Pro rata share in personal plane? Time building for CPL

N

Nick P

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 2, 2021
Messages
30
Display Name
Display name:
Nick001
A CFII recently posted in a local Facebook flying group that he has a Cessna 150 that he would offer for time building. He will not provide instruction, will fly with you as the safety pilot, and wants $50/hr wet for the plane. His goal is to build time as well.

As a recent IR student now looking to build time for my CPL this is tempting. However, I am unsure if this is allowed as I am paying more than the pro rata share? I am finding this to be a grey area with no clear answer.
 
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
Oh yeah. This is going to get good.

one can argue that he is paying his pro rata share of plane right? Charging 100 dollars wet and you paying 50 of that. the legalities of the time building will be more interesting to met out.
 
As I understand it.... We can both log PIC as long as several conditions are met.
- The safety pilot is the agreed upon PIC before flight.
- The safety pilot only logs time when the other pilot is under the hood.
- Only one pilot can log XC time (The pilot who landed the plane >50 nm away)

its very straight forward when renting from a school as the cost of the rental are just split. But there is a grey area in this case.
 
Nick P said:
A CFII recently posted in a local Facebook flying group that he has a Cessna 150 that he would offer for time building. He will not provide instruction, will fly with you as the safety pilot, and wants $50/hr wet for the plane. His goal is to build time as well.

As a recent IR student now looking to build time for my CPL this is tempting. However, I am unsure if this is allowed as I am paying more than the pro rata share? I am finding this to be a grey area with no clear answer.
Click to expand...
What do you believe the issue is with this arrangement?
 
jayhawk74 said:
Unless you are under the hood there is no need for a safety pilot in a 150
Click to expand...
He will only offer the plane at that rate if he flies with you so he can log time as well.
 
benyflyguy said:
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
Oh yeah. This is going to get good.

one can argue that he is paying his pro rata share of plane right? Charging 100 dollars wet and you paying 50 of that. the legalities of the time building will be more interesting to met out.
Click to expand...
Why does the CFI have to pay anything?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Your pro-rata share is the minimum you must pay. There is no maximum.
Click to expand...
And that only applies to flights with passengers, which this isn't because neither an instructor nor a safety pilot is a passenger.
§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
. . .
(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that $50/hr is a lot more than half of the operating expenses of a 150, even if you didn't consider that to be 100% of the rental fee (which is what it is).

The PPL oral should have covered the privileges and limitations of that certificate. The CPL oral likely will....
 
Why isn't the CFII just calling it instruction and sidestepping any pro-rata issue altogether? Why not just say the rental rate is x and you're sharing time? There have to be a dozen different ways to do this and not be in violation of anything.

I'm sure people who love to argue the minutia of regs will be along but my better question is why aren't you just flying with an instructor, handing him his $50, and not posting it on the internet for someone to make an issue of?
 
Could he not provide instruction during the flight? It wouldn't have to be hardcore instruction, maybe just cross county tips and facts, then you could both log all the time?
 
He may not be an instructor, and if he is a CFII and providing instruction in his plane, his insurance costs just increased 7-fold.
 
Topper said:
Could he not provide instruction during the flight? It wouldn't have to be hardcore instruction, maybe just cross county tips and facts, then you could both log all the time?
Click to expand...
This seems like the best way to handle it. However, I'm not sure of the insurance requirements and 100 hr inspection requirements that would be required. This may be why he stated he wouldn't be providing instruction?
 
Nick P said:
This seems like the best way to handle it. However, I'm not sure of the insurance requirements and 100 hr inspection requirements that would be required. This may be why he stated he wouldn't be providing instruction?
Click to expand...

That was my first thought, he is trying to avoid the 100 hour requirement and cost of insurance to be using his own aircraft for instruction. May also be some contractual issues at play in the background.
 
Nick P said:
This seems like the best way to handle it. However, I'm not sure of the insurance requirements and 100 hr inspection requirements that would be required. This may be why he stated he wouldn't be providing instruction?
Click to expand...
You're studying to be a commercial pilot. You will be tested on these regulations.
 
It’s just two friends going flying and sharing the expense.
 
I vote "not kosher".

They way I read the OP's scenario, Pilot A is the owner of the airplane, and is charging Pilot B $50/hour to fly, but with Pilot A on board and acting as PIC. The "pro rata share" thing applies to direct expenses of that particular flight, like fuel and parking, or rental cost if it's a rental.
But this is *not* a rental, where some third party is charging Pilot A (who will be acting PIC) $100/hour. Pilot A (the owner) is *not* allowed to come up with a dollar value on "the contribution towards the maintenance/insurance fund" for the airplane and say that that is the "cost" and then split it halfway with Pilot B.

Pilot A could rent his airplane to Pilot B as PIC, and charge whatever he wants if he is not also on board (and if his insurance company is OK with this, etc.). But it sounds like Pilot A is trying to have his cake (be PIC and build hours) and eat it too (be able to charge for rental).

It quacks like a duck.
 
Nick P said:
A CFII recently posted in a local Facebook flying group that he has a Cessna 150 that he would offer for time building. He will not provide instruction, will fly with you as the safety pilot, and wants $50/hr wet for the plane. His goal is to build time as well.

As a recent IR student now looking to build time for my CPL this is tempting. However, I am unsure if this is allowed as I am paying more than the pro rata share? I am finding this to be a grey area with no clear answer.
Click to expand...

You'll probably be ok, but the CFII is pretty dumb doing this. In case of an accident, both the FAA and the insurance company will look into if the CFI was "renting" his airplane without proper insurance or 100 hour inspections.
 
Rgbeard said:
You've got the chance to fly a $50/hr airplane WET, and you're being critical?

SRSLY?
Click to expand...
Just when I think I’ve seen it all… I have been schooled yet again. <mind blown>
 
sarangan said:
You'll probably be ok, but the CFII is pretty dumb doing this. In case of an accident, both the FAA and the insurance company will look into if the CFI was "renting" his airplane without proper insurance or 100 hour inspections.
Click to expand...
I'd say the insurance is the bigger issue... since chances are the plane won't fly enough between annuals to meet 100 hours, but yeah.
 
kath said:
I vote "not kosher".

They way I read the OP's scenario, Pilot A is the owner of the airplane, and is charging Pilot B $50/hour to fly, but with Pilot A on board and acting as PIC. The "pro rata share" thing applies to direct expenses of that particular flight, like fuel and parking, or rental cost if it's a rental.
But this is *not* a rental, where some third party is charging Pilot A (who will be acting PIC) $100/hour. Pilot A (the owner) is *not* allowed to come up with a dollar value on "the contribution towards the maintenance/insurance fund" for the airplane and say that that is the "cost" and then split it halfway with Pilot B.
Click to expand...
Why not; what regulation does this violate?
 
Lindberg said:
Why not; what regulation does this violate?
Click to expand...
A useful link -- old, but still useful:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2007/march/flight-training-magazine/legal-briefing

Highlights, for those who don't want to read the whole thing:
---------------------
FAR 61.113(c) states, "A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees."...

...Only those out-of-pocket costs for the single flight can be shared. With a rented aircraft, the expenses incurred are directly based on the receipts collected at the end of the day--the rental, the fuel, any airport fees. Those expenses may be split evenly amongst the number of passengers, and the monies received by the pilot are appropriate. For the pilot who owns the aircraft that is being flown, then the shared expenses are limited to the direct costs incurred that day--fuel, oil, landing fees--and the pilot may not allocate a cost for indirect costs of owning the aircraft such as maintenance, hangar or tiedown fees, insurance, loan payments or interest on financing, and the like.

...However, a pilot may not share the expenses of a private flight with the passengers if the pilot's purpose is merely to build flight time or get flight instruction."
-----------------------
 
Nick P said:
This seems like the best way to handle it. However, I'm not sure of the insurance requirements and 100 hr inspection requirements that would be required. This may be why he stated he wouldn't be providing instruction?
Click to expand...

I can't speak to his insurance requirements, but if the annual inspection on his airplane was less than 100 hours ago, he's good to go on the required inspection.
 
I see this as ok.
First the rental- any owner can rent to any pilot. I don’t know of any faa requirements. Maybe 100 hour inspections but the flight isn’t commercial. Pilot is responsible for airworthiness. Insurance co may have issues.
Safety pilot- Owner hops in and the pilot is under the hood. Owner gets pic for that time. Owner gets less than 100% of the flight time, it’s not his flight it’s the pilots.
 
manac said:
I see this as ok.
First the rental- any owner can rent to any pilot. I don’t know of any faa requirements. Maybe 100 hour inspections but the flight isn’t commercial. Pilot is responsible for airworthiness. Insurance co may have issues.
Safety pilot- Owner hops in and the pilot is under the hood. Owner gets pic for that time. Owner gets less than 100% of the flight time, it’s not his flight it’s the pilots.
Click to expand...

The owner can't have it both ways. Either:
a) it's the owner's flight -- he's acting PIC which is how he can log PIC while the other guy is flying under the hood, but he cannot charge for "rental" beyond pro-rata for the day, or
b) it's the renter's flight -- in which case the owner *can* charge rent, but the owner cannot be (or log) PIC, he is merely a passenger or SIC safety pilot along for the ride.
It can't be both at once.


Edit: this discussion underscores how important it is that whenever two pilots fly together, they both understand and agree on "who is serving as PIC" and all that implies!

Or,
c) it's flight instruction, which is a different scenario entirely
 
Last edited:
kath said:
A useful link -- old, but still useful:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2007/march/flight-training-magazine/legal-briefing

Highlights, for those who don't want to read the whole thing:
---------------------
FAR 61.113(c) states, "A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees."...

...Only those out-of-pocket costs for the single flight can be shared. With a rented aircraft, the expenses incurred are directly based on the receipts collected at the end of the day--the rental, the fuel, any airport fees. Those expenses may be split evenly amongst the number of passengers, and the monies received by the pilot are appropriate. For the pilot who owns the aircraft that is being flown, then the shared expenses are limited to the direct costs incurred that day--fuel, oil, landing fees--and the pilot may not allocate a cost for indirect costs of owning the aircraft such as maintenance, hangar or tiedown fees, insurance, loan payments or interest on financing, and the like.

...However, a pilot may not share the expenses of a private flight with the passengers if the pilot's purpose is merely to build flight time or get flight instruction."
-----------------------
Click to expand...
That's the reg I quoted earlier in the thread. I'd say it doesn't apply for at least two reasons: First, there's no passengers here. Second, it's highly doubtful $50/hr is less than half the operating expenses of a 150. I'd guess it's 100+%. My all-in cost on a 170 is $65/hr, including maintenance reserve.
 
kath said:
a) it's the owner's flight -- he's acting PIC which is how he can log PIC while the other guy is flying under the hood, but he cannot charge for "rental" beyond pro-rata for the day, or
b) it's the renter's flight -- in which case the owner *can* charge rent, but the owner cannot be (or log) PIC, he is merely a passenger or SIC safety pilot along for the ride.
It can't be both at once.
Click to expand...
Why does a renter have to be PIC? And even if that were true, why couldn't the PIC owner charge more than pro rata (half) the operating costs?
 
If you are doing the flying, you are good to log it. You are not responsible for what the other guy puts in his logbook.
 
Dave Theisen said:
If you are doing the flying, you are good to log it. You are not responsible for what the other guy puts in his logbook.
Click to expand...

This. And it's his plane, he can rent it to whomever he wants, it's between him and his insurance company. If he has one. You may want to have a non-owned policy, though, if you're flying it. Now will you get dinged if he doesn't have the 100hr inspection for commercial use? I don't think so, if he's claiming to be PIC, but not sure.

I'd be more concerned about condition and maintenance of the plane. Oh, and to make sure the guy actually has a valid certificate and medical, so you aren't flying without a real safety pilot.
 
Nick P said:
He will only offer the plane at that rate if he flies with you so he can log time as well.
Click to expand...

One might think a CFI would know the regs.

61.51. (3) A certificated flight instructor may log pilot in command flight time for all flight time while serving as the authorized instructor in an operation if the instructor is rated to act as pilot in command of that aircraft.

61.189. a) A flight instructor must sign the logbook of each person to whom that instructor has given flight training or ground training

He isn’t permitted to just ride and log time.
 
Last edited:
I can see some insurance issues for the CFI (which is probably one reason why he doesn't want to call it instruction; another would be avoiding 100 hour inspections), and my imagination can probably come up with one or two others. But like @Lindberg, based solely on what's given, I really don't see the pro rata issue, just a cheap rental.
 
Last edited:
kath
“The owner can't have it both ways. Either:
a) it's the owner's flight -- he's acting PIC which is how he can log PIC while the other guy is flying under the hood, but he cannot charge for "rental" beyond pro-rata for the day, or
b) it's the renter's flight -- in which case the owner *can* charge rent, but the owner cannot be (or log) PIC, he is merely a passenger or SIC safety pilot along for the ride.
It can't be both at once.”

It’s never a safety pilot’s flight. You just sit there making sure the greasy side stays down and you don’t hit anything.
As a safety pilot your not the one flying the plane, you don’t touch the controls, you have no direct control.
The safety pilot is never really pic, there’s just a clause in the regs to let you log it as pic.
 
manac said:
It’s never a safety pilot’s flight. You just sit there making sure the greasy side stays down and you don’t hit anything.
As a safety pilot your not the one flying the plane, you don’t touch the controls, you have no direct control.
The safety pilot is never really pic, there’s just a clause in the regs to let you log it as pic.
Click to expand...

So, so, so, so incorrect. It's so incorrect it's like incorrect to the power of incorrect.

Example (one of many possible):
Pilot A owns a retract/hp plane.
Pilot B flies under the hood but has no endorsements to fly HP/retract.
Pilot A is the safety pilot - and also PIC.
 
We're talking a 150 here.
 
manac said:
The safety pilot is never really pic, there’s just a clause in the regs to let you log it as pic.
Click to expand...
This is a commonly held misconception.
Yes, there is a slippery clause in the regs under which a safety pilot can log PIC... But not just whenever you want.
...Not because you're safety pilot and any safety pilot can do this by definition.
...Not because you're rated in the aircraft category and class (like "normal" PIC logging)
...Not because you OWN the aircraft.
You can only do it if you are actually acting as PIC for the flight while the other person is under the hood. And the owner can absolutely do this, if he's qualified to do so and both pilots agree that this is how the flight will be conducted. One person has to act as the final authority on safety, and it's important to decide who.

...but *if* it's the owner, that means he's exercising his private pilot privileges, which means the "pro rata" rules apply to him, and he can only charge you half of *that flight's direct expenses*. NOT half of the overall operating expenses. (see the AOPA article)

A private pilot owner can't take an arbitrary amount of money from anyone for a flight and then claim, "that wasn't a commercial operation, that was just a rental of the aircraft with me also sitting in it." Not if he's also exercising pilot privileges in it and logging time.

Edit: A commercial certificate doesn't let him do this either.
 
Last edited:
Remember that your goal is having the DPE, FAA, etc. credit your hours for your CPL.

A key question to answer is - regardless if this is within the rules - is the money you save worth the very real risk of having it blow up?

By that, I offer that there is a decent chance that - even if technically you're in the rules - that the DPE won't sign off / accept because we're in this gray area. What if the FAA comes after you as well as going after the other guy for cooking the books? What if you bend some metal, and the insurance company abandons coverage, and you're exposed? After a lot of money, time and pain, you may or may not prove you're within the rules.

IMHO, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top