Door to door air cargo… By a private pilot??

It certainly is. And it is illegal.

Holding out isn’t limited to accepting cash. Any compensation, whether it be in cash or other goods / services is considered. FAA is pretty clear about this.

He’s doing this at no cost? If the restaurant gives him a free pizza for his trouble, the FAA will consider that compensation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
They should have someone collect the names of the top 3 flour drop contestants from various airport day events around the country, and give them a crack at food delivery. :cool:
 
“Quinn refused to make any money from the deliveries because he's not a commercial pilot”

Cheers
 
Didn't someone make the argument one time that building hours could technically be considered compensation. The kid wants to be a commercial pilot. But needs hours. This gives him a way to build hours whether or not he's being paid monetarily or not. The hours are the compensation. Bravo on the kid for doing it. Very stupid for allowing the story to be covered. Some times the notoriety isn't worth it and stepping into this grey area and letting the government see isn't something I would have done.
 
Last edited:
Racerx said:
Didn't someone make the argument one time that building hours could technically be considered compensation. The kid wants to be a commercial pilot. But needs hours. This gives him a way to build hours whether or not he's being paid monetarily or not. The hours are the compensation. Bravo on the kid for doing it. Very stupid for allowing the story to be covered. Some times the notoriety isn't worth it and stepping into this grey area and letting the government see isn't something I would have done.
Click to expand...
If he's paying for the fuel and the aircraft, who's giving him the hours?
 
"no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a
pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or
hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft."

"Rather, compensation is the receipt of anything of value. The FAA
has previously found that reimbursement of expenses (fuel, oil, transportation, lodging,
meals, etc.), accumulation of flight time, and goodwill in the form of expected future
economic benefit could be considered compensation."

I don't like the reg or interpretation, but now that it made news, the FAA is gonna come calling.
 
Lindberg said:
If he's paying for the fuel and the aircraft, who's giving him the hours?
Click to expand...
Restaurant he was hauling food for. Kid says I need to build hours, I'll deliver food for free. Restaurant gives him food to deliver. Kid builds time. Restaurant gets free labor.
 
Racerx said:
Restaurant gets free labor.
Click to expand...
If anything, isn't that compensation to the restaurant, not the kid?

The kid's flying on his own dime. No compensation there. Restaurant doesn't charge for delivery. No compensation there. Kid doesn't charge for delivery. No compensation there. Is an excuse to fly at your own cost compensation? If so, all those BBQ joints have been compensating me all these years.
 
Velocity173 said:
In order to conduct “holding out” compensation must be given. Where is the compensation in this situation?
Click to expand...

Well established FAA precedent. Good will is compensation. At some point the favor will be returned or there is an expectation the favor will be returned.
 
Unfortunately according to AC 61-142, this is prohibited. The pilot does not have to be the one receiving the compensation.

8.1 Explanation of Compensation. Compensation is the receipt of anything of value that is contingent on the pilot operating the aircraft; i.e., but for the receipt of the compensation, the pilot would not have taken that flight. Compensation does not require a profit, profit motive, or the actual payment of funds. Reimbursement of expenses, accumulation of flight time, and good will in the form of expected future economic benefits9 can be considered compensation. Furthermore, the pilot does not have to be the party receiving the compensation; compensation occurs even if a third party receives a benefit as a result of the flight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Assuming that making these flights doesn't result in back door compensation (i.e. tips), free fuel, or goodwill (not "wow, what a nice kid!" But more "quid pro quo" or some obvious expectation, such as offering free delivery for potential business clients), this is 100% legal.

You can hang a sign offering to fly people around wherever they'd like to go, provided you do it completely out of the goodness of your own heart and receive no compensation.

Now if he's doing this to attract the interest of the local beauty queen, well that's...uh...
 
Clip4 said:
Well established FAA precedent. Good will is compensation. At some point the favor will be returned or there is an expectation the favor will be returned.
Click to expand...

And the pilot does not have to directly benefit. The restaurant receiving the benefit also makes this flight for compensation, and is therefore prohibited.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Kent Wien said:
How would this be any different from an Angel Flight. Both are volunteer pilots paying for the entire flight with no expectation of compensation or favor.
Click to expand...
An Angel Flight is a charitable flight specifically approved by the FAA.
 
The restaurant benefits. The pilot doesn’t not have to be the one receiving benefit. This isn’t legal.

“compensation occurs even if a third party receives a benefit as a result of the flight.”

Read section 8.1 of Advisory Circular 61-142.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hmm, 61-142 replaced 120-12A last year. FAA is off their rocker. But yeah, does appear to be third party compensation.
 
Clip4 said:
An Angel Flight is a charitable flight specifically approved by the FAA.
Click to expand...
No it's not.

it is no different than flying rescue dogs in the eyes of the FAA.

You may be confusing this with some Angel Flight organizations that have petitioned for an exemption to all members to be compensated for fuel expenses, but those persons must jump through some hoops in order to do so. Most Angel flight pilots pay 100% of the expenses. The only benefit they receive is a tax deduction, which the FAA does not consider compensation.
 
ttexrbomb said:
The restaurant benefits. The pilot doesn’t not have to be the one receiving benefit. This isn’t legal.

“compensation occurs even if a third party receives a benefit as a result of the flight.”

Read section 8.1 of Advisory Circular 61-142.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That doesn't apply here. No one else was receiving compensation for him delivering food. The restaurant was compensated for the food itself. If the restaurant charged a delivery fee for the pilot delivering the food, then you'd be correct.
 
Brad Z said:
That doesn't apply here. No one else was receiving compensation for him delivering food. The restaurant was compensated for the food itself. If the restaurant charged a delivery fee for the pilot delivering the food, then you'd be correct.
Click to expand...

You don’t see the FAA taking the position that the sale of the pizza wouldn’t have been possible had delivery not been offered? I would think the FAA would test this theory. If the pizzas were delivered to a place inaccessible except by plane, then the sale of the pizzas wouldn’t have been possible had air delivery not been available. There is your benefit. The restaurant was able to sell that pizza because they had an air delivery option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ttexrbomb said:
You don’t see the FAA taking the position that the sale of the pizza wouldn’t have been possible had delivery not been offered? I would think the FAA would test this theory. If the pizzas were delivered to a place inaccessible except by plane, then the sale of the pizzas wouldn’t have been possible had air delivery not been available. There is your benefit. The restaurant was able to sell that pizza because they had an air delivery option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
No.

You're reading too much into what is written.

The idea is that if you fly me somewhere, and I pay your wife $500 for the flight, the flight is still being operated for compensation. The "third party" mention in the AC is to prevent someone from skirting the rules by offering flights that they are not directly compensated for.

In the original Kelly island example, if I paid the pizza shop a $20 delivery fee to have the pie airlifted, the flight is being operated for compensation, even though its not the pilot receiving it. If the pizza shop is selling the pie for the same price as anyone else would pay, and the pilot is transporting them out of the goodness of his heart, then there's no issue here. Unless there's some connection between the pilot and the restaurant, anyone investigating this will yawn.

But I agree with the poster who said the FAA has better things to do with their time than chasing after a kid picking up pizzas for his neighbors on the way home from school.
 
So they're going to go after somebody for delivering pizzas but they're okay with an imbecile flying a home made plane around with a junkyard engine documenting his lunacy in painful detail?
 
IT MATTERS NOT if he gets compensated (either tangibly or intangible). The issue here is that he's got an illicit air common carriage operation here. Even if he had a commercial pilot certificate, this would be illegal.
 
This is the silliest argument yet I've seen on this site, and that's really really saying something. Pilot makes back and forth trips on his own dime to Kelleys Island to build time. Doesn't run afoul of the regs. He delivers food to Kelleys Island, again flying on his own dime and not getting paid for the deliveries, and somehow mystically runs afoul of the regs.
 
flyingron said:
IT MATTERS NOT if he gets compensated (either tangibly or intangible). The issue here is that he's got an illicit air common carriage operation here. Even if he had a commercial pilot certificate, this would be illegal.
Click to expand...
Common carriage requires compensation or hire. If there's no compensation or hire, it's not common carriage.

Otherwise every pilot and paws flight would be common carriage.
 
Common carriage only requires the OFFER to carry (as far as the FAA is concerned). Compensation OF THE PILOT is not required. AC120-12A makes this clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top