poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Nice link to the AGC-200 web site. How about one to the actual case you are discussing?
Nice link to the AGC-200 web site. How about one to the actual case you are discussing?
I've searched the FAA site, and can't find a "Hancock" letter with the word "otherwise" in it. Got some context for your comment?Hancock letter says otherwise.
Fine advice as long as you pay the cost of the flight. Bad advice if you accept any compensation unless that word "integrity" has no meaning to you.Fly the airplane ,log the time. The examiner , when he checks your log book ,doesn't ask if the plane was rented,or who owned it. Leave the remarks section blank.
I've searched the FAA site, and can't find a "Hancock" letter with the word "otherwise" in it. Got some context for your comment?
Fly the airplane ,log the time. The examiner , when he checks your log book ,doesn't ask if the plane was rented,or who owned it. Leave the remarks section blank.
Get your commercial. Then the owner can pay you to fly his airplane.
I can't believe people actually ask these questions. You're flying an airplane from city A to city B. You don't need to report to the feds who paid for the fuel.
An item of value is not compensation under the regulations, however, unless the pilot's receipt of it.is contingent upon the pilot acting as pilot in command of an aircraft. If you loan your aircraft to a private pilot who pays the expenses associated with the operation of the flight (e.g. fuel) and you are placing no obligation on the pilot (e.g. ferrying your aircraft to a specific location) , then it is unlikely that the private pilot would be considered to be acting as pilot in command of an aircraft for compensation or hire
Yes <it's legal>, provided...
...you pay all your expenses, including the direct cost of the flight (mainly the fuel).
Legally, your friend can't pay you anything at all. Nothing. Zip, zilch, nada, nil.
Sure -- as long as you pay all your own expenses including the direct cost of the flight as defined in 14 CFR 61.113(c) ("fuel, oil, airport expenditures", the latter being things like landing and parking fees). Anything else would be a quid pro quo in return for your providing this valuable service in violation of that section of the regulations.
The problem is, the owner doesn't want to pay. He wants to utilize a private pilot's eagerness to build time and fly free. At least I think that's his thought process.
But if the OP is doing the flying, the OP has to pay for the flight time.
Nice link to the AGC-200 web site. How about one to the actual case you are discussing?
That does not fit the facts that have been presented.
Of course, someone has to be PIC, which means the owner, if along, must be current and all that.
Quid Pro Quo.
There's a difference between, "Hey, here's the keys to my plane, fly it whenever or wherever you want," and "I need you to fly my plane from ABC to XYZ." The former is legal, the latter is not with only a private.
Of course that's only if someone complains to the FAA.
Hey, that's exactly what the Hancock letter said! (but you knew that).
Did Rosa Parks have integrity? Cause she broke the heck out of the rules.Fine advice as long as you pay the cost of the flight. Bad advice if you accept any compensation unless that word "integrity" has no meaning to you.
Well, that is the whole point. The owner will not be in the plane.
Is your question whether or not it's legal, or whether or not you'll get in trouble? There is absolutely no question that it's not legal for you to make this flight if you receive any compensation whatsoever, or if you do not pay the direct cost of the flight entirely by yourself. OTOH, if you're asking whether you can get away with it, I suppose that depends on whether someone who cares about it finds out -- and that's beyond your control.
You have a clear choice here. You can decide that you'll play by the rules of aviation, or you can decide that you're only going to obey those rules when you think you'd get in trouble if you didn't. The operative word is "integrity" -- do you have it, or not?
Moving airplanes for others for compensation and expenses has gone on for YEARS! With only an ppl. It has nothing to do with" integrity" and everything to do with reality and common sense. To me it's no different from moving a car for someone. Some of these threads get wayyyy out in the weeds.
Moving airplanes for others for compensation and expenses has gone on for YEARS! With only an ppl. It has nothing to do with" integrity" and everything to do with reality and common sense. To me it's no different from moving a car for someone. Some of these threads get wayyyy out in the weeds.
Like it or not, however, legally Ron is right.
What regulation/interpretation do you think prohibits that? I know the rules pretty well, and absent a business relationship with the other party, I can't think of one which prohibits giving away your pilot services at your own expense with nothing in return.Ummm, no he's not.
He said the OP can move the plane if he pays the hard costs and, no, the OP can't do even that.
Good so far.Get insured to fly the plane.
Fly the plane. You cover all expenses and keep proof.
The duck's quacking will be heard all the way to 800 Independence Avenue if you get caught pulling that stunt.Your buddy gifts you money later. All legal. Be sure he writes 'gift' on the check if it's a check.
The FAA Chief Counsel said in the Bobertz memo that "accrual of flight time is compensation, and the FAA does not enter into a case-by-case analysis to determine whether the logging of flight time is of value to a particular pilot."OK a hypothetical situation. Say I am a PP with around 1000 hours, I'm not exactly sure because I don't log every hour I fly, just what is needed for currency. I have no intention of getting more licenses and no interest of ever flying for a job. Now if if flight hours are deemed compensation, how is it compensation to me? I don't need really need them. Having an extra 2 hours flight doesn't benefit me.
Ummm, no he's not.
He said the OP can move the plane if he pays the hard costs and, no, the OP can't do even that.
Again, that's not to say I wouldn't do it without a second though, just that it's not legal to do.
I don't know if the FAA views a married couple as a single entity or not. But there was a case a while back where sharing expenses between a married couple (one on business, one riding along) was ruled pretty much the opposite of what you think it should be.
Try to keep up, Ron, I already cited what prohibits it in post #49What regulation/interpretation do you think prohibits that? I know the rules pretty well, and absent a business relationship with the other party, I can't think of one which prohibits giving away your pilot services at your own expense with nothing in return.
Really? Where does it say that? And see Ron's post in #69.
An item of value is not compensation under the regulations, however, unless the pilot's receipt of it.is contingent upon the pilot acting as pilot in command of an aircraft. If you loan your aircraft to a private pilot who pays the expenses associated with the operation of the flight (e.g. fuel) and you are placing no obligation on the pilot (e.g. ferrying your aircraft to a specific location) , then it is unlikely that the private pilot would be considered to be acting as pilot in command of an aircraft for compensation or hire
If you read that answer in context, you'll see that the question it answers references an existing business relationship, and the answer references goodwill, which exists as compensation only when there is a business relationship. If you read my answers, you'll see that I specifically stated that there cannot be a business relationship between the pilot and the aircraft owner for this plan to be legal. Read what it says in Administrator v. Derkazarian and Administrator v. Murray (the compensation Murray, not the traffic pattern Murray) for more on that issue.Try to keep up, Ron, I already cited what prohibits it in post #49
Again, you and Ron should really read my post #49 which directly quotes the Hancock Letter that Ed cited. That letter seems to state that a private pilot can never act as a ferry pilot even if he's paying the expenses.
To paraphrase Ron..."And The Chief Counsel Says:"
HERE is a link to the entire letter if you're so inclined.
Unless you bend the plane or blabber about it, nobody (including the FAA) will care whether you filled up at the destination. You borrowed someones plane, you flew from A to B, nothing more to it. Make sure you have insurance.
IIRC, the question was about the legality, not the chances of getting in trouble. The two answers are quite different, and I chose to answer only the question asked.Unless you bend the plane or blabber about it, nobody (including the FAA) will care whether you filled up at the destination. You borrowed someones plane, you flew from A to B, nothing more to it. Make sure you have insurance.
IIRC, the question was about the legality, not the chances of getting in trouble. The two answers are quite different, and I chose to answer only the question asked.
Last I know, it is still legal to borrow someones plane.