PPL question

Thanks Alaskaflyer! That was pretty much my understanding. So, if the USAF asked me to ferry one of their F15's for a fee I, a lowly PP could do so, providing I could find the starter button and survived the attempt.:D
Dave Rains
 
Dave Rains said:
Thanks Alaskaflyer! That was pretty much my understanding. So, if the USAF asked me to ferry one of their F15's for a fee I, a lowly PP could do so, providing I could find the starter button and survived the attempt.:D
Dave Rains
Click to expand...
There's no key?



:)
 
OK, no aircraft battery. And IIRC the ELT is on the ejection seat, not the jet itself.
 
AWACSEng said:
OK, no aircraft battery. And IIRC the ELT is on the ejection seat, not the jet itself.
Click to expand...
Details, details, details...

That's why it takes six maintenance people in the Air Farce to change a nose tire. :D
 
AlaskaFlyer, I was actually aware of the stringent requirements for USFW, I'm a GS-1812 working for the Army at Fort Bliss. The crack about the F15 was tongue in cheek. Oh Mr. Levy, I served 21 years in the Army, and am well aware of the ability of my brethren in the (Air Corp) to protect their hardware.
Regards,
Dave Rains
 
Ron Levy said:
What part of "or" did you miss?
Click to expand...
Ron, here's your quote for your memory help:

"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."

FWIW, "or" in this case means that either condition is sufficient.

Since you couldn't comprehend your mistake the first time let's make this blunt: Please explain why a Part 135 certificate holder would need or require the authorization granted in 14 CFR 91.147? IOW, a Part 135 certificate holder is already authorized to charge for such a flight.

While you are in the neighborhood you might as well explain why a Part 91 sightseeing operation would require the allowance of 91.147, either--the sightseeing operator is also already authorized to charge for such a flight.

Sheesh.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
Ron, here's your quote for your memory help:

"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."

FWIW, "or" in this case means that either condition is sufficient.
Click to expand...
Just as I said.

Since you couldn't comprehend your mistake the first time let's make this blunt: Please explain why a Part 135 certificate holder would need or require the authorization granted in 14 CFR 91.147?
Click to expand...
No can do, but that's not what I said, so I don't see where such is required.

IOW, a Part 135 certificate holder is already authorized to charge for such a flight.
Click to expand...
Just as I said: "a Part 135 operator..."

While you are in the neighborhood you might as well explain why a Part 91 sightseeing operation would require the allowance of 91.147, either--the sightseeing operator is also already authorized to charge for such a flight.
Click to expand...
Again, just as I said: "...or a Part 91 commercial operator with a Letter of Authorization for 25sm sightseeing rides under 91.147."

Sheesh.
Click to expand...
"Sheesh," yourself. Let me parse it for you:

"...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)."

At least that's how I learned it in 6th grade English.
 
Ron Levy said:
Just as I said.

No can do, but that's not what I said, so I don't see where such is required.

Just as I said: "a Part 135 operator..."

Again, just as I said: "...or a Part 91 commercial operator with a Letter of Authorization for 25sm sightseeing rides under 91.147."

"Sheesh," yourself. Let me parse it for you:

"...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)."

At least that's how I learned it in 6th grade English.
Click to expand...
Ron, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt as I misquoted the number of the regulation in my replies; I quoted "91.147" while you cited "91.146" and it was that (91.146) to which I was referring.

So, with that in mind, let's back up to your original statement, again:

"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."

So, we are discussing the provisions of 91.146(b)(7), which states:

(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;


Now, according to your statements here, you would have us believe that the FAA wrote 91.146(b)(7) to grant Part 135 operators or approved Part 91 sightseeing operators the ability charge for the flights (limited to loosing money, BTW)? Don't be ridiculous--the FAA doesn't write redundant FARs.

IOW, why would anyone think the FARs contain an additional Part 91 section granting a Part 135 operator the right to charge money for a flight--Part 135 grants that as it is.

IOW, why would anyone think that the FARs contain an additional section allowing approved Part 91 sightseeing operators to charge money for a sightseeing flight--the approved Part 91 sightseeing operation already has that authorization as it is.

IOW, the only explanation for 91.146(b)(7) is that it grants the limited authority for someone else, other than Part 135 operators or approved Part 91 sightseeing operators, to be paid a restricted reimbursement for a charity flight. Who that someone might be may be debatable, but it certainly isn't a Part 135 operator or an approved Part 91 sightseeing operator.

IOW, Ron, your explanation is bogus.
 
KennyFlys said:
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?
Click to expand...
I believe the scenario unfolded thusly: John calls me and asks me as a favor to take his friends Bill and Sally somewhere. I say sure, and eat the cost. Unknown to me, John has charged Bill and Sally for the ride, probably telling them it's to help cover my costs.
 
Ken Ibold said:
I believe the scenario unfolded thusly: John calls me and asks me as a favor to take his friends Bill and Sally somewhere. I say sure, and eat the cost. Unknown to me, John has charged Bill and Sally for the ride, probably telling them it's to help cover my costs.
Click to expand...
Okay, I get it. The pilot (you) was charged with a violation for the other guy taking money. The only way you would be in the clear is if you were entirely unaware of money being accepted by anyone for the the flight and/or, you did not later accept any money that could be construed as payment for the flight beyond the passenger's prorated share.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
IOW, Ron, your explanation is bogus.
Click to expand...
I haven't the foggiest idea where you came up with your analysis of my original statement, but it is so far removed from the plain reading of it that I cannot continue in this discussion with you. I will say that I belive the reg says that if an aircraft operator wants to keep any part of the money paid by people for flights in a charitable airlift in order to cover the operator's expenses, the operator must have either:
  1. A Part 135 operating certificate, or
  2. A Letter of Authorization for 25sm sightseeing rides.
If you think otherwise, you are free to accept such reimbursement, but if the FAA eats you for lunch for taking that money, don't say I didn't warn you.
 
KennyFlys said:
Okay, I get it. The pilot (you) was charged with a violation for the other guy taking money. The only way you would be in the clear is if you were entirely unaware of money being accepted by anyone for the the flight and/or, you did not later accept any money that could be construed as payment for the flight beyond the passenger's prorated share.
Click to expand...
Not even for the prorated share -- there is no "common purpose" for the flight, so the pilot can't accept a dime. The instant case was Administrator v. Derkazarian, and the pilot charged was handed a suspension which was upheld by the ALJ, but overturned by the NTSB which basically said the FAA can't cite a pilot for someone else's actions about which the pilot knew nothing when the pilot did everything by the book (including refusing any money of any sort from the party receiving the transport or the person who charged that party for the flight).
 
Ron Levy said:
Not even for the prorated share -- there is no "common purpose" for the flight, so the pilot can't accept a dime. The instant case was Administrator v. Derkazarian, and the pilot charged was handed a suspension which was upheld by the ALJ, but overturned by the NTSB which basically said the FAA can't cite a pilot for someone else's actions about which the pilot knew nothing when the pilot did everything by the book (including refusing any money of any sort from the party receiving the transport or the person who charged that party for the flight).
Click to expand...
Okay, I had the latter part of your description down. But for the first part, the pilot and passengers must have a common purpose to go the same destination and only then is it proper (legal) for the pilot to receive reimbursement for the other partie's share of flight expenses.
 
KennyFlys said:
Okay, I had the latter part of your description down. But for the first part, the pilot and passengers must have a common purpose to go the same destination and only then is it proper (legal) for the pilot to receive reimbursement for the other partie's share of flight expenses.
Click to expand...
Exactly -- when there is common purpose, the other party may chip in up to his/her pro rata share, and the pilot must pay no less than his/her pro rata share.
 
bbchien said:
To the original poster's question, and Tim Metzinger, you are stirring a pot that needs not be restirred. The relevant disucssion is here: http://www.aircareall.org/tax.htm

You can only ask them to revise it to make it worse.
Click to expand...


Actually, I quoted that earlier. There's no question that taking a tax deduction is not considered compensation by the FAA.

The question is whether a private pilot operator could be reimbursed under the conditions in 91.146 as stated. That's not asking for a revision, that's asking for an explanation/interpretation.

I'm still gonna send in the letter asking about partial reimbursement, but if it will make you happier, I'll leave out the second question about whether the unreimbursed portion is deductable.

As far as "don't ask the question, you'll make it worse", that's BS, like not seeing your doctor for something you suspect is disqualifying, because you're afraid he'll tell you it is, and you'll have to ground yourself.

We deserve regulations clear enough that Ron and Kenny can agree on them. Let me know here (and this is for everyone) if you want me to pull out the second question:

"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?"
 
TMetzinger said:
The question is whether a private pilot operator could be reimbursed under the conditions in 91.146 as stated. That's not asking for a revision, that's asking for an explanation/interpretation.
Click to expand...
I think they'll say "no," but I'd like to see that in writing.
 
Ron Levy said:
I think they'll say "no," but I'd like to see that in writing.
Click to expand...

So would I... I just really want to know why they put pro-rata reimbursement in that section, if they didn't intend for a private pilot to be partially reimbursed, as he could be on a common-purpose flight.

Your argument about it applying to authorized commercial pilots (135/91 LOA holders) doesn't make much sense to me, unless they really want to be telling those guys that they MUST contribute to the sponsoring organization, if nothing else by only getting a partial reimbursement.
 
Ron Levy said:
I haven't the foggiest idea where you came up with your analysis of my original statement, but it is so far removed from the plain reading of it that I cannot continue in this discussion with you.
Click to expand...
The typical Ron Levy duck and jive. Good try, but I doubt you head faked anyone. The quotes are there for all to read--we'll see if anyone thinks you were misunderstood.

Don't hold your breath.

I will say that I belive the reg says that if an aircraft operator wants to keep any part of the money paid by people for flights in a charitable airlift in order to cover the operator's expenses, the operator must have either:
  1. A Part 135 operating certificate, or
  2. A Letter of Authorization for 25sm sightseeing rides.
Click to expand...
#1 is allowed in Part 135; #2 is allowed under other applicable sightseeing regulations. Which means you still have that big question hanging over your head:

Why would the FAA need to write 91.146 to cover two possibilities already covered elsewhere?
 
TMetzinger said:
The question is whether a private pilot operator could be reimbursed under the conditions in 91.146 as stated. That's not asking for a revision, that's asking for an explanation/interpretation."
Click to expand...
Tim, I struggled through both of your prosposed "letters". Might be me, but my suggestion is that you simplify your question to what you wrote here. IOW, keep it simple and direct. YMMV, just a suggestion. It would hurt to wait a month or so only to get an answer to the question legal thought you wrote, not the question you wanted answered.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
Tim, I struggled through both of your prosposed "letters". Might be me, but my suggestion is that you simplify your question to what you wrote here. IOW, keep it simple and direct. YMMV, just a suggestion. It would hurt to wait a month or so only to get an answer to the question legal thought you wrote, not the question you wanted answered.
Click to expand...
As opposed to government regulations? :dunno:
 
From Bruce's link:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"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. "[/FONT]
Click to expand...

As for Ed's comment that the FAA does not write redundant regulations...these revisions are (I believe) relatively recent. Your confidence in the FAA's regulation writing ability is misplaced. And I say that as someone who has a hand in writing federal regulations. Expect that "it" will be corrected in the next revision cycle, assuming someone brings it to their attention - "it" being whatever the hell they meant to say in the first place, which I agree is not very clear at this point, whatever some of you HOPE it means. Read Bruce's link. It covers tax deductability but has some collateral information which seems to support Ron's opinion.
 
Last edited:
Ed Guthrie said:
Tim, I struggled through both of your prosposed "letters". Might be me, but my suggestion is that you simplify your question to what you wrote here. IOW, keep it simple and direct. YMMV, just a suggestion. It would hurt to wait a month or so only to get an answer to the question legal thought you wrote, not the question you wanted answered.
Click to expand...

You must have struggled, as there's only one proposed letter! I'm going to pull out the tax question, and send the rest, below. I think I'm clearly asking if a Private pilot can accept partial reimbursement under the terms in 91.146 without violating 61.113.
==========================================================
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 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. May the private pilot accept reimbursement up to $150.00 under 91.146(b)(7) 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
 
perhaps add to your "As an example" details that define the event as a charitable, non-profit or community event would be my only comment.
 
how's this?

As an example, assume a private pilot rents an airplane at a cost of $100.00 per hour, and gives sightseeing rides at a 91.146-compliant event for three hours of flight time, each ride with a single passenger. The private pilot’s costs for the flight(s) are $300.00. May the private pilot accept reimbursement up to $150.00 under 91.146(b)(7) without violating 61.113?
 
Ron Levy said:
I give up, Ed -- you tell me.
Click to expand...
Well, one decent speculation is that the FAA intended to code/allow the private pilot's IRS tax deduction for charity flying into the FARs.

However, whatever it's purpose might be, the intent definitely wasn't to provide a means for Part 135 or Part 91 sightseeing flights to legally charge for conducting a charity flight (your answer).
 
TMetzinger said:
You must have struggled, as there's only one proposed letter!
Click to expand...
What can I say? Bad week.

I'm going to pull out the tax question, and send the rest, below. I think I'm clearly asking if a Private pilot can accept partial reimbursement under the terms in 91.146 without violating 61.113.
==========================================================
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 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. May the private pilot accept reimbursement up to $150.00 under 91.146(b)(7) 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
Click to expand...
YMMV, again, but I would leave out the pro rata discussion, or simply ask what it means. My read is that it means pro rata of the annual aircraft operating cost (i.e. divide total direct costs by hours flown for charity/hours flown total), YMMV, but your question will get a simple "yes" when the answer you wanted was an explanation of what the boundaries might be, not approval for some specific example that falls well within bounds.
 
Can anyone help direct us to a place to look for "special chairity flights". I say special because we do not fit the traditional mode for charity medical fights. We either live too far or the treatment is not deemed appropriate.

This is the deal...our infant, Daniel, has Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) Type I. He has far exceeded doctors expectations. We feel it is partly do to the fact that we have taken him to the Dominican Republic twice for stem cell treatments that are not allowed in the US. Commerical air travel is becoming impossible.

We need to find a way to go once a month for the next six months. We feel that this will save his life.

If interested or if you have ANY ideas please contact us via our website at www.DanielsHope.com

Thank you!

Connie

P.S. My dad was a private pilot and I know he would have done whatever he could to help a child in need. Any ideas will be appreicated!
 
csacripant said:
Can anyone help direct us to a place to look for "special chairity flights". I say special because we do not fit the traditional mode for charity medical fights. We either live too far or the treatment is not deemed appropriate.

This is the deal...our infant, Daniel, has Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) Type I. He has far exceeded doctors expectations. We feel it is partly do to the fact that we have taken him to the Dominican Republic twice for stem cell treatments that are not allowed in the US. Commerical air travel is becoming impossible.

We need to find a way to go once a month for the next six months. We feel that this will save his life.

If interested or if you have ANY ideas please contact us via our website at www.DanielsHope.com

Thank you!

Connie

P.S. My dad was a private pilot and I know he would have done whatever he could to help a child in need. Any ideas will be appreicated!
Click to expand...
Check out Air Care Alliance (http://www.aircareall.org/). It's "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]a nationwide league of humanitarian flying organizations whose volunteer pilots are dedicated to community service. This site will introduce you to us and to all the groups we list whose volunteers perform public benefit flying for health care, patient transport, disaster relief, environmental support, and other missions of public service."[/FONT]

(I'll drop a note at your site too).
 
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...

And I did, and today I got a letter back from FAA Chief Counsel, saying that a private pilot may, indeed, be reimbursed for the pro rata cost of operating or renting an airplane for a charitable event under 91.146 without violating 61.113.

I asked if a private pilot rented an airplane for a 91.146 airlift, at a cost of $300, and gave three sightseeing rides each with one passenger, could he accept $150 reimbursement as pro rata share of the rental costs without running afoul of 61.113.

I've attached the PDF.
 

Attachments

  • Cheif Counsel opinion on reimbursement for charitable sightseeing rides.pdf
    778.8 KB · Views: 7
TMetzinger said:
They said "yes". see my post above
Click to expand...
Go figure the FAA opening the door on this -- I am amazed! However, it's going to be a big chunk out of the charity's take, and I'll bet they're reluctant to do it, because in most of those charity auctions, the winning bid is less than the value of the item.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top