
Note that this interpretation doesn't say that flight time will be considered to be compensation in every case, merely that it "could" be considered compensation. The FAA article you cited is more specific, saying that it applies to flights whose expenses are not paid for by the pilot. (See my edit to post #73.)
 
Last edited:
IMHO 61.113 has two purposes: To protect the livelihood of Part 135 operators and to protect the public at large by allowing only pilots with demonstrated knowledge and ability to charge for their services. I very doubt very much that the OP's passenger would have walked down the ramp to an air taxi company for this trip, and in this case the passenger knew the pilot and his abilities and was willing to take the risk (if any)....he was not just some rube looking for a free ride.

I stand by what I said initially....the FAA does consider flight time to be compensation. As a practical matter, however, this kind of trip takes place every day and no one really cares.

(If you are skating close to the edge of a regulation, do not ask questions in an open forum.)

Bob
 
I've said this before and I'll say it again....

We all know full well that the restrictions on compensation for a PPL exist because the FAA doesn't want us flying for-profit passenger or cargo services with that level of certificate. The reason for all these rulings about goodwill and hour building and all that exist because over the years because have found creative ways to skate around the letter of the law but in reality make a profit from flying passengers or cargo places.

One of the main purposes of the PPL certificate is so that you can fly you and your family/friends/etc out for a fun trip or even a necessary trip done faster. If such simple trips are a violation of regs, then something is very rotten with our regs and ought to be addressed.

The truth is if you fly your buddy out for whatever trip for whatever reason and he throws you a little gas money and buys you a steak dinner nobody cares. I don't care, the for-profit carriers don't care, I doubt most of POA cares, and the FAA really doesn't care either. The FAA will only care if you do something that forces them to take official notice of you. So don't make any social media posts where it shows your friend paying for your steak dinner. If you want to get nit picky enough with all these rulings/interpretations you can probably figure out how almost any flight with a passenger is somehow a violation.

Just don't try to fly for profit or hire and don't make social media posts about any steak dinners you might get after a flight and it's fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top