PPL question

deafsound

deafsound

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
797
Location
Boston
Display Name
Display name:
i arrrghhmmmmpppth
Can someone remind me what situations a PPL can fly either for compensation or for less than their "pro rata share"?
Thanks
 
Only if it's for a charity flight (and the PPL has >500 hrs) and when the flight is incidental to business can a company pay for a flight. I.e., I need to go from Houston to Dallas for a meeting, the company can pay for my flight expenses since getting me to Dallas wasn't the actual business, it was the actual meeting in Dallas that was.
 
There are four situations listed in 14 CFR 61.113 when a PPL may receive compensation for flying:
  1. The flight is incidental to your job (e.g., flying to a meeting for your job as an accountant), when you may receive your regular pay for the time you are flying and reimbursement for the direct costs of the flight, and nobody else is paying to be flown or have their property flown.
  2. You are sharing expenses with passengers with whom you have a common purpose (e.g., you're all going to Atlanta to watch the NASCAR race) and the pilot pays no less than his/her pro rata share of the direct expenses, and the passengers pay no more than their pro rata share of the direct expenses.
  3. You are flying a "charitable airlift" (e.g., taking up people who made a donation to an IRS-recognized charitable organization), when you may take a tax deduction for the cost of the flight but you may not accept any reimbursement from anyone else. Note that there are a number of special conditions attached, and you must inform the local FSDO before the event -- see a current copy 61.113 for details (the rules recently changed).
  4. You are flying a SAR mission for a recognized agency such as CAP, when you may accept reimbursement for the direct costs of the flight.
There are two other special cases:
  1. An aircraft salesman with at least 200 hours of flight time may demonstrate aircraft to customers, and
  2. A PPL may act as a tow pilot for gliders or unpowered ultralights (see 14 CFR 61.69 for additional requirements), but may not receive any compensation other than free flight time and no charge may be made for the tow. The current version of 14 CFR 61.113(g) supersedes the "Lincoln" letter of Nov 6 1990 which said the logable time constituted illegal compensation.
 
Ron,

Reading 3, it doesn't specify that you MUST take a deduction, it appears that you can have your costs reimbursed by the charitable operation. The part in 61.113(d) about donations applies to the passengers, not the pilot. Thus, if you were to fly for a charitable organization and they fueled your plane, I don't think you're in any trouble.

Additionally, if a pilot flies an Angel/Mercy flight, he may deduct his direct operating expenses (or rental fees), and that is not considered compensation:
762019 S15/FAA Topics
23-Feb-95 11:17:31
Sb #ANGEL FLIGHT POLICY
Fm Rick Cremer FAA HQ 72130,3305
To ALL
FAA "ANGEL FLIGHT" POLICY
Recently, the FAA published Change 10 to it's Air Transportation Inspector's handbook (FAA Order 8400.10). That change included new guidance for our inspectors concerning Angel Flights. Included below, is the full text of guidance. What it says, basically, is that if a person takes a charitable tax deduction for the costs associated with the operation that does not constitute a for hire or compensation operation.
Best Regards
Rick Cremer FAA HDQ

FAA Order 8400.10, Vol. 4, Chap. 5, Sect. 1, Para 1345 12/20/94
1345. FAA POLICY REGARDING "COMPENSATION OR HIRE" CONSIDERATIONS
FOR CHARITABLE FLIGHTS OR LIFE FLIGHTS. Various organizations and pilots are conducting flights that are characterized as "volunteer," "charity," or "humanitarian." These flights are referred to by numerous generic names, including "lifeline flights," "life flights," "mercy flights," and "angel flights." These types of flights will be referred to as "life flights" in this section.
A. Purposes for Life Flights. The types of organizations and pilots involved with or conducting life flights vary greatly. The most common purpose of life flights is to transport ill or injured persons who cannot financially afford commercial transport to appropriate medical treatment facilities, or to transport blood or human organs. Other "compassionate flights" include transporting a child to visit with a dying relative, or transporting a dying patient to return to the city of the patient's birth.
B. FAA Policy. The FAA's policy supports "truly humanitarian efforts" to provide life flights to needy persons (including "compassionate flights"). This also includes flights involving the transfer of blood and human organs. Since Congress has specifically provided for the tax deductibility of some costs of charitable acts, the FAA will not treat charitable deductions of such costs, standing alone, as constituting "compensation or hire" for the purpose of enforcement of FAR 61.118 or FAR Part 135. Inspectors should not treat the tax deductibility of costs as constituting "compensation or hire" when the flights are conducted for humanitarian purposes.

The recent rewrite of air tour rules did not change this stance:
"Additionally, nothing in the old rules and nothing in this new rule prohibits a private pilot from taking a sick or injured person from point to point as long as it is not for compensation or hire. By longstanding enforcement policy, the FAA has allowed aircraft operators who take a charitable tax deduction to transport a sick or injured person without that operator having an air carrier certificate. No other form of compensation may be received".

All of the above is from an air care alliance source​
 
Last edited:
Thank you everyone. What would be the fine or punishment for a PPL flying for compensation or free flight time if they don't fit into any of those categories?
DW
 
TMetzinger said:
Reading 3, it doesn't specify that you MUST take a deduction,
Click to expand...
That is true, but if you qualify, why not let the Federal, State, and (if applicable) local authorities "reimburse" (indirectly) 25-50% of your flight costs?

it appears that you can have your costs reimbursed by the charitable operation.
Click to expand...
I hope my writing didn't read that way -- accepting even a dime of reimbursement for expenses for a 61.113(d) flight is flat illegal. There is no provision for direct reimbursement anywhere in that paragraph.

The part in 61.113(d) about donations applies to the passengers, not the pilot. Thus, if you were to fly for a charitable organization and they fueled your plane, I don't think you're in any trouble.
Click to expand...
You would be wrong. We went through this on an EAA Young Eagles deal -- we were told we could not even accept a fuel discount from the FBO.

Additionally, if a pilot flies an Angel/Mercy flight, he may deduct his direct operating expenses (or rental fees), and that is not considered compensation:
Click to expand...
As Angel/Mercy is an IRS-recognized charitable organization, yes, that is correct and consistent with what I stated above.
 
Thanks gents, I was wondering about the Angel Flight deductibility and had been too lazy to consult the IRS regs. Not that I'm using internet bulletin boards for legal tax advice......
 
Ron Levy said:
That is true, but if you qualify, why not let the Federal, State, and (if applicable) local authorities "reimburse" (indirectly) 25-50% of your flight costs?

I hope my writing didn't read that way -- accepting even a dime of reimbursement for expenses for a 61.113(d) flight is flat illegal. There is no provision for direct reimbursement anywhere in that paragraph.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't mean that you're getting any money. It just says you can fly for a charitable airlift "sponsored" by a charitable organization.

Now, define "sponsored". And where in the reg does it talk about deductions at all? Seems to me that if the organization provides the airplane (and the fuel and such), a private pilot can do the flying duties, getting nothing out of the deal. What the reg says is that if you fly an airplane at one of these deals, it's not considered operating for hire. So if an EAA chapter owned an airplane, could the chapter provide the plane and fuel, and any private pilot could fly it and not run afoul of the regs, assuming he met the experience and currency requirements. That would allow multiple pilots to fly a single airplane in the event, allowing potty breaks and such.
 
TMetzinger said:
Now, define "sponsored". And where in the reg does it talk about deductions at all?
Click to expand...
It doesn't. However, that issue was addressed specifically in an interpretation from the FAA Chief Counsel's office. Someone wondered whether the tax break constituted illegal "compensation," and the FAA said it was legal for a PPL to take the tax break on charitable flights. And that's all they said it was legal to take.

Seems to me that if the organization provides the airplane (and the fuel and such), a private pilot can do the flying duties, getting nothing out of the deal.
Click to expand...
That would be incorrect per NTSB v. Murray, which (among other rulings) says free flight time constitutes compensation.

What the reg says is that if you fly an airplane at one of these deals, it's not considered operating for hire.
Click to expand...
That is not at all what the reg says. All it says is that this is one special case of operating for hire (i.e., providing air transportation in exchange for money) where a PPL may act as PIC when otherwise prohibited by 61.113(a). It does not authorize the PPL PIC to accept compensation for acting as PIC on the flight.

So if an EAA chapter owned an airplane, could the chapter provide the plane and fuel, and any private pilot could fly it and not run afoul of the regs, assuming he met the experience and currency requirements.
Click to expand...
No. The PPL would have to pay the direct cost of the flight.
 
Ron Levy said:
That is not at all what the reg says. All it says is that this is one special case of operating for hire (i.e., providing air transportation in exchange for money) where a PPL may act as PIC when otherwise prohibited by 61.113(a). It does not authorize the PPL PIC to accept compensation for acting as PIC on the flight.
Click to expand...


The reg says:

a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, 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 you're saying that the exemption in (d) only applies to the section that says "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", and doesn't apply to the part that says "nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft".

Just want to be clear what you're saying. I can see how it can be interpreted that way, but it sure could have been clearer.
 
I think it is a little much that the FAA once thought of "free flight time" as compesation, yet it does not surprise me a bit since it came from Lincoln . I am glad they came to their senses on that one.
 
Several years ago I requested and received a spiral bound book from AOPA discussing this very issue. I'm not sure if it is still available but you may want to ring them up.
 
All of the rules and regs regarding remuneration for flying are the primary reasons I am pursuing my commercial certificate. Honing better pilot skills is the other. I have no plans at this time for trying to earn any money from flying activities but it is easy to see how one could inadvertently violate the regulations as a private pilot. I think it is cheap insurance.

Jim
 
Agreed. It almost seems that if you carry anyone or anything, you better be able to prove you are not being compensated. Almost safe to say a comm ticket is the new PPL. A PPL only gives you the right to think about flying. Any more than that, the FAA will have your ticket nailed up on their "shoulda got a lawyer to read you the FAR's" wall. I am fully aware this is not how it goes, but the syninc in me was dying to get out.
 
OK, where does PUBLIC fit in? Can you fly for the Fed without carrying passengers or cargo?
Dave.
 
jimbtv said:
All of the rules and regs regarding remuneration for flying are the primary reasons I am pursuing my commercial certificate. Honing better pilot skills is the other. I have no plans at this time for trying to earn any money from flying activities but it is easy to see how one could inadvertently violate the regulations as a private pilot. I think it is cheap insurance.

Jim
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the commercial pilot certificate doesn't really clear you from the morass; it just adds another level of confusion. Yes, you can fly the charity event flights legally (the events where the passengers make a donation to the charity), but now you need to comply with drug testing programs or mind the drug testing exemption criteria. You still can't fly people for compensation or hire except some rather limited (but admittedly fun) cases, and you need to keep narrowly within the boundaries in those cases. When the dust settles on your new commercial certificate, the sad news is that most of the illegal things are still illegal unless you have the appropriate operating certificate.
 
TMetzinger said:
The reg says:

a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, 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 you're saying that the exemption in (d) only applies to the section that says "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", and doesn't apply to the part that says "nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft".
Click to expand...
Plain reading of the applicable section:
(d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event flight described in §91.146, if the sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of §91.146.
Click to expand...
is all you need -- the only exception it gives to paragraph (a) (which says you can neither act as PIC for paying passengers nor accept compensation for acting as PIC) is that the PPL may act as PIC for paying passengers in this situation. Period. It says nothing about also being allowed to accept compensation. I don't see how that could be any clearer.
 
taters said:
I think it is a little much that the FAA once thought of "free flight time" as compesation, yet it does not surprise me a bit since it came from Lincoln . I am glad they came to their senses on that one.
Click to expand...
Unless you know of a contrary Chief Counsel interpretation issued in the last 24 months, they still feel the same way -- don't bet your ticket otherwise.
 
AWACSEng said:
Agreed. It almost seems that if you carry anyone or anything, you better be able to prove you are not being compensated. Almost safe to say a comm ticket is the new PPL. A PPL only gives you the right to think about flying. Any more than that, the FAA will have your ticket nailed up on their "shoulda got a lawyer to read you the FAR's" wall. I am fully aware this is not how it goes, but the syninc in me was dying to get out.
Click to expand...
Don't take this overboard. If you're a PPL, just stay away from paying passengers iand pay for your own flying. Do that, and you will have no problems at all. The problem is folks who try to bend the rules and run rackets which get them money from passengers or compensation for piloting for "free" flying time, If not for those folks, we wouldn't have a problem. Once again, the enemy is us, not the FAA.
 
Ron Levy said:
Don't take this overboard. If you're a PPL, just stay away from paying passengers and pay for your own flying. Do that, and you will have no problems at all. The problem is folks who try to bend the rules and run rackets which get them money from passengers or compensation for piloting for "free" flying time, If not for those folks, we wouldn't have a problem. Once again, the enemy is us, not the FAA.
Click to expand...
I just read the story of a guy who was asked to transport two stranded passengers from one location to another. He did this gratis - not charging for his flight time or even asking for fuel reimbursement. The problem was that, unbeknownst to the pilot, the passengers paid the man who arranged for the shuttle flight. This became a "flight for compensation" scenario and the FAA suspended his PPL for a year. It was eventually overturned on appeal. This is the kind of stuff I hope to avoid but when it comes to carriage of persons and cargo, you almost need an attorney as second-in-command on these flights.
 
jimbtv said:
I just read the story of a guy who was asked to transport two stranded passengers from one location to another. He did this gratis - not charging for his flight time or even asking for fuel reimbursement. The problem was that, unbeknownst to the pilot, the passengers paid the man who arranged for the shuttle flight. This became a "flight for compensation" scenario and the FAA suspended his PPL for a year. It was eventually overturned on appeal. This is the kind of stuff I hope to avoid but when it comes to carriage of persons and cargo, you almost need an attorney as second-in-command on these flights.
Click to expand...
The pilot who did not charge for flight time or fuel... did he pay the FBO or owner of the plane out of his pocket? I'm confused where this person making the arrangement came in and paid for something that appears to have been paid for by the pilot. Or, am I reading something not there?
 
Ron Levy said:
Sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Can you elucidate?
Click to expand...

Yes Sir, I know of folks who fly for the government who have no commercial ticket at all, carrying passengers, flying public (government) aircraft. How does that work? Now that I think of it, some may not have any ticket at all, but are retired army aviators, still flying for uncle sam.
Dave.
 
Ron Levy said:
Plain reading of the applicable section:is all you need -- the only exception it gives to paragraph (a) (which says you can neither act as PIC for paying passengers nor accept compensation for acting as PIC) is that the PPL may act as PIC for paying passengers in this situation. Period. It says nothing about also being allowed to accept compensation. I don't see how that could be any clearer.
Click to expand...

That's because I'm looking at a 2007 FAR/AIM, which does not say:

(d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event flight described in §91.146, if the sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of §91.146.

It says:

d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of an aircraft used in a passenger-carrying airlift sponsored by a charitable organization described in paragraph (d)(7) of this section, and for which the passengers make a donation to the organization, when the following requirements are met:
(1) The sponsor of the airlift notifies the FAA Flight Standards District Office with jurisdiction over the area concerned at least 7 days before the event and furnishes -
(i) A signed letter from the sponsor that shows the name of the sponsor, the purpose of the charitable event, the date and time of the event, and the location of the event; and
(ii) A photocopy of each pilot in command's pilot certificate, medical certificate, and logbook entries that show the pilot is current in accordance with §§ 61.56 and 61.57 of this part and has logged at least 200 hours of flight time.
(2) The flight is conducted from a public airport that is adequate for the aircraft to be used, or from another airport that has been approved by the FAA for the operation.
(3) No aerobatic or formation flights are conducted.
(4) Each aircraft used for the charitable event holds a standard airworthiness certificate.
(5) Each aircraft used for the charitable event is airworthy and complies with the applicable requirements of subpart E of part 91 of this chapter.
(6) Each flight for the charitable event is made during day VFR conditions.
(7) The charitable organization is an organization identified as such by the U.S. Department of Treasury.

So I brought a knife to a gunfight, as your later version makes it very clear, to wit:

91.146 (b)(7) Reimbursement of the operator of the airplane or helicopter is limited to that portion of the passenger payment for the flight that does not exceed the pro rata cost of owning, operating, and maintaining the aircraft for that flight, which may include fuel, oil, airport expenditures, and rental fees.

This to me says that the private pilot could be reimbursed with a portion of the passenger payment that doesn't exceed the pro rata share of operating expenses for the flight. Doesn't it?
 
Sorry, TIm, you're mixing apples and oranges. 61.113(d) only authorizes the PPL to act as PIC with paying passengers despite the 61.113(a) prohbition on PPL's acting as PIC with paying passengers. Nowhere does 61.113(d) say a PPL may accept compensation for pilot services as prohibited by 61.113(a). You can play with it all you want, but that is the law as interpreted by the FAA Chief Counsel's office. If you don't like it, argue with them, not me.
 
Ron Levy said:
Sorry, TIm, you're mixing apples and oranges. 61.113(d) only authorizes the PPL to act as PIC with paying passengers despite the 61.113(a) prohbition on PPL's acting as PIC with paying passengers. Nowhere does 61.113(d) say a PPL may accept compensation for pilot services as prohibited by 61.113(a). You can play with it all you want, but that is the law as interpreted by the FAA Chief Counsel's office. If you don't like it, argue with them, not me.
Click to expand...

So, what, in your mind, is the point of 91.146 (b) (7)?

I can't figure out why they allow the operator to be reimbursed, unless there's a situation where the pilot is not the operator?

If you don't know what the intent of that paragraph is, I'll write the Chief Counsel for clarification.
 
TMetzinger said:
So, what, in your mind, is the point of 91.146 (b) (7)?

I can't figure out why they allow the operator to be reimbursed, unless there's a situation where the pilot is not the operator?

If you don't know what the intent of that paragraph is, I'll write the Chief Counsel for clarification.
Click to expand...
§61.113(d) allows for reminbursement for charitable flights, not a "for profit" operation.

I'd equate it to auto insurance covering the use of a personal vehicle to carry boy scouts or girl scouts during an event. But, once you carry someone and are paid an amount above and beyond the actual expenses (profit), it becomes a commercial operation. A consumer insurance policy will not cover that.
 
KennyFlys said:
§61.113(d) allows for reminbursement for charitable flights, not a "for profit" operation.

I'd equate it to auto insurance covering the use of a personal vehicle to carry boy scouts or girl scouts during an event. But, once you carry someone and are paid an amount above and beyond the actual expenses (profit), it becomes a commercial operation. A consumer insurance policy will not cover that.
Click to expand...


What I'm wondering is this (as it may not be clear). A private pilot who's current with more than 500 hours and otherwise qualified with 91.146 rents a plane, and gives a ride to a single passenger at a charitable flight event.

The passenger makes a donation of $100.00 to the charity.
The operating expense for the flight is $45.00 (wet rental).

Can the pilot (who operated the airplane) be reimbursed $22.50 (pro rata share for one pax) from the charity (who got $100)?

If not, then what's the point of 91.146 (b)(7) "Reimbursement of the operator of the airplane or helicopter is limited to that portion of the passenger payment for the flight that does not exceed the pro rata cost of owning, operating, and maintaining the aircraft for that flight, which may include fuel, oil, airport expenditures, and rental fees."?

Even if the pilot can be reimbursed, he's still $22.50 out of pocket.

Hope the example makes the question clearer, and it's the example I'll use in a letter to Chief Counsel if we can't come up with an alternate explanation for 91.146(b)(7).
 
TMetzinger said:
What I'm wondering is this (as it may not be clear). A private pilot who's current with more than 500 hours and otherwise qualified with 91.146 rents a plane, and gives a ride to a single passenger at a charitable flight event.

The passenger makes a donation of $100.00 to the charity.
The operating expense for the flight is $45.00 (wet rental).

Can the pilot (who operated the airplane) be reimbursed $22.50 (pro rata share for one pax) from the charity (who got $100)?

If not, then what's the point of 91.146 (b)(7) "Reimbursement of the operator of the airplane or helicopter is limited to that portion of the passenger payment for the flight that does not exceed the pro rata cost of owning, operating, and maintaining the aircraft for that flight, which may include fuel, oil, airport expenditures, and rental fees."?

Even if the pilot can be reimbursed, he's still $22.50 out of pocket.

Hope the example makes the question clearer, and it's the example I'll use in a letter to Chief Counsel if we can't come up with an alternate explanation for 91.146(b)(7).
Click to expand...
I would think if the flight was conducted entirely for the purpose of a charitable function, the pilot's expenses could be reimbursed in there entirety.

But, it borders so closely with a chartered flight the way its described.... gosh, that's a tough call. I think there would have to be a bit more involvement.

The closest scenario I can think of that might happen is you're flying from A to B and at B, you're going to do Young Eagle's flights. Two pilot friends also need a lift to B. You carry them along and the charity organization pays for the trip over for all three of you. That may conform. But, if your friends were paying the full amount... it's illegal to take more than the prorated share.
 
KennyFlys said:
I would think if the flight was conducted entirely for the purpose of a charitable function, the pilot's expenses could be reimbursed in there entirety.

But, it borders so closely with a chartered flight the way its described.... gosh, that's a tough call. I think there would have to be a bit more involvement.

The closest scenario I can think of that might happen is you're flying from A to B and at B, you're going to do Young Eagle's flights. Two pilot friends also need a lift to B. You carry them along and the charity organization pays for the trip over for all three of you. That may conform. But, if your friends were paying the full amount... it's illegal to take more than the prorated share.
Click to expand...

The 91.146 section makes it clear that you're doing the sightseeing flights within 25NM of an airport. No going from A to B, it's strictly A to A, so your scenario doesn't really apply.

Your scenario (where there are three people with a common purpose) could result in splitting the cost of that A-B leg three ways, with no reimbursement from the charity, without any issues. So let me try to make my scenario clearer. If I end up writing the FAA on this, it will help if all of us agree that the question is clear.

A private pilot rents an airplane at $100/hr (total cost for wet rental and he gets full credit for any gas/oil purchased). Direct operating cost is thus $100/hr.

Private pilot flies for .5 hours solo to get to the location of a fund-rasing airlift.

Private pilot gives rides, each time with one passenger, for 3 hours of flight time. The passengers donate some amount of money to the organization.

Pilot and organization are both fully in compliance with the sections of 91.146 (500 or more hours, day vfr, nonstop within 25 NM of the airport, only 1 or 4 events per year, safety briefings, notified FSDO in advance, etc)

At the end of the event, the pilot has incurred $300 in direct operating costs for the event flights. He's also incurred $50 costs getting there, and we'll assume $50 in costs flying back to his home base. So he'll have spent $400 by days end.

Is the pilot allowed, under 91.146 (b)(7), to accept reimbursement from the organization in the amount of $150.00 for a pro rata share (only one pax so 50%) of his direct operating costs?

If not, why not? If the pilot had a commercial certificate, would anything be different?

If he is allowed to accept the pro-rata cost reimbursement, is he also allowed to deduct the other $150.00 (that he's out of pocket for the airlift flying) as his "donation" to the organization (assuming the organization is an IRS recognized charity)?

Keep in mind this 91.146 rule became effective March 15, 2007, so opinions and guidance prior to that date may no longer be correct.

Also, it doesn't have to be a charitable or nonprofit organization - a community organization that is not a charity or nonprofit is allowed one airlift per year.
 
Part 91 is a flight rule, not a pilot certification rule, and I don't see how a section of Part 91 can relieve a PPL of a restriction imposed by Part 61. If you can get the Chief Counsel to say otherwise, great; otherwise, remember that the Chief Counsel has always said that 61.113 will always be interpreted in the most restrictive manner. Therefore, unless you get that ruling, I strongly recommend that a PPL involved in a charitable airlift not accept a dime of compensation (or reimbursement, or whatever you want to call it) from anyone other than the IRS deduction for his direct costs (which the Chief Counsel has specifically OK'd). However, I think the Chief Counsel will tell you that reimbursement under 91.146(b)(7) may be accepted only by an operator already authorized to provide air transportation for hire, i.e., a Part 135 operator or a Part 91 commercial operator with a Letter of Authorization for 25sm sightseeing rides under 91.147.
 
Thanks... I'll write counsel. Here's my logic, and why I think I'm correct.

61.113 (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, 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.

So, unless there's an exemption, no getting paid to be a pilot, and no piloting aircraft where the people in it or the cargo on it paid for the privilege.

And the exemption in question is:
d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event flight described in Sec. 91.146, if the
sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of Sec. 91.146.

91.146 specifically discusses reimbursement, and specifically limits that reimbursement to the same pro-rata cost sharing that is permissible for a private pilot when he is flying with passengers on a trip where they all share a common purpose. Since pro-rata cost sharing by a private pilot is not operating for compensation or hire in the second case (61.113(c)), why would it be so in the first case?

The key thing here is the pro-rata cost sharing language - it's always in use in reference to ops conducted by someone exercising private pilot privileges.

Anyhow, I'll dig up the address for Chief counsel, send them a letter and post it here, and update it if/when I get a response. Until that opinion is issued, you're quite correct that a private pilot can avoid all possibilities of trouble by not accepting a dime of compensation (or reimbursement, or whatever you want to call it) from anyone other than the IRS deduction for his direct costs, and then only if the organization is a charitable one (remember the FAA allows other organizations to sponsor airlifts now).
 
Last edited:
Federal Aviation Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
800 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20591

Subject: Request for opinion on FAR 61.113 and FAR 91.146

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing you with a question in light of the recent rulemaking concerning charity/community airlift operations defined in 91.146, and whether a private pilot may be reimbursed for a portion of his direct operating costs when flying in such an event.

If a private pilot participates in an airlift for a charitable, nonprofit, or community event, and both the pilot and the organization comply with all portions of 91.146, is the private pilot allowed to accept reimbursement of a pro-rata share of his direct operating costs from the sponsoring organization under the conditions of 91.146(b)(7), which states “Reimbursement of the operator of the airplane or helicopter is limited to that portion of the passenger payment for the flight that does not exceed the pro rata cost of owning, operating, and maintaining the aircraft for that flight, which may include fuel, oil, airport expenditures, and rental fees”?

As an example, assume a private pilot rents an airplane at a cost of $100.00 per hour, and gives sightseeing rides for three hours, each ride with a single passenger. The private pilot’s costs for the flight(s) are $300.00. Can the pilot accept reimbursement up to $150.00 under 91.146(b)(7) without violating 61.113?

If the organization is a charitable one under the IRS regulations, may the private pilot deduct any non-reimbursed operating costs ($150.00 in the example above) as a donation to the organization without violating 61.113?

If a private pilot is not allowed to accept reimbursement under 91.146(b)(7), what is the purpose of that particular section, and who is allowed to accept reimbursement under it?

Sincerely,

Timothy M. Metzinger
 
Ron Levy said:
Part 91 is a flight rule, not a pilot certification rule, and I don't see how a section of Part 91 can relieve a PPL of a restriction imposed by Part 61.
Click to expand...
Explain how a PPL may legally fly for a charity airlift and you'll figure out how Part 91 can relieve Part 61.

However, I think the Chief Counsel will tell you that reimbursement under 91.146(b)(7) may be accepted only by an operator already authorized to provide air transportation for hire, i.e., a Part 135 operator or a Part 91 commercial operator with a Letter of Authorization for 25sm sightseeing rides under 91.147.
Click to expand...
A Part 135 operator doesn't need the Part 91.147 allowance--the Part 135 certificate is sufficient allowance within itself.
 
Dave Rains said:
Yes Sir, I know of folks who fly for the government who have no commercial ticket at all, carrying passengers, flying public (government) aircraft. How does that work? Now that I think of it, some may not have any ticket at all, but are retired army aviators, still flying for uncle sam.
Dave.
Click to expand...
Public use flying is outside many of the FAR's. In other words, public aircraft do not fly under part 91, part 121 OR part 135 of the FARs. Also, many of the maintenance- and aircraft certification-related related FAR's don't apply either. It is up to the agency to set policy and procedures. IMHO most have set standards more stringent than the FAR's. And the two I am familiar with (USFS and Interior) actually require the requisite FAA certificates and ratings for the activity you are doing, even though they aren't >required< to.

Of course many FAR's outside of those parts still apply. When flying for the government one still has to comply with an ATC instruction in controlled airspace, for example :) Very simple synopsis but I think you get the picture. Parsing all of the FAR's to show which apply to public-use aircraft and pilots and which don't would be very time consuming ;)

Public aircraft means any of the following aircraft when not being used for a commercial purpose or to carry an individual other than a crewmember or qualified non-crewmenber:
(1) An aircraft used only for the United States Government; an aircraft owned by the Government and operated by any person for purposes related to crew training, equipment development, or demonstration; an aircraft owned and operated by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of one of these governments; or an aircraft exclusively leased for at least 90 continuous days by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of one of these governments.
(i) For the sole purpose of determining public aircraft status, commercial purposes means the transportation of persons or property for compensation or hire, but does not include the operation of an aircraft by the armed forces for reimbursement when that reimbursement is required by any Federal statute, regulation, or directive, in effect on November 1, 1999, or by one government on behalf of another government under a cost reimbursement agreement if the government on whose behalf the operation is conducted certifies to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration that the operation is necessary to respond to a significant and imminent threat to life or property (including natural resources) and that no service by a private operator is reasonably available to meet the threat.
(ii) For the sole purpose of determining public aircraft status, governmental function means an activity undertaken by a government, such as national defense, intelligence missions, firefighting, search and rescue, law enforcement (including transport of prisoners, detainees, and illegal aliens), aeronautical research, or biological or geological resource management.
(iii) For the sole purpose of determining public aircraft status, qualified non-crewmember means an individual, other than a member of the crew, aboard an aircraft operated by the armed forces or an intelligence agency of the United States Government, or whose presence is required to perform, or is associated with the performance of, a governmental function.
(2) An aircraft owned or operated by the armed forces or chartered to provide transportation to the armed forces if—
(i) The aircraft is operated in accordance with title 10 of the United States Code;
(ii) The aircraft is operated in the performance of a governmental function under title 14, 31, 32, or 50 of the United States Code and the aircraft is not used for commercial purposes; or
(iii) The aircraft is chartered to provide transportation to the armed forces and the Secretary of Defense (or the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating) designates the operation of the aircraft as being required in the national interest.
(3) An aircraft owned or operated by the National Guard of a State, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States, and that meets the criteria of paragraph (2) of this definition, qualifies as a public aircraft only to the extent that it is operated under the direct control of the Department of Defense.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top