Hypothetical question about 14 CFR 61.113(c)

GreatLakesFlying

GreatLakesFlying

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 4, 2018
Messages
226
Location
Chicago, IL
Display Name
Display name:
Leo
Yesterday, the XYL (@denverpilot can translate what this is) and I are having a conversation about FAR -- she's a bioethicist, I am a newly minted private pilot, what else can we talk about on a nice spring evening, having a glass of wine in the backyard, right? And she poses the following hypothetical scenario for me:

Let's say that you have your own airplane [all, please bear witness to implicit approval here], and that you keep it in a hangar at 06C [the scenario keeps getting better]. During May, the weather is perfect every day [we are now leaving the realm of reality] and you go fly every day. And every time you fly, the same friend comes along and she [!!] offers to pay 50% of the fuel for the airplane. At the end of the month, your friend offers to pay half the hangar rent for that month as well. As a private pilot, can you accept that payment?
​
The rationale here is that 100% of the time I operated the airplane, I had the same passenger with me who paid her fair share for fuel. Can it be reasonably argued that since the airplane was used exclusively with the same passenger every day of the month, that the hangar rent is also a pro-rateable expense?

14 CFR 61.113(c) is the guiding regulation and it says:

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.​

My educated guess is that while hangar rent is an airport expenditure, it is not an operating expense of a flight, and therefore I cannot accept compensation for 50% of the rent.

On the other hand, I can see someone making the argument that hangar rent (or tie-down fees, for that matter) is an operating expense because how else can you operate your airplane if you don't secure it somehow near a runway before or after a flight?

I am curious to read your thoughts about this scenario and I promise that if I get an airplane, and if I hangar it, and if you come flying with me for a month, I will not accept payment for hangar rent.
 
Last edited:
What if you only made one flight that month and one passenger rode along? Can you receive half a month's rent then? I would say no, airport rent is not an "airport expenditure". Landing and tie down fees at your destination are.
 
As long as we are hypothetical, I am a money whore. Somebody wants to give me theirs, I'm taking it. FAA doesn't control the amount of money whore that I can be.
 
lancie00 said:
What if you only made one flight that month and one passenger rode along? Can you receive half a month's rent then? I would say no, airport rent is not an "airport expenditure". Landing and tie down fees at your destination are.
Click to expand...

I am just thinking, if your airplane is officially registered to an LLC (and not to you personally), then would you not be able to claim that you are technically "renting" the airplane? Rental can include prorated expenses of everything, and you are allowed to share all of it with your passenger.
 
If someone wants to rent half of a hangar to store some of their excess stuff who is the FAA (or anybody) to say anything about it.
 
Practicality says hangaring is an ownership decision, so I would categorize the hangar expense under general and administrative expense as it is not directly related to operating the aircraft in flight.
 
You could consider yourself an escort and she could pay you for your companionship.

The book answer is you can only be paid for operating expenses. However I don't think it is that tough to bend the rules if one is inclined to do so.

Say I am a building contractor. I could fly and owner of a project to look at it with me and we could share expenses equally. Or I could pay for the entire flight and maybe he pays me a consulting fee for looking at the project that happens to be close to the cost of the flight. Not recommending this, but there is almost always a way to skirt the rules if you are willing to operate in the gray areas.
 
How far do you want to carry this absurdity? Maybe I buy a private airport with a hangar and house to fly from. Would my monthly mortgage be an airport expenditure that can be prorated? Be sensible.
 
SkyDog58 said:
How far do you want to carry this absurdity? Maybe I buy a private airport with a hangar and house to fly from. Would my monthly mortgage be an airport expenditure that can be prorated? Be sensible.
Click to expand...
can I have a caretaker to go with it?
 
As long as the FAA doesn't care how much a DPE charges for a check ride, I'm not going to worry about them caring if someone wants to share in the expenses of my flying.
 
I think "airport expenditures" in this case was meant to cover things like ramp and landing fees.

But, even Ron Levy said, at one point, IIRC, that if you were to keep track of *all* of your expenses over time and have a true hourly rate for the airplane that covered everything, that then you'd be able to take half of that rate.
 
If I gear up, can I charge the passenger for half the engine tear down?
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
but what if she gives you benefits too...is that legal?o_O
Click to expand...
Hmm. If you don't charge her for the flight in order to compensate for the value of the benefits does that constitute prostitution?

You're screwed either way.
 
My thought is she can pay the entire hangar rent if she wants to. Wherever you decide to store your aircraft isn't part of 14 CFR 61.113(c) the way I read it as its separate from any one flight. If you take a trip with her and rent a hangar for the night as part of it then I think it applies.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I think "airport expenditures" in this case was meant to cover things like ramp and landing fees.

But, even Ron Levy said, at one point, IIRC, that if you were to keep track of *all* of your expenses over time and have a true hourly rate for the airplane that covered everything, that then you'd be able to take half of that rate.
Click to expand...
I doubt that he would say that with the regs as they are currently written.
 
You were already renting the hangar whether you fly the airplane or not. It's not an operating expense.
 
Timbeck2 said:
As long as we are hypothetical, I am a money whore. Somebody wants to give me theirs, I'm taking it. FAA doesn't control the amount of money whore that I can be.
Click to expand...

So *THAT'S* the life you claim to have? I knew it! ;)
 
Salty said:
Hmm. If you don't charge her for the flight in order to compensate for the value of the benefits does that constitute prostitution?

You're screwed either way.
Click to expand...

So what's the problem???
 
Salty said:
Hmm. If you don't charge her for the flight in order to compensate for the value of the benefits does that constitute prostitution?
Click to expand...

You could make the same argument about marriage.
 
No one cares. Really. Make it cash, and no one will know, either.
 
Palmpilot said:
I doubt that he would say that with the regs as they are currently written.
Click to expand...
The regs on this haven't changed in decades. The cost-sharing provision goes at least back into the 1970s.

If Ron said that I'm not prepared to agree it would always pass FAA muster, but I can definitely see situations in which it would be a reasonable position to take.
 
If you did not fly at all and she gave you money would the FAA care? If the memo on the check does not say "for 1/2 of hangar rent" then you are OK to take it.
 
cgrab said:
If you did not fly at all and she gave you money would the FAA care? If the memo on the check does not say "for 1/2 of hangar rent" then you are OK to take it.
Click to expand...

Brings up an interesting loophole. Burn $100 in gas. Passenger gives you $50 for the flight and $50 to help with your hangar payment because they are a nice person.

So, contrary to your post. As long as the $100 check doesn't say "for gas for the flight", you should be ok to take it.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The regs on this haven't changed in decades. The cost-sharing provision goes at least back into the 1970s.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the change that went into effect two decades ago. That's the one in which the FAA added the specific list of sharable expenses in 61.101(a) and 61.113(c).

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1997-04-04/pdf/97-7450.pdf

If Ron said that I'm not prepared to agree it would always pass FAA muster, but I can definitely see situations in which it would be a reasonable position to take.
Click to expand...
How would you get around 61.113(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."
​
In the Federal Register pages linked above, the FAA explains that "To avoid a pilot receiving compensation for a flight, indirect operating costs, such as maintenance expenses, are not permitted to be shared."
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
Brings up an interesting loophole. Burn $100 in gas. Passenger gives you $50 for the flight and $50 to help with your hangar payment because they are a nice person.

So, contrary to your post. As long as the check doesn't say "for gas for the flight", you should be ok to take it.
Click to expand...
If the FAA smells a quid pro quo, I doubt that they will pay any attention to what you write on the check.
 
Palmpilot said:
If the FAA smells a quid pro quo, I doubt that they will pay any attention to what you write on the check.
Click to expand...
As much as I fear the fed, I seriously doubt they would sanction you in any way for a single flight as described. Now, if they see a pattern of it, yeah, I can see the hammer of justice crushing you.
 
My interpretation of the regulations is that they mean whatever the FAA decides they want them to mean, and can vary depending on the situation and how badly they want to screw you.

It's the FAA in this case, but this applies to other regulatory agencies as well. FCC, BATFE, lots of others; take your pick.
 
Palmpilot said:
I was referring to the change that went into effect two decades ago. That's the one in which the FAA added the specific list of sharable expenses in 61.101(a) and 61.113(c).

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1997-04-04/pdf/97-7450.pdf


How would you get around 61.113(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."
​
In the Federal Register pages linked above, the FAA explains that "To avoid a pilot receiving compensation for a flight, indirect operating costs, such as maintenance expenses, are not permitted to be shared."
Click to expand...
Ron supposedly said something about a "true hourly rate." Convert that into a rental fee.

Disclaimer: all I said about it was that I could see "situations in which it would be a reasonable position to take." (It was a hypothetical question, after all; I'm giving a hypothetical answer.) It would have to be properly structured, properly documented, properly administered, and the situation would have to be just right. There's no no guarantee the FAA would ultimately agree with it, although there is support for the concept in analogous situations.
 
Salty said:
As much as I fear the fed, I seriously doubt they would sanction you in any way for a single flight as described. Now, if they see a pattern of it, yeah, I can see the hammer of justice crushing you.
Click to expand...
You are probably right, but discussions like these are best left in the "are you allowed to do it?" rather than the "can you get away with it?" realm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top