Tricky question

Rebel Lord

Rebel Lord

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
581
Location
Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Rebel Lord
Say a guy got his ppl and his dad wants him to fly him on business trips. The son flys his dad on several business trips but never gets paid for it. BTW the plane is owned by the dad. The company the dad works for pays for all travel expenses and the cost of the operations of the airplane. All the son gets is lots of hours.

Is this A-Okay?
 
the faa might likely interpret this arrangement as flying for compensation... i was taught that, at best, the cost of the trip could be evenly split between those aboard the aircraft. given the scenario the son should be chipping in 50% of the expenses. in the real world he's likely to only have a pblm if he boasts abt the arrangement or if, thru an incident, his flight comes to the attention of the faa.
 
Would the FAA consider flying time as compensation if the pilot did not log it?
 
But the point is for the son to be able to build hours.
 
Technically illegal under all pretenses. But the FAA is not going to go after any such arrangement between family members, or long-time friends.

However, you have a 3rd party involved in the scenario (the company), and THAT can draw the attention and the ire of the FAA. Especially if the company squawks about anything.
 
To be legal, the son must show an equal need to be at the same place at the same time, and pay his prorate share.
 
Rebel Lord said:
But the point is for the son to be able to build hours.
Click to expand...

I'm just wondering if it would be ok if the son wasn't building time. I agree the time is compensation(as the FAA also states) and that this is not legal for a ppl, but just curious if the pilot did not care about flight time if it changes anything.
 
Why would the son want to fly,if he's not building hours. Who's going to bring it to the FAAs attention?
 
frfly172 said:
Why would the son want to fly,if he's not building hours. Who's going to bring it to the FAAs attention?
Click to expand...

Because he actually enjoys flying. Crazy concept I know.

If there wasn't a company involved I doubt anyone would bring it to the FAA's attention. With a company involved there could be someone.
 
Ok, take the company out of the equation. Just the son flying dad and dads plane to His meeting
 
Technically as a private pilot, you're required to pay YOUR share of the flight expenses. So if you have 4 people on the plane, you have to pay 25% of the cost. Anyone else can pay for the other 3 people on the plane, or they can each pay 25%.... but YOU, as a private pilot, are required to pay a minimum of your 25% share for that particular flight.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.113

Subsection C states:
(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.

So if it's his dad's plane and his dad is a passenger (company removed) he must pay for 50% of the flight, minimum.

If it's the company's plane, and he's carrying dad, he still has to pay 50% of the expenses.

Is the FAA gonna fang you for the dad's plane? Nope. Company plane? Probably not, unless something goes sideways. But you have your answer as far as legalities and technicalities are concerned.
 
Last edited:
Im just trying to undersand. A kid with no job and no money has to pay to fly his dads plane with dad.
 
Strictly speaking, yes. But like I said earlier the FAA is not going to interfere with a family relationship such as that
 
Your socioeconomic status is not at issue Rebel. Unless you pay your share, you are acting as an airline because you are delivering him to his destination in exchange for compensation, which in this case is not money, but flytime.
 
Just because you're not getting the answer you want doesn't make it any less of a violation.
 
Im probably going to talk to an aviation attorney soon. I actually work for my dads company but not for the company he works for although I have done work for them under contract before. If I help my dad out while under contract from our business does that make it ok?
 
Rebel Lord said:
does that make it ok?
Click to expand...

How much clearer can it be:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.113

Subsection C states:
(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.

No, it is NOT OK from a pure legal perspective.
 
YOU

NEED

A

COMMERCIAL

CERTIFICATE

FOR

WHAT

YOU

WANT

TO

DO.



Did I type it slow enough for you? I can quadruple or octuple space it if you need more time to process each word before the next one comes into your field of view.
 
EdFred said:
YOU

NEED

A

COMMERCIAL

CERTIFICATE

FOR

WHAT

YOU

WANT

TO

DO.



Did I type it slow enough for you? I can quadruple or octuple space it if you need more time to process each word before the next one comes into your field of view.
Click to expand...

No no. I get it.
 
Maybe the son was paying his share in cash after the flight, maybe dad was just blowing said cash before it made it to the bank?
 
Shawn said:
How much clearer can it be:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.113

Subsection C states:
(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.

No, it is NOT OK from a pure legal perspective.
Click to expand...

Random question. Parents can pay for their sons/daughters to take flight lessons, right? Does the FAA take a different stance on that? Probably not since flying a harrier doesn't count as flying an airplane. :)
 
Somedudeintn said:
Random question. Parents can pay for their sons/daughters to take flight lessons, right? Does the FAA take a different stance on that? Probably not since flying a harrier doesn't count as flying an airplane. :)
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this too. So if a kid passes their check ride they can't take their parents on a flight without paying their share for their first flight together.
 
Rebel Lord said:
I was thinking about this too. So if a kid passes their check ride they can't take their parents on a flight without paying their share for their first flight together.
Click to expand...

I guess the other question is whether there is ever FAA enforcement action taken in these cases.
 
Rebel Lord said:
I was thinking about this too. So if a kid passes their check ride they can't take their parents on a flight without paying their share for their first flight together.
Click to expand...

That is technically correct. Whether the FAA chooses to enforce that or not is a case by case enforcement issue. But it is STILL a violation of the FAR if the private pilot does not pay their share.

There is nothing in the regs that states that a STUDENT pilot has to pay their share of flight expenses.
 
ircphoenix said:
That is technically correct. Whether the FAA chooses to enforce that or not is a case by case enforcement issue. But it is STILL a violation of the FAR if the private pilot does not pay their share.

There is nothing in the regs that states that a STUDENT pilot has to pay their share of flight expenses.
Click to expand...
There is also nothing in the regs that says a father can't give his private-pilot son $xxx at the beginning of each month to pay for flying.
 
Somedudeintn said:
Would the FAA consider flying time as compensation if the pilot did not log it?
Click to expand...
logging flight time is needed, should anyone enquire, to show currency, to rent a plane at a new airport where you're not known, to work towards ratings, etc. as I said before it's doubtful this will ever be a problem for you unless the company that owns the plane has an issue and talks to the FAA or an incident occurs on a specific flight that brings the flight to the attention of the FAA and district FSDO. in that situation one of the first things the inspector is going to request is your logbook. if you haven't logged any of these flights the insp. is going to ask about currency in order to carry passengers. they will know that the plane is owned by a company and when they are asked why you were flying the plane (assuming they know you're flying the plane) that will open a whole new line of questions. you can always plead ignorance or ask forgiveness but I would not want to try to explain to the FSDO why Iwas not logging my hours. and the worst thing to do is lie to the FSDO inspector. if you want to be legal get your commercial ticket. otherwise log all of your hours as XC between X and Y (assuming the trip qualifies as XC time), keep your head down and good luck.
 
frfly172 said:
Why would the son want to fly,if he's not building hours. Who's going to bring it to the FAAs attention?
Click to expand...
nobody unless the company asks the FAA some innocent question about the arrangement or there is an incident on a specific flight that brings that flight to the attention of the FAA.
 
Somedudeintn said:
Random question. Parents can pay for their sons/daughters to take flight lessons, right? Does the FAA take a different stance on that?.
Click to expand...

Regulation states "Private Pilot must pay no less...". Even though you are accumulating hours, you are not a "Private Pilot" till after your checkride. Question might be more applicable if parents pay for IFR training.

...but let's be realistic. No one is gonna bust a PPL or IFR pilot for their parents or best friend paying for the expenses of the flight...FAA is not monitoring whose card was swiped at the self serve island....that is not the intent of the regulation. The intent of the regulation is exactly what the OP is proposing...having the company pay for the full expenses to fly his Dad for business.
 
James331 said:
Maybe the son was paying his share in cash after the flight, maybe dad was just blowing said cash before it made it to the bank?
Click to expand...

Yes yes this sounds to me the most reasonable explanation
 
Ok heres another situation. A husband and wife. Husband is pilot wife is passenger. Wife has a business meeting in anytown USA and the husband flies her there so they can spend time togehter. Wife pays for the flight. Lock pilot up and throw away the key?
 
Bro.....

What exactly are you not understanding?

Per the regs.... THE PRIVATE PILOT HAS TO PAY THEIR PRO RATA SHARE FOR FLIGHT EXPENSES. PERIOD. Unless you fit one of the other criteria in the regs that were linked. So YES. He is TECHNICALLY and LEGALLY in violation of the FAR. You can "what if?" it to death. But the regs are the regs. IF nothing.

Is the FAA going to go after the husband in that situation for the wife paying? No. Though technically, since they're married, the money is community property and he DID pay for half of the flight.

Can the wife's company pay the husband 1000 dollars to fly her there? No. Can they pay him 500? No. Can they pay him 1 dollar? No. Can they pay his portion of the flight? No. Can they pay for her portion of the flight? Yes. Can the passenger (wife) pay for 100% of the flight? No.

Ask the question a thousand different ways, and you're STILL not going to get the answer you want.
 
:rolleyes: I understand it fully. I just like asking questions for fun even if I know the answer.
 
And bear in mind, this applies to business AND pleasure flights. So if you're taking 3 buddies to get a burger, 1 buddy can pay for 75% of the flight, or everyone can pay their 25%. But you're responsible for 25% minimum.

He can buy you a burger and beverage (non-alcoholic) of your choosing wherever you go though.
 
ircphoenix said:
And bear in mind, this applies to business AND pleasure flights. So if you're taking 3 buddies to get a burger, 1 buddy can pay for 75% of the flight, or everyone can pay their 25%. But you're responsible for 25% minimum.

He can buy you a burger and beverage (non-alcoholic) of your choosing wherever you go though.
Click to expand...

Right ok heres another question, since parents can pay for their kids flight training, can a parent or any third party for that matter still pay for the operation of a plane if there are no other passengers or the person paying is not a passenger

61.113C says the pro rata share only needs to be split with passengers. Say I want to take my girlfriend up so I go to my dads hangar where he has already payed for fuel. Neither I or my girlfriend pay and its a pleasure trip. Is this ok?
 
Rebel Lord said:
61.113C says the pro rata share only needs to be split with passengers. Say I want to take my girlfriend up so I go to my dads hangar where he has already payed for fuel. Neither I or my girlfriend pay and its a pleasure trip. Is this ok?
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Lindberg said:
There is also nothing in the regs that says a father can't give his private-pilot son $xxx at the beginning of each month to pay for flying.
Click to expand...
There is also nothing prohibiting Dad from paying for flight time WITHOUT passengers. An instructor is not a passenger.
 
MAKG1 said:
There is also nothing prohibiting Dad from paying for flight time WITHOUT passengers. An instructor is not a passenger.
Click to expand...
Yes there is. 61.113(a) "...nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft". The FAA considers logging time to be compensation because it is the receipt of something of value.

Are they going to come after the pilot for it? Barring some exceptional circumstance, I highly doubt it.
 
Rebel Lord said:
Right ok heres another question, since parents can pay for their kids flight training, can a parent or any third party for that matter still pay for the operation of a plane if there are no other passengers or the person paying is not a passenger

61.113C says the pro rata share only needs to be split with passengers. Say I want to take my girlfriend up so I go to my dads hangar where he has already payed for fuel. Neither I or my girlfriend pay and its a pleasure trip. Is this ok?
Click to expand...


No. Subsection C says:

"(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."

So the flight with the girlfriend is a flight that has a passenger. Therefore you are responsible for at least 50% of the costs of the flight. That means 50% of the fuel consumed, 50% of any landing/ramp fees, 50% of the oil consumed. ANYONE can pay for your girlfriend's 50%. But, according to the regs, YOU need to pay your 50%. The reg doesn't say anything about splitting the costs only with people who are on the plane. Or that the passenger on the plane is necessarily responsible for ANY costs.

(c) says EXACTLY what it says. That YOU are responsible for YOUR pro rata share AT MINIMUM. Which in the case of a plane occupied by the private pilot and 1 passenger means you are responsible for 50% of the flight.

So if it is you in your private jet and it is you and your closest 19 friends going from LA to Cleveland for a pizza, you are responsible for, at minimum 1/20th of the costs of that flight. If ONE of the passengers wants to pay for the other 19 people on the plane, that's fine. But, YOU are still responsible for YOUR share.

Now, that being said, I have ZERO clue if there is a reg specifying how many people a private pilot can fly around. I do know, however, that barring any other reg, that private pilot would still be responsible for 1/20th of the expense of that flight.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top