Volunteer Private Pilot

Kritchlow said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep and to expand on that point, due to there being no internet back then as we now know it, the chief counsel opinions were not easy to get a hold of and pilots didn’t have a forum such as aviation chat rooms where they could opine on and parse the subject as they can now.

In a way it is better now as one can ask questions online hoping more experienced and more knowledgeable voices will answer and prevail. This is the ideal that such a forum presents.

However, in a way it is worse as inexperienced and less knowledgeable voices purporting to be experts often chime in with total nonsense and confuse the issue, potentially misleading the inexperienced, unknowledgeable novice.

The challenge for the novice or less knowledgeable person is sorting the good answers from the not so good. The best way to do this is to actually read the regulations and guidance themselves or to directly seek out a trusted experienced knowledgeable aviation professional in person.
 
Doug Reid said:
The point I was making is fuel cost is only a part of hourly expense. That was the compensation listed in the original post. I assumed that the pilot had to supply his own plane. As far as logging time...I have stopped worrying about logging time long ago. I keep up with it, but have no need for more hours in my logbook.

When it gets to the point we cannot buy a friend a burger, then we will all be in deep doo doo ! At some point, we need to get back to common sense.
Click to expand...
I guess the point you’re missing is that we are in deep doo doo
 
I used to belong to a club, and one of the club members was a non-pilot full dues paying club member, but had no interest in ever learning to fly. He did business near a bunch of GA airports, and he'd book and pay for a plane and a club member would fly him to do business. Mostly the retired guys as they had time, but it was widely known in the club and went on for a long time. Nothing ever came of it other than a bunch of retired guys getting free time in the air and another dude getting around to do business in an expeditious manner.
 
apr911 said:
No but you can be fined and lose your ticket.

Is it likely?.
Click to expand...

No, it is not likely. But if you have an accident or incident, will your friend lie to govt. officials for you if asked about the purpose of the flight?
 
And, what about the kids whose parents pay for all their flying? By the letter of the regulation they are breaking it as well.
 
Just for giggles and because I don't know dead languages very well, I looked up the definition of "pro rata" which is:

as an adjective - proportional
as an adverb - proportionally

So lets say you and your millionaire friend are flying to dinner. This millionaire really likes this expensive restaurant and really, really wants to eat there because they have...oh I don't know, cream of weasel soup or some chit that rich people eat. So he's 90% inclined to take the trip. You on the other hand don't really want to go, however you are not expected to eat cream of weasel soup so lets say, you only want to go 10%. So my question is, who decides the proportion?

I don't fly people around for money and I don't take money for flying people around. However, if someone insisted to fill my tank out of the goodness of their heart, I'd let 'em.
 
Last edited:
What if you get a bunch of cash or gift cards for your birthday from several different friends and family members, and spend it all on airplane gas? If you take them flying can you still ring them up for half the costs, thereby boosting the value of your original gift?
 
EdFred said:
And, what about the kids whose parents pay for all their flying? By the letter of the regulation they are breaking it as well.
Click to expand...
Yep. This is the most clear example of how stupid the regulation is. It's been stretched so far that no flight by a PPL is legal.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Of course, because that maximizes their domain of operation and the size of their budget. SOP for regulatory agencies.
Click to expand...

I sincerely doubt that the FAA has a lot of time on their hands, or significant budgetary largesse to be gained by enforcing pilot compensation rules. That's just hyperbolic paranoia. More likely, they find it tiresome to have to deal with non-commercial pilots abusing their limited (non-commercial) privileges to the potential detriment of safety. Due to those party-poopers, the rest of us have to suffer the indignities of strict enforcement interpretation. The same kind of party-pooper inspired rule-making happens in sports organizations. That's how the rule books get so large.

The reality of it is that if you and a friend fly somewhere to attend a ballgame, and your friend springs for the cost of fuel for the trip, or its equivalent in the hotel bill instead, nobody involved cares, and it seems unlikely that your friend will ask for an FAA enforcement action against you. On the other hand, if you fly a colleague to a business meeting as a favor and expect to be reimbursed by your employer, it could conceivably come back on you if your employer is audited. Be careful out there. If you want to be paid for the purpose of flying, just get the commercial. The FAA won't tolerate the aircraft ridesharing equivalent of Uber.
 
chemgeek said:
I sincerely doubt that the FAA has a lot of time on their hands, or significant budgetary largesse to be gained by enforcing pilot compensation rules. That's just hyperbolic paranoia. More likely, they find it tiresome to have to deal with non-commercial pilots abusing their limited (non-commercial) privileges to the potential detriment of safety. Due to those party-poopers, the rest of us have to suffer the indignities of strict enforcement interpretation. The same kind of party-pooper inspired rule-making happens in sports organizations. That's how the rule books get so large.

The reality of it is that if you and a friend fly somewhere to attend a ballgame, and your friend springs for the cost of fuel for the trip, or its equivalent in the hotel bill instead, nobody involved cares, and it seems unlikely that your friend will ask for an FAA enforcement action against you. On the other hand, if you fly a colleague to a business meeting as a favor and expect to be reimbursed by your employer, it could conceivably come back on you if your employer is audited. Be careful out there. If you want to be paid for the purpose of flying, just get the commercial. The FAA won't tolerate the aircraft ridesharing equivalent of Uber.
Click to expand...
The commercial doesn't really help as much as you might think.
 
EdFred said:
I wish I could like this post a hundred times just for the use of "cream of weasel"
Click to expand...

It's really not bad, and goes very nicely with squirrel pate. I usually serve a soft Sauterne.

As far as the regulations about pilot compensation go, as a very careful, paranoid, low-time pilot, I stay completely out of gray areas and have only split gas costs with other pilots when we're co-flying.

Having said that, this entire thing is sooooo stupid, and I have no idea why it should be any different than a car/SUV/van I own. If I have a seven passenger vehicle and my wife and I offer to take two other couples down to the Outer Banks for a few days in the sun, and they offer to pay the gas and tolls in return for my wife and I using our car and doing the driving, nobody raises an eyelid... but turn that privately owned car into an airplane and the government goes crazy.

If a friend of mine gets a steal on a great used car 600 miles away from the rust belt we live in and I offer to drive him down to pick up the car and he pays my gas, dinner, and hotel for the night, no worries. If I fly him instead, my certificate is in danger. Soooooooo stupid. Why even have an airplane if you can't do nice things for people without allowing THEM to show gratitude?

Soooooooooooooo stupid.
 
Last edited:
chemgeek said:
I sincerely doubt that the FAA has a lot of time on their hands, or significant budgetary largesse to be gained by enforcing pilot compensation rules. That's just hyperbolic paranoia.
Click to expand...

Pretty well documented behavior of regulatory agencies in general. You get a larger budget and a bigger salary by having a larger staff, which you get by having more and more rules to enforce. Sort of true for large departments in for-profit companies as well, but there the bottom line limits that sort of thing.

I'm sure that from any particular staffers point of view, they are just trying to enforce the rules and improve safety. The problem in general with this type of thing is, there are usually unintended consequences of any set of rules, which may act contrary to the initial intention. I am not aware of any actual data that the FAA's prohibition of of people flying others for incidental compensation improves the safety of flight. (Would be happy to see references to same if posted.)

There's a tradeoff between achieving the intended effect, stopping dangerous pilots from setting up shop and hurting people, and other unintended ways this could hurt safety. Some of those might be things like increasing the cost of flying thereby decreasing people's use of a safer mode of transportation, flying, and using a more dangerous one, like driving. Alternately, these prohibitions might decrease the use of GA generally, thereby driving up the price of aircraft and safety equipment, and resulting in actually more accidents overall. The world is a complex place and it is hard to predict the actual outcomes. That's why actual studies of effects are needed, rather than regulation by knee jerk reaction, which is largely what we have now.
 
Has anyone who has been ramped checked been asked not only for their pilot certificate and medical but also their fuel, lunch, and hotel receipts?
 
Last edited:
There is one workaround here that I haven't seen mentioned, but also I've never asked if it is really valid. I used to fly charity flights for Angel Flight West and was similarly limited in only being able to write off direct costs -- no pro-rating of insurance, hanger, maintenance, etc. It occurred to me that if the aircraft was owned by a corporation and rented to me at a rate that included all of that, then I might be able to write that all off. However, to make it a valid rental enterprise, it would have to be rented to other people too I suspect and this probably gets into IRS rules. Never did that but it seems like it might work. Anyone know more about this scenario?
 
Clip4 said:
No, it is not likely. But if you have an accident or incident, will your friend lie to govt. officials for you if asked about the purpose of the flight?
Click to expand...

Or worse, will your friend tell the truth and the Gov't hear what they want to hear and violate you anyway (i.e. my other examples where you take your friend up for a local flight for no other reason than because they've been asking you to or my football game example).
 
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...
Heck, they aren't even FARs anymore. But, yeah, I buy a FAR-AIM every few years and read all of it.
 
Pilawt said:
If the pilot enjoys the trip, then he has received a benefit and it's illegal.

If the pilot hates every minute of it and wishes he were getting a root canal instead, then it might be ok.

<Just kidding.>

<Sort of.>

:confused:
Click to expand...

FAA motto - We're not happy until you're not happy.

SkyDog58 said:
Has anyone who has been ramped checked been asked not only for their pilot certificate and medical but also their fuel, lunch, and hotel receipts?
Click to expand...

No, because those aren't on the list of things that can be asked for during a ramp check. Please, don't give the FAA more ideas.

And to the OP, the proposed flight with a PP wouldn't be legal simply because the flight was at the request of the passenger. Where did this come from? Try the day the music died.
 
chemgeek said:
If you want to be paid for the purpose of flying, just get the commercial. The FAA won't tolerate the aircraft ridesharing equivalent of Uber.
Click to expand...

As you noted, the FAA wont tolerate the aircraft ridesharing equivalent of Uber so as @Salty said, the commercial really doesnt help as much as you think.

Bill Jennings said:
I used to belong to a club, and one of the club members was a non-pilot full dues paying club member, but had no interest in ever learning to fly. He did business near a bunch of GA airports, and he'd book and pay for a plane and a club member would fly him to do business. Mostly the retired guys as they had time, but it was widely known in the club and went on for a long time. Nothing ever came of it other than a bunch of retired guys getting free time in the air and another dude getting around to do business in an expeditious manner.
Click to expand...

So long as rhe pilots he hired were commercial pilots and the club was willing to rent to him directly, then that is above board. A commercial pilot can fly for hire so long as they aren't providing the aircraft.

The legality of who exactly is renting an aircraft when it involves a non-pilot paying but a commercial pilot being checked out and usually being the name on the agreement gets more nebulous and would need to be agreed to by the company offering the rental. Considering that most places offering a rental also have commercial pilots on staff in the form of CFI's for whom they charge and get a portion of their hourly rate, there is little incentive to permit this type of activity so it is uncommon but there are situations in which they may not care (such as a flight club structure where the CFI's are only marginally affiliated with the club as authorized CFI's but are largely independent entities setting their own rates and handling their own accounting/billing/collections).

Turbo-Arrow-Driver said:
There is one workaround here that I haven't seen mentioned, but also I've never asked if it is really valid. I used to fly charity flights for Angel Flight West and was similarly limited in only being able to write off direct costs -- no pro-rating of insurance, hanger, maintenance, etc. It occurred to me that if the aircraft was owned by a corporation and rented to me at a rate that included all of that, then I might be able to write that all off. However, to make it a valid rental enterprise, it would have to be rented to other people too I suspect and this probably gets into IRS rules. Never did that but it seems like it might work. Anyone know more about this scenario?
Click to expand...

Sure, you personally could do that and even if you were the sole renter, I dont see why the FAR's wouldn't allow it (though the corporation would probably have to be placed in a trust or be "owned" by someone other than yourself as I'm sure the FAA would consider it a pass-through entity with you as the owner just as they normally do for LLC owned airplanes). The issue of course comes in the fact that you are writing off your cost that you paid personally to rent the aircraft and fly for charity but the corporation is receiving those funds as income and thus you would have to pay taxes on the income... Thereby paying more in tax than you would normally have for just the direct costs...

Now if the aircraft was owned by an entirely separate entity for which you hold no financial interest (i.e. a local FBO) then deducting the entire cost of rental from your taxes is possible though certain other rules may apply (such as rules that only allow you to deduct expenses when there is income derived from the same "source" activity).

EdFred said:
And, what about the kids whose parents pay for all their flying? By the letter of the regulation they are breaking it as well.
Click to expand...

They probably get around it because they are a dependent on their parents taxes and can be listed as such so long as they qualify.
 
Last edited:
Ghery said:
FAA motto - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Where did this come from? Try the day the music died.
Click to expand...

Is that true? Was the pilot in that crash not a commercial pilot? He was flying a charter flight to take them to the next stop on the tour and flown a fair amount for the operator previously.
 
apr911 said:
The issue of course comes in the fact that you are writing off your cost that you paid personally to rent the aircraft and fly for charity but the corporation is receiving those funds as income and thus you would have to pay taxes on the income... Thereby paying more in tax than you would normally have for just the direct costs...
Click to expand...

Excellent point, I had not considered the tax consequences. It still might make sense depending on what percentage of use was for charity...but if most of the use was personal then it would not make much sense.
 
Ghery said:
FAA motto - We're not happy until you're not happy.



No, because those aren't on the list of things that can be asked for during a ramp check. Please, don't give the FAA more ideas.

And to the OP, the proposed flight with a PP wouldn't be legal simply because the flight was at the request of the passenger. Where did this come from? Try the day the music died.
Click to expand...

A ramp check for Part 91 and 135 are different and you can plan on questions to determine what part you are operating under.
 
I wasn't aware that there were limitations to the questions you can be asked. Where does this come from?
 
Salty said:
I wasn't aware that there were limitations to the questions you can be asked. Where does this come from?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you're correct that there is no limitation to the questions you can be asked but there are limitations to the questions/documents that must be answered/provided (ARROW, Certificate, Photo ID and Medical), even that though is tenuous at best (they cant delay you so most will try to ramp check you at shutdown). There are also limitations to what they can do (i.e. they cant board the aircraft but can attempt to look inside via windows and open doors for anything in "plain sight").
 
Ghery said:
No, because those aren't on the list of things that can be asked for during a ramp check. Please, don't give the FAA more ideas.
Click to expand...

It was more of a rhetorical question to show how ridiculous the paranoia is regarding this issue.
 
Have any of you ever read Part 119, which governs what a commercial pilot can do legally without a Part 135 Operators Certificate??
 
Last edited:
bobmrg said:
Have any of you ever read Part 119, which governs what a commercial pilot can do legally without a Part 135 Operators Certificate??
Click to expand...

From what I recall, basically just take off and land at your airport of origination if you are providing the plane (jumpers, banners, sightseeing flights) - or offer flight instruction.
 
SToL said:
@Doug Reid

I guess that comes down to whether or not there was a common interest and if your pro rated share of that compensation would have been equal to what you would have received elsewhere? I'm just guessing here.
Click to expand...
:needpics:
 
Lindberg said:
How so?
Click to expand...

§61.89 General limitations.
(a) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:

(1) That is carrying a passenger;

(2) That is carrying property for compensation or hire;

(3) For compensation or hire;

(4) In furtherance of a business;

Getting money specifically to fly is compensation, especially if it goes on mommy and daddy's (or grandma's) credit card.
 
I had a buddy that liked to fly with me back before he got his ppl. He was starting a company at the time and was constantly needing to go across the state. I told him I couldn’t.
Then one day he said he wanted to hire me as a consultant, “we usually drive down to San Diego unless you have a better way”
So we started flying down, I sat in on meetings, ate food, shared a few opinions and we’d fly back.
He wrote me a check for consulting his firm.
I always paid 100% of the flying expenses. And my consulting fee was not variable on what it cost to fly there. Maybe that skimmed the rules a bit?

Was it against the FARS that I got a job because I had an airplane and don’t like to drive?
 
EdFred said:
From what I recall, basically just take off and land at your airport of origination if you are providing the plane (jumpers, banners, sightseeing flights) - or offer flight instruction.
Click to expand...

Which requires drug testing and a letter of authorization from you friendly FSDO.
 
EdFred said:
Getting money specifically to fly is compensation, especially if it goes on mommy and daddy's (or grandma's) credit card.
Click to expand...

Silly!

What are the parents receiving in return for this "compensation"?
 
Palmpilot said:
Silly!

What are the parents receiving in return for this "compensation"?
Click to expand...

Goodwill - or after the private - personal air chauffeur.

Also the parents don't have to receive anything in return, as that isn't part of the reg.
 
EdFred said:
Also the parents don't have to receive anything in return, as that isn't part of the reg.
Click to expand...

It's part of English, i.e., part of the meaning of the word "compensation". Compensation involves an exchange to balance an unbalanced state between two parties.

If the parents don't get anything, there's no exchange, and it's not compensation.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
It's part of English, i.e., part of the meaning of the word "compensation". Compensation involves an exchange to balance an unbalanced state between two parties.

If the parents don't get anything, there's no exchange, and it's not compensation.
Click to expand...

Except when the FAA decided to redefine compensation through more than one Chief Counsel opinion. And since this is in the context of an FAA regulation....
 
EdFred said:
Except when the FAA decided to redefine compensation through more than one Chief Counsel opinion. And since this is in the context of an FAA regulation....
Click to expand...
Can you please point out the opinions where there is compensation but no exchange?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top