Volunteer Private Pilot

Sac Arrow said:
It is an absurd rule. If you, as a private pilot were able to fill all 660 economy seats of a 747, then you would only be on the hook for 1/660 the cost of the flight.
Click to expand...
Not bad!!
 
SToL said:
Personally, I would always reference the FARs before referencing any internet forums, but maybe that's because I had all my ratings before the internet forums came along.
Click to expand...
A lot of the interpretations and case decisions that have come along are in no way obvious from the FARs!
 
I fly a young eagles type event but targeted at minority inner city kids...they always offer to give us fuel donated by the FBO...I always defer to others or the organization as they also offer a mini flight school for some of the older kids to get them further along in the process and never have enough without donations...it’s a 501c3 which probably makes a difference...but sometimes FAA types participate so always assumed it was okay. Then again could care less as most of these kids it will be their only exposure to an airplane in their lifetime and one of the few ways an older white guy can impact an inner city minority child.
 
Sac Arrow said:
It is an absurd rule. If you, as a private pilot were able to fill all 660 economy seats of a 747, then you would only be on the hook for 1/660 the cost of the flight.
Click to expand...

You would also hold an Instrument Rating, Type Rating, a Multi, and a slew of others, and it would be a multi-crew situation. While possible, it would be hard to stay as just a Private Pilot.
 
Palmpilot said:
A lot of the interpretations and case decisions that have come along are in no way obvious from the FARs!
Click to expand...

And internet forums are?

Come on... common sense here. What's going to help you the most when you argue your case? Citing the FAR or citing some internet forum?
 
Last edited:
SToL said:
And internet forums are?

Come on... common sense here. What's going to help you the most when you argue your case? Sighting the FAR or sighting some internet forum?
Click to expand...
99% of the FAA interpretations and NTSB case decisions that I have heard about are ones that I became aware of through Internet forums.

It's 100% true that you see a lot of uninformed opinions on the Internet, but SOME posters cite authoritative sources such as the FAA and NTSB, and those are worth paying attention to.
 
Palmpilot said:
99% of the FAA interpretations and NTSB case decisions that I have heard about are ones that I became aware of through Internet forums.

It's 100% true that you see a lot of uninformed opinions on the Internet, but SOME posters cite authoritative sources such as the FAA and NTSB, and those are worth paying attention to.
Click to expand...

Although I do agree that you will see some posters cite authoritative sources, and they are worth paying attention to, and you'll you see a lot of uninformed opinions on the Internet, I personally rarely see a legal interpretation that is contrary to what the masses believed it to be to begin with, if ever actually. Of course there will always be someone who disagrees, but rarely the masses.

All that aside, I believe it in no way diminishes my statement. If you're going to argue your case, you better have the FARs to back you up. Even if you were wrong, and you can articulate how the FAR was vague, misleading or confusing, that is going to be of more value to you than an internet forum.

In other words, start with the FAR, then use other resources to substantiate your claim.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
Did you not pass a private pilot written and oral that involved learning the answer to that?
Click to expand...
I gotta say.... it’s irrelevant to me at this point, but when I got my PPL in 1985 there was little to no guidance here. We were told “share expenses”, and that was about it.
 
Kritchlow said:
I gotta say.... it’s irrelevant to me at this point, but when I got my PPL in 1985 there was little to no guidance here. We were told “share expenses”, and that was about it.
Click to expand...

61.113 has been the same at least since 1978: "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."
 
dmspilot said:
61.113 has been the same at least since 1978: "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...
Yup. But it was never really enforced the same way... or has not been as well known.
Things were different back then.
 
The FAA chief counsel interpretations have indicated that the pilot must have a bona-fide purpose (a common purpose) for making the trip other than to transport the passenger and must dictate where the flight is to go.

For example, if a work friend needs to go to a city 100 miles north and asks you to take him there for some business and he is willing to pay for the trip; you must decline. Period. If, out of the goodness of your heart, you decide to pay for the whole flight than this regulation does not apply and fly safe.

If the same worker from above has invited you to play a round of golf and you mention that you could fly them to the nearest airport for the golf outing; go have fun and be safe. The passengers can pay their pro rata share of the flight.
 
Last edited:
You had crappy training if this wasn’t covered in depth.
 
Salty said:
You had crappy training if this wasn’t covered in depth.
Click to expand...
Me?? I don’t think so. Perhaps you meant someone else or a different time period.

Regardless, it no longer pertains to me, so all is well here.
 
Kritchlow said:
Me?? I don’t think so. Perhaps you meant someone else or a different time period.

Regardless, it no longer pertains to me, so all is well here.
Click to expand...
I’d call not being informed on something that can cause you to lose your cert or worse crappy training. My instructors all taught me this stuff, and they sucked in general. My DPE grilled me extensively on the subject during the oral, and it was in all the test prep materials I used.

Heck my DPE even asked me a question on this subject for the glider add-on rating I just did.
 
Salty said:
I’d call not being informed on something that can cause you to lose your cert or worse crappy training. My instructors all taught me this stuff, and they sucked in general. My DPE grilled me extensively on the subject during the oral, and it was in all the test prep materials I used.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure when you received your PPL, but things do morph a bit over the years.
I knew never to accept compensation more than my share of costs. That’s it.
To the best of my knowledge back then there wasn’t well known language that flight time by itself was compensation.
Ymmv.
 
dmspilot said:
61.113 has been the same at least since 1978: "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...
Yeah but then some dumb ass at the FAA decided to change what compensation and incidental to business meant. Then after writing the opinion the stupid ***** went and tried to get it changed when she quit working for the FAA.
 
Kritchlow said:
I knew never to accept compensation more than my share of costs. That’s it.
Click to expand...

So you DID know even back then that your friend could not pay for the fuel (or at least, not all of it).

Kritchlow said:
To the best of my knowledge back then there wasn’t well known language that flight time by itself was compensation.
Click to expand...

Wasn't relevant for the question I was replying to.
 
Clip4 said:
The FAA chief counsel interpretations have indicated that the pilot must have a bona-fide purpose (a common purpose) for making the trip other than to transport the passenger and must dictate where the flight is to go.

For example, if a work friend needs to go to a city 100 miles north and asks you to take him there for some business and he is willing to pay for the trip; you must decline. Period. If, out of the goodness of your heart, you decide to pay for the whole flight than this regulation does not apply and fly safe.

If the same worker from above has invited you to play a round of golf and you mention that you could fly them to the nearest airport for the golf outing; go have fun and be safe. The passengers can pay their pro rata share of the flight.
Click to expand...
Until a Federal judge says the FAA is wrong, regs (and Chief Counsel opinions, no matter how asinine) rule. Until they don't. . .just takes time, money, luck, and a educated jurist.
 
dmspilot said:
61.113 has been the same at least since 1978: "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...

The limitation to fuel, oil, and airport expenditures was added to 61.113 sometime after sometime after 1993. Prior to the limitation a private pilot could amortize insurance, charts, engine reserve, inspections ect to the operational costs.
 
Sundancer said:
Until a Federal judge says the FAA is wrong, regs (and Chief Counsel opinions, no matter how asinine) rule. Until they don't. . .just takes time, money, luck, and a educated jurist.
Click to expand...

If a judge did that, the FAA would just reissue the regulation, but you would still be suspended before it ever got before a judge.
 
Scenerio 1: Two friends decide they want to fly to Sun and Fun. One has a PPL and the other wants to learn how to fly. The PPL has a plane. He asks the friend if he wants to go with him. "Absolutely," He says. When they get there, the non-pilot wants to buy the gas. Can he?

Scenerio 2: Two friends that are pilots want to fly to Oshkosh. They are both pilots. Pilot 1 is current. Pilot 2 is not current. Pilot 2 has a plane. Pilot 2 asks pilot 1 to fly the plane since pilot 2 is not legal. Who can buy the gas and how much?

Scenerio 3: A pilot and and non pilot friend both want to go to the air races. The pilot's plane is in the shop. They rent a plane to go. Can they split the rental cost? If the answer is yes, then consider if they flew the pilot's plane and only fuel could be shared 50/50, it would be much more expensive for the pilot to fly his own plane than to rent one.
 
Clip4 said:
If a judge did that, the FAA would just reissue the regulation, but you would still be suspended before it ever got before a judge.
Click to expand...
Not talking about an individual hitting the courts "after the fact", but challenging before the fact; Fed regs get shot down by courts on a semi-regular basis. And the FAA won't be "re-issuing" a new reg the next morning, unless it's an emergency.
 
dmspilot said:
So you DID know even back then that your friend could not pay for the fuel (or at least, not all of it).



Wasn't relevant for the question I was replying to.
Click to expand...
I think you are reading waaaaayyy too much into what I posted.
I’m not really sure I even know what you’re talking about.

I am simply stating that things were not as nit-picky back in the day I received my PPL.
Please don’t make it something more than that.
 
Dont ask dont tell seriously... some people here need to get a life. The rule is to prevent PPL's from starting a 135 charter business flying their own or flying clubs airplanes. If your looking to build hours or do some cheap flying and a close friend or family member wants to pay for flight expenses to take them somewhere every now and again and you decline because of some absurd FAR I'd say your digging far too deep into this.
 
SToL said:
Way to make us feel old. It sounds so weird hearing you talk about 'back in the day, when I was flying 15 years before you got your license.
Click to expand...
While I’m sure some here have been at this longer than me, I have been flying since 1984.

I’m happy to hear you have been going since 1969. Fifty years... Congrats!!
 
Last edited:
SToL said:
ADF NDB and good ole pilotage. 3 things they don't teach any more.
Click to expand...
Same here..... of course ADF & NDB are really one in the same.
Btw, I found my original quote to be snarky on my reread, so I opted to change it.
 
Kritchlow said:
I think you are reading waaaaayyy too much into what I posted.
I’m not really sure I even know what you’re talking about.

I am simply stating that things were not as nit-picky back in the day I received my PPL.
Please don’t make it something more than that.
Click to expand...

Clip4 said:
The limitation to fuel, oil, and airport expenditures was added to 61.113 sometime after sometime after 1993. Prior to the limitation a private pilot could amortize insurance, charts, engine reserve, inspections ect to the operational costs.
Click to expand...

I used the historical FAR and clicked on a version that said 12/01/1978, perhaps the date is not correct. My apologies if this is the case.
 
dmspilot said:
I used the historical FAR and clicked on a version that said 12/01/1978, perhaps the date is not correct. My apologies if this is the case.
Click to expand...
Okay, no issues here.
My main point was that back in the 80’s, before the internet took hold, there just wasn’t all the intricacies on display. Perhaps it was a “don’t ask don’t tell” scenario in disguise because it was a non issue.
 
dmspilot said:
61.113 has been the same at least since 1978: "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...
That's not true. If you search for "61.113" in the following Federal Register excerpt and look at the discussion of changes, it becomes apparent that the above wording went into effect during the major Part 61 rewrite that took place in 1997.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-04-04/pdf/97-7450.pdf

Note: There was a wholesale renumbering of sections in this rewrite. As mentioned in the Federal Register, 61.113 replaced the previously-existing 61.118. The previous wording can be found here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=j...AegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=14 CFR "61.118"&f=false
 
Last edited:
2b790e48bcd9779bce4dc5bc74a01118.563x1000x1.png
 
Def not a good baiter
Ryanb said:
I’m not baiting anyone, I’m just trying to figure out what the basis for these regulations are. If I’m on a road trip and my buddy says, ‘let me fill your tank’, he would be able to do that without question. Why is it so much more stringent for a PPL?
Click to expand...
Def not a good baiter, certainly not a master.
 
Doug Reid said:
Ok....you flew your girl friend to Myrtle Beach for the weekend. She shows appreciation to you later that night...is that compensation. Give us all a break...stop with these silly arse questions. We typically fly out for a $100 hamburger all the time, and our friends often buy the burger...are they going to prison ? The cost of flying per hour is way more than a few gallons of gas. If you figure hangar, insurance and maintenance, the fuel is only a part of the expense.

Ask the FBO to use one of their planes for just the cost of fuel and see how that works out for you.
Click to expand...
You seem to be missing the point.
 
Doug Reid said:
are they going to prison ?
Click to expand...
No but you can be fined and lose your ticket.

Is it likely? Not really but then that's the problem with the FAA's "flight time and goodwill is compensation" policies, especially since they have permitted exceptions (common purpose, incidental, charity/91.146, SAR, glider tow and aircraft sales).

Even youtuber's skirt the legal line and its probably why you see a lot more ground content nowadays than you did when many of the channels started up since its hard to say you are being compensated for the video/content, not the flight when the content is 100% flight and reliant on flying.

The FAA's rules for compensation of a private pilot are sufficiently vague so as to support both arguments. Good-will and flight time as compensation lean in the FAA's favor whereas hotel, meals, commercial airline tickets and other "incidental" expenses lean in the pilot's favor. It becomes a question of what is incidental to the flight and what is a required part of the flight and what are the motives behind a dozen other decisions.

Taken to ad absurdum, there are many highly nuanced situations that can change significantly with only 1 or 2 seemingly small details... Take flying with friends as an example. If I take my friends up flying because they want to go, then I am technically being compensated for the flight in the form of goodwill with my friends. If my friends and I both want to go, then I can be compensated the pro-rata portion of the flight but after the flight is over, while we're out maybe my friends decide to buy me dinner... Are they compensating me for the flight, just being good friends or trying to get my good will? It all becomes very grey very quickly.

Another popular example where lines get blurred and it becomes difficult to say where the line is and whether its been crossed... My friends buy and gift me a game to the football game in the next state over that they are also going to. As a result of now needing transportation to the game I decide I am going to fly and extend the offer to fly to my friends. Our destination/purpose of flight is aligned so legally I can accept pro-rata pay for the flight but did the original gift of the ticket qualify as compensation not only in excess of the pro-rata portion but in a wider perspective as well? If I didn't have the ticket, I wouldn't have reason to make the flight and probably wouldn't have offered to fly...

It all comes down to motives and its not just the pilots motives that matter. Maybe my friends bought me the ticket for the game to gain good will with the expectation that I might offer to fly them or maybe they didn't. Convincing an ALJ that the ticket was a no-strings attached gift would require other mitigating circumstances such as a recent birthday or proof that they were going to travel to the game by other means which can be difficult to prove; ultimately with ALJ's unlike criminal law you are often guilty until proven innocent.

Its the same issue the FAA had with that ride-sharing site for pilots a few years ago... Even some of the commercial pilots on that site got in trouble because the FAA felt that the pilots were offering trips they had little intention of going on without a passenger to split costs with or they were accepting and going on trips they otherwise would not have taken if they did not have a passenger looking for the same and therefore crossed the line of holding out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top