Private Pilot Moving an Airplane?

Status
Not open for further replies.
frfly172 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ron Levy said:
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?
Click to expand...

Gosh, Ron, your google fu must really suck. I googled "FAA Hancock Letter" and there it was!

Although, from what I read, I don't think it backs up Ed's opinion.

EDIT: Actually, now that I re-read what Ed said, yes...yes it does back up his opinion.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Exactly! If you look hard enough there is probably an FAR against flying, period. :mad2: I would not heistate to do a buddy a favor and move his airplane for him, I would not take money, nor would I take paying passengers, but lots of planes are moved everyday by private pilots. :D

frfly172 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
kgruber said:
Get your commercial. Then the owner can pay you to fly his airplane.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Z06_Mir said:
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.
Click to expand...

All is good until the OP prangs something. I probably wouldn't hesitate to do it myself but according to the Hancock letter it's illegal even if the pilot pays for the direct costs.

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
Click to expand...

In this case the pilot is ferrying the plane so it's not allowed regardless of how much he pays himself.

Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
 
Last edited:
NJP_MAN said:
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.
Click to expand...

That does not fit the facts that have been presented.
 
Ron Levy said:
But if the OP is doing the flying, the OP has to pay for the flight time.
Click to expand...

This part I disagree with. The regulation says he cannot act as PIC. It doesn't say he can't fly. It doesn't even say he can't log PIC under the sole manipulator clause.

Of course, someone has to be PIC, which means the owner, if along, must be current and all that.
 
Ron Levy said:
Nice link to the AGC-200 web site. How about one to the actual case you are discussing?
Click to expand...

Sure, as soon you as you show me where the FAA said that baby backpacks are a restraining device under 91.107.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
That does not fit the facts that have been presented.
Click to expand...

I worded the post incorrectly. The owner wants to cover the costs to move his plane. However I doubt that he wants to pay money to the pilot for doing the repo for pilot services.
 
EdFred said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey, that's exactly what the Hancock letter said! (but you knew that).

:goofy:
 
timwinters said:
Hey, that's exactly what the Hancock letter said! (but you knew that).

:goofy:
Click to expand...

And I don't even have 40 plus years of flying experience to trot out in an attempt to back me up when I'm wrong!!
 
Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Did Rosa Parks have integrity? Cause she broke the heck out of the rules.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well, that is the whole point. The owner will not be in the plane.
Click to expand...

It begs a slightly different set of circumstances, which may or may not change the equation.

"We're going to fly together to this remote airport, using a borrowed airplane. We're going to have lunch, then I'm flying on alone somewhere else. Here's the keys to my plane conveniently parked there so you can get back."

That may not pass the duck test, but it does seem to cover what the literal regulation says.

I considered such an arrangement (and the owner was a CFII, so some instruction could be going on, too), but I ultimately didn't do it. The aircraft in question had a ferry permit due to an engine plate that fell off (!), and it's actually an airplane I'd like some more time in, and at a place I like visiting. Even if it was technically unairworthy because the engine might have transformed into something else since the last annual, without anyone realizing it.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
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.
Click to expand...

Like it or not, however, legally Ron is right.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
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.
Click to expand...

You anti-authority cowboy, you are going to ruin it for everyone with your reckless ways.:rolleyes2::D
 
Wasn't there an article on this in a recent Sport Aviation issue?

He did not get into the details on the monetary aspects but essentially one friend of his in Florida was selling his plane to another friend of his in Wisconsin. They made the agreement for the writer to fly the plane from Florida back to Wisconsin.

Case and point being it has been done it will continue to be done and there appears to be a way to do it legal or not. It is a calculated risk.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Like it or not, however, legally Ron is right.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Get insured to fly the plane.

Fly the plane. You cover all expenses and keep proof.

Your buddy gifts you money later. All legal. Be sure he writes 'gift' on the check if it's a check.
 
You could've saved a lot of trouble by using the search function on this forum or any decent web browser. This question has been answered time and time again. :mad2:
 
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.
 
Oooooooooo, regulations! Yes!

fapfapfap_zps01f12930.gif
 
Last edited:
I've posted about this transgression befire, but it might be relevant here.

There was a time I was going to visit my sister in north Texas from our home in Illinois. One of my daughters asked if I could drop her off at her cousin's in central kansas. There was no common purporse, the kansas stop was an hour out of the way and I had no need to go there that weekend. As we were nearing the end of her leg of the flight, my daughter was having a snack. She said "thanks for bringing me to Cami's, would you like some of my M&M's ?"

It's pretty clear that the M&M's were intended as payment for the trip, and I'm ashamed to say that I took a couple of those M&M's and ate them on the spot.
 
timwinters said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
txflyer said:
Get insured to fly the plane.

Fly the plane. You cover all expenses and keep proof.
Click to expand...
Good so far.

Your buddy gifts you money later. All legal. Be sure he writes 'gift' on the check if it's a check.
Click to expand...
The duck's quacking will be heard all the way to 800 Independence Avenue if you get caught pulling that stunt.
 
TommyG said:
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.
Click to expand...
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."
 
timwinters said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really? Where does it say that? And see Ron's post in #69.
 
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.
 
EdFred said:
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.
Click to expand...

So they said it was legal?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Try to keep up, Ron, I already cited what prohibits it in post #49

Greg Bockelman said:
Really? Where does it say that? And see Ron's post in #69.
Click to expand...

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:"

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
Click to expand...

HERE is a link to the entire letter if you're so inclined.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Last I know, it is still legal to borrow someones plane. Of course we can do away with that legality if people continue to send inane hypotheticals to the chief counsel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top