Tricky question

Ok, take it a step further. Pilot owns the airplane and pays for the entire cost of the trip. Said girlfriend flies with the pilot. Girlfriend provides compensation in the form of companionship for our lonely pilot who only knows POA pickup lines for the bars. Girlfriend also provides unspecified compensation before and/or after the flight.

The pilot is flying and despite paying all the costs, is receiving additional compensation, in certain states valued at more than the cost of the flight. Yup, it's official. 61.113 means a private pilot can never have a passenger.
 
bflynn said:
Ok, take it a step further. Pilot owns the airplane and pays for the entire cost of the trip. Said girlfriend flies with the pilot. Girlfriend provides compensation in the form of companionship for our lonely pilot who only knows POA pickup lines for the bars. Girlfriend also provides unspecified compensation before and/or after the flight.

The pilot is flying and despite paying all the costs, is receiving additional compensation, in certain states valued at more than the cost of the flight. Yup, it's official. 61.113 means a private pilot can never have a passenger.
Click to expand...
Have you seen fuel prices lately? No way that unspecified compensation provided gets you ahead of fuel costs.
 
Rebel Lord said:
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?
Click to expand...

Say my sister's husband's father-in-law owns an airplane. Can my father fly around in it for free if I have a commercial rating?
 
What if I fly my brother-in-law's show goat around to compete in state fairs. I'm not paying anything but the goat isn't a passenger so that's ok, right?
Now what if I get paid but the goat eats his share of the money, still cool?

Forgot to mention: the plane is owned by some guy name Karl who left his hangar unlocked. So technically he's paying all the expenses. I don't know if he has a commercial rating.
Karl and I aren't related, but if it helps, I feel like we're sky brothers because we've flown the same plane.
 
Sorry, got caught up in the moment.

If you have a commercial rating, the company can pay you to be the pilot in a plane they provide. I think that's only way you can legally doing what you want to do. The rules are more or less designed to prevent a private pilot from doing this. Any loophole you find is gong to be questionable, at best. If the FAA does get involved for whatever reason, they are almost certainly going to see it as a commercial operation despite whatever argument you might make to the contrary. If it doesn't clearly fit into one of the scenarios in 61.113(b)-(h) you can't do it. As far as I can tell, none of those scenarios applies in this case.
 
If there was no business tie-in, the FAA isn't going to care that a kid flies his (grand)parent(s) around.
 
Lachlan said:
Say my sister's husband's father-in-law owns an airplane. Can my father fly around in it for free if I have a commercial rating?
Click to expand...

Yes. That is in .113(x). It's written in invisible ink in the margin of the page, backwards, and in Aramaic. But your dad is good to go.
 
ircphoenix said:
Yes. That is in .113(x). It's written in invisible ink in the margin of the page, backwards, and in Aramaic. But your dad is good to go.
Click to expand...
I may ask the chief counsel for clarification. We may then find out that really private pilots aren't even allowed to have passengers, ever.
 
Somedudeintn said:
I may ask the chief counsel for clarification. We may then find out that really private pilots aren't even allowed to have passengers, ever.
Click to expand...

Well APPARENTLY you weren't paying attention. If YOU have your commercial, then your father can fly your sister's brother's father-in-law's plane without problem, as long as the passenger is your brother's competition show goat, provided your sister's brother's father-in-law is named Karl.
 
ircphoenix said:
Well APPARENTLY you weren't paying attention. If YOU have your commercial, then your father can fly your sister's brother's father-in-law's plane without problem, as long as the passenger is your brother's competition show goat, provided your sister's brother's father-in-law is named Karl.
Click to expand...

I think we need a flow chart. Calling @EdFred
 
Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil. it's legal till you get caught. And I think that's how most people do it. But do you really want to risk all the money you put into training and possibly a huge fine? If you are just put money into the stock market.
 
FastEddieB said:
So it's fun for you to waste people's time?

Weird concept of fun.
Click to expand...

Hey I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I meant I just like seeing what other people have to say on the matter.
 
You have much to learn on how to properly troll.
 
No one mentioned the 2005 Kirwan interpretation yet?

It specifically states that compensation is anything of value, including "acquiring flight hours" at someone else's expense.

What OP proposes is a commercial operation, without question.
 
Turningfinal said:
No one mentioned the 2005 Kirwan interpretation yet?

It specifically states that compensation is anything of value, including "acquiring flight hours" at someone else's expense.

What OP proposes is a commercial operation, without question.
Click to expand...
Flight time as compensation was mentioned at least twice.
 
ircphoenix said:
Flight time as compensation was mentioned at least twice.
Click to expand...

Does anyone know of any cases of this actually resulting in enforcement actions? I would be interested in finding some stories.
 
MAKG1 said:
There is also nothing prohibiting Dad from paying for flight time WITHOUT passengers. An instructor is not a passenger.
Click to expand...
\__[Ô]__/ said:
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.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between a gift and compensation. In order for it to be compensation, it must be paid in return for something (such as transporting a person or property that the dad needs transported). Without that, there's no quid pro quo, so it's a gift.
 
Palmpilot said:
There's a difference between a gift and compensation. In order for it to be compensation, it must be paid in return for something (such as transporting a person or property that the dad needs transported). Without that, there's no quid pro quo, so it's a gift.
Click to expand...

Re-thinking this, I believe you are correct.
 
ircphoenix said:

Now, that being said, I have ZERO clue if there is a reg specifying how many people a private pilot can fly around.
Click to expand...
Slightly on a tangent here, but I don't believe there is a limit. John Travolta has a PPL and pilots a 707. Actually, he's only SIC. He doesn't hold a PIC type.
 
Rebel Lord said:
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?
Click to expand...

If the FAA becomes aware of the financial aspect it will likely deem the costs as compensation. Don't enter the financial aspect in the logbook and the guy will likely be A-okay.
 
roncachamp said:
If the FAA becomes aware of the financial aspect it will likely deem the costs as compensation. Don't enter the financial aspect in the logbook and the guy will likely be A-okay.
Click to expand...

So just say a 'Nice sunday flight with dad" Because thats all it really is
 
Why put anything in the remarks at all?
 
Okay, I have a question about the pro rata thing...

Let's say I own a plane, and 3 of my buddies and I fly to Vegas. Can they pay for 100% of the fuel and tie up fees since I am paying for the note, upkeep, hangering, ect. on the plane?
 
korben88 said:
Okay, I have a question about the pro rata thing...

Let's say I own a plane, and 3 of my buddies and I fly to Vegas. Can they pay for 100% of the fuel and tie up fees since I am paying for the note, upkeep, hangering, ect. on the plane?
Click to expand...
Not the way I read it.... But there are folks here that have waaayy more expertise than I do dealing with this situation.
 
Especially I don't understand the "paying the note" part. If someone is paying your loan, are you not benefiting??
 
I meant me paying the note.

If I'm paying the bank, hanger fees, and maintenance, would that count as my share of the flight expenses?
 
korben88 said:
I meant me paying the note.

If I'm paying the bank, hanger fees, and maintenance, would that count as my share of the flight expenses?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. My previous post stands. If someone else is helping pay your mortgage (they are paying all of your operating expenses, thus helping you pay your note) I don't think it's legal.

Again, there are many more knowledgable people here to address this.
 
Point is, if you don't have to pay operating expenses, because others are paying 100%, than that's equal to money on your pocket to pay your note. It's equal to you chipping in for operating expenses and passengers help to pay your mortgage.
 
I guess my question is more about part C

(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.

The only part is what is confusing, if there are other expenses that are paid solely by myself such as maintenance and hangar fees do those cover my portion of the expenses?
 
korben88 said:
I guess my question is more about part C

(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.

The only part is what is confusing, if there are other expenses that are paid solely by myself such as maintenance and hangar fees do those cover my portion of the expenses?
Click to expand...
That's the part that my lowly mind grasps onto. There is nothing said about others paying for the mortgage in your airplane.
 
I suppose you could get around that by calculating a "dry rental fee" that includes it all, but it would be difficult to defend unless you used it for every flight and had some paper trail to prove it (like bank account transfers or writing yourself a check).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top