Pro rata share in personal plane? Time building for CPL

[EdFred]

Remember that your goal is having the DPE, FAA, etc. credit your hours for your CPL.

A key question to answer is - regardless if this is within the rules - is the money you save worth the very real risk of having it blow up?

By that, I offer that there is a decent chance that - even if technically you're in the rules - that the DPE won't sign off / accept because we're in this gray area. What if the FAA comes after you as well as going after the other guy for cooking the books? What if you bend some metal, and the insurance company abandons coverage, and you're exposed? After a lot of money, time and pain, you may or may not prove you're within the rules.

IMHO, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Well, the thing is, how many DPE's are going to ask to see someone else's logbook if they see that you wrote down you were safety pilot, or that you put someone else's name in your logbook as safety pilot. Looking at just one logbook everything can look Kosher. If my logbook says 3.2 hours PIC XC but not listed solo, that's never going to trigger anything. And if your logbook says the same thing, that's not going to trigger anything either.

Now, it has happened, but only because both people were going to the same DPE at pretty much the same time with times that didn't add up. Both were logging PIC XC. But if I go to DPE Dick and you go to DPE Jane 6 months apart, this is never going to come up.

I don't know how often (if ever) the FAA has ever asked for someone else's logbook. I got a call from the FAA on a fatal crash from a former student, but it was a 5 minute (if that) conversation, and there was no request to see my logbook.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Why isn't the CFII just calling it instruction and sidestepping any pro-rata issue altogether? Why not just say the rental rate is x and you're sharing time? There have to be a dozen different ways to do this and not be in violation of anything.

I'm sure people who love to argue the minutia of regs will be along but my better question is why aren't you just flying with an instructor, handing him his $50, and not posting it on the internet for someone to make an issue of?

If it’s a instruction rental 100 hours are required. The instructor is avoiding maintenance costs I suspect.

 

[Racerx]

This is a commonly held misconception.
Yes, there is a slippery clause in the regs under which a safety pilot can log PIC... But not just whenever you want.
...Not because you're safety pilot and any safety pilot can do this by definition.
...Not because you're rated in the aircraft category and class (like "normal" PIC logging)
...Not because you OWN the aircraft.
You can only do it if you are actually acting as PIC for the flight while the other person is under the hood. And the owner can absolutely do this, if he's qualified to do so and both pilots agree that this is how the flight will be conducted. One person has to act as the final authority on safety, and it's important to decide who.

...but *if* it's the owner, that means he's exercising his private pilot privileges, which means the "pro rata" rules apply to him, and he can only charge you half of *that flight's direct expenses*. NOT half of the overall operating expenses. (see the AOPA article)

A private pilot owner can't take an arbitrary amount of money from anyone for a flight and then claim, "that wasn't a commercial operation, that was just a rental of the aircraft with me also sitting in it." Not if he's also exercising pilot privileges in it and logging time.

Edit: A commercial certificate doesn't let him do this either.

What if the airplane was set up in an LLC and was charging 100 an hour to rent. Owner of the LLC pays half and renter pays half.

 

[Nick P]

Remember that your goal is having the DPE, FAA, etc. credit your hours for your CPL.

A key question to answer is - regardless if this is within the rules - is the money you save worth the very real risk of having it blow up?

By that, I offer that there is a decent chance that - even if technically you're in the rules - that the DPE won't sign off / accept because we're in this gray area. What if the FAA comes after you as well as going after the other guy for cooking the books? What if you bend some metal, and the insurance company abandons coverage, and you're exposed? After a lot of money, time and pain, you may or may not prove you're within the rules.

IMHO, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

I'm starting to agree as well. I can use the local flight school 152 and with a safety pilot it comes out to $60/hr wet with no grey area.

 

[Lindberg]

This is a commonly held misconception.
...but *if* it's the owner, that means he's exercising his private pilot privileges, which means the "pro rata" rules apply to him, and he can only charge you half of *that flight's direct expenses*. NOT half of the overall operating expenses. (see the AOPA article)

I'm not sure how you got to the conclusion that the CFI is exercising private pilot privileges or even has a private pilot certificate, but let's assume you're correct. Who is the passenger in your scenario?
The regulation, for reference:

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as 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.

. . .

(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.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I'm not sure how you got to the conclusion that the CFI is exercising private pilot privileges or even has a private pilot certificate, but let's assume you're correct.

He’s exercising private pilot privileges by acting as safety pilot, as well as by logging the portion of the flight that he flies.

 

[WDD]

How can you be a safety pilot if no one under the hood?

 

[EdFred]

How can you be a safety pilot if no one under the hood?

You can't. You can (assuming it's not a 2-crew aircraft) be :
PIC, but unable to log anything (other person can't act as PIC but is making the airplane noises)
A passenger (still can't log)
A CFI/CFII giving instruction. (can log)

 

[Lindberg]

He’s exercising private pilot privileges by acting as safety pilot, as well as by logging the portion of the flight that he flies.

What defines those as private pilot privileges? And what is the significance of that considering 61.113(c) refers to a "person who holds a private pilot certificate"?

 

[EdFred]

What defines those as private pilot privileges? And what is the significance of that considering 61.113(c) refers to a "person who holds a private pilot certificate"?

Because dogs can't hold private pilot certificates.

 

[MauleSkinner]

What defines those as private pilot privileges? And what is the significance of that considering 61.113(c) refers to a "person who holds a private pilot certificate"?

The fact that in the OP’s scenario, doing so would require at least a Private Pilot certificate (at least for the safety Pilot portion), and if he were exercising commercial or ATP privileges, the entire operation would be 100% illegal.

 

[Lindberg]

The fact that in the OP’s scenario, doing so would require at least a Private Pilot certificate (at least for the safety Pilot portion), and if he were exercising commercial or ATP privileges, the entire operation would be 100% illegal.

Why would it be illegal? And is the CFI "a person who holds a private pilot certificate"?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Why would it be illegal?

Because either the operation isn’t under the authority of the 135 certificate that would be required, or it’s violating the regs requiring crew members only operate the controls.

And is the CFI "a person who holds a private pilot certificate"?

For the purposes of this discussion, yes.

 

[Lindberg]

Because either the operation isn’t under the authority of the 135 certificate that would be required

Why would a 135 certificate be required?

or it’s violating the regs requiring crew members only operate the controls.

What regs are those?

For the purposes of this discussion, yes.

But not in reality, right?

 

[Salty]

I admit to not reading the entire thread, sorry.

But, is someone suggesting that the times I flew safety pilot for someone and logged the hours and didn't pay anything for the flight, or had someone else safety pilot for me and I paid for the flight, we were in violation?

 

[Lindberg]

I admit to not reading the entire thread, sorry.

But, is someone suggesting that the times I flew safety pilot for someone and logged the hours and didn't pay anything for the flight, or had someone else safety pilot for me and I paid for the flight, we were in violation?

Yes, that seems to be what people are saying.

 

[Salty]

Yes, that seems to be what people are saying.

What if I only safety piloted for 1/2 hour of the flight and bought lunch?

This is ridiculous.

 

[kath]

But, is someone suggesting that the times I flew safety pilot for someone and logged the hours and didn't pay anything for the flight, or had someone else safety pilot for me and I paid for the flight, we were in violation?

No, I'm suggesting that the times you flew safety pilot for someone and logged the hours (because you were acting as PIC) and the other person PAID YOU more than pro rata, that was in violation.

You can always pay for the entirety of a flight, if you are the PIC.

 

[Salty]

No, I'm suggesting that the times you flew safety pilot for someone and logged the hours (because you were acting as PIC) and the other person PAID YOU more than pro rata, that was in violation.

You can always pay for the entirety of a flight, if you are the PIC.

I do see the subtlety there, thanks.

 

[Lindberg]

No, I'm suggesting that the times you flew safety pilot for someone and logged the hours (because you were acting as PIC) and the other person PAID YOU more than pro rata, that was in violation.

But why?

 

[kath]

But why?

Because you (the safety pilot *and* acting PIC) are exercising the privileges of your Private (or Commercial) certificate for a Private-level flight operation. And the other guy (the pilot flying under the hood) is not exercising any privileges at all. That person might as well be your cousin with no certificate. That makes him your passenger. And so you may at most share costs.

Now, if you are the safety pilot but NOT acting as PIC, then your buddy flying under the hood is exercising the privileges of *his* certificate, and you are serving only as a required crew member for the operation. You can let him pay for the entire flight if he so chooses. But under these circumstances, you cannot log PIC. You can only log SIC.

 

[EdFred]

If only there was a sticky about all this logging and acting stuff....

 

[midlifeflyer]

I wonder if this helps the discussion.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...rts, Andrew - (2012) Legal Interpretation.pdf

 

[EdFred]

A CFII recently posted in a local Facebook flying group that he has a Cessna 150 that he would offer for time building. He will not provide instruction, will fly with you as the safety pilot, and wants $50/hr wet for the plane. His goal is to build time as well.

As a recent IR student now looking to build time for my CPL this is tempting. However, I am unsure if this is allowed as I am paying more than the pro rata share? I am finding this to be a grey area with no clear answer.

Going back to the original post lets take what is written and make a couple assumptions based on what we've experienced in real life in dealing with insurance and crap.
#1 insurance is going to want any actual PIC as a named pilot or as someone under the open pilot clause and is NOT good with it being rented, so this whole renting isn't pro rata is moot.
#2 the owner says he will not be providing instruction, so that wipes out a bunch of logging PIC and acting PIC possibilites
#3 the owner is providing it as time building. I am going to assume time building for both parties.
#4 since the time building is for both parties and the owner is going to be safety pilot the owner is ALSO acting PIC.

With all of that as a basis, the pilot flying under the hood is really just a passenger as @kath said since he is not acting as PIC, doesn't need to be current, have a medical, etc. Yeah, he's LOGGING PIC, but he has no authority over the flight or anything. With all that being said, the FAA through regulation and chief counsel opinion has said that the PILOT (the owner) may not pay less than the pro-rata share of the cost of that flight, and the cost of that flight can only be fees, fuel, and oil. No engine fund, no maintenance fund, just direct costs of THAT FLIGHT. A 150 is not burning $100/hr of fuel and oil. So the owner may not charge $50 and call it "splitting the costs pro rata." Since the owner is collecting more than pro rata he is in violation of the regulations put forth by the FAA. And since it's his plane, and he's providing it under the guise of cost splitting, all of the "well maybe he's commercial or ATP" is bunk.

With what has been set forth the owner is ONLY exercising his private pilot privileges so he is bound by the private pilot limitations and the opinions and interpretations the FAA has laid out in relation to those regulations.

Edit: I posted before Mark's interpretation, but that opinion seems to operate under the guise that the pilot flying under the hood is providing/renting the plane, and not the safety pilot providing it.

Edit: Using that letter it certainly seems that one could "rent" a whole lot of planes without having to comply with 100hr inspections.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Why would a 135 certificate be required?
Because if the CFII is not acting as an instructor or exercising Private Pilot privileges, it falls under 135, since he’s exercising Commercial or ATP privileges and providing the airplane for hire.
What regs are those?
135 regs.
But not in reality, right?
if this scenario turns into reality, and he’s exercising Private Pilot privileges, it would be in reality as well.

 

[TommyG]

Mind blowing of how many people on this board work for FAA Chief Council.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Edit: I posted before Mark's interpretation, but that opinion seems to operate under the guise that the pilot flying under the hood is providing/renting the plane, and not the safety pilot providing it.

I don't see the distinction. My very first impression when I read it several years ago was, "well, duh." I saw the interpretation as saying, in effect, "when two pilots share a flight in which both participate as crew, and it is not part of a ruse to provide transportation, we don't care how they choose to share the expenses."

 

[NorthEast Ohio]

Maybe this is legal if we call it a private carriage flight,
according to the FAA is that a private carriage flight is only available to “one or several selected customers, generally on a long-term basis.” Because it is so select and limited, private carriage is not advertised.
This means the flight is conducted under part 91 - (not under part 135).

 

[MauleSkinner]

Maybe this is legal if we call it a private carriage flight,
according to the FAA is that a private carriage flight is only available to “one or several selected customers, generally on a long-term basis.” Because it is so select and limited, private carriage is not advertised.
This means the flight is conducted under part 91 - (not under part 135).

Why not just call it two pilots going out and flying together to build time?

 

[Lindberg]

Because you (the safety pilot *and* acting PIC) are exercising the privileges of your Private (or Commercial) certificate for a Private-level flight operation. And the other guy (the pilot flying under the hood) is not exercising any privileges at all. That person might as well be your cousin with no certificate. That makes him your passenger. And so you may at most share costs.

Now, if you are the safety pilot but NOT acting as PIC, then your buddy flying under the hood is exercising the privileges of *his* certificate, and you are serving only as a required crew member for the operation. You can let him pay for the entire flight if he so chooses. But under these circumstances, you cannot log PIC. You can only log SIC.

It's not that complicated. Both are required crewmembers. So neither is a passenger. So even if the CFI was a Private Pilot, 61.113(c) wouldn't apply.

 

[Warlock]

Thank god I flew my first 20 years in the military and no longer log hours other than for currency and Flight reviews…God help us…

 

[midlifeflyer]

Maybe this is legal if we call it a private carriage flight,
according to the FAA is that a private carriage flight is only available to “one or several selected customers, generally on a long-term basis.” Because it is so select and limited, private carriage is not advertised.
This means the flight is conducted under part 91 - (not under part 135).

Common misconception. Private carriage requires a Part 135 certificate. It is not Part 91. See the pic of a private carriage certificate below.

We've gone into this in detail in discussions of commercial privileges but the essence is that providing pilot and crew for the purpose of transporting someone else or their property for compensation always involves the need for an operating certificate unless it comes within a specific exception. Cost sharing under 61.113 is one. For commercial pilots, the list in 119.1 are others.

If you want a good example, look up the term, “flight department company.” That’s a situation in which Company A owns 100% of Company B. Company B has airplane and crew which is used for only one purpose-to provide transportation to its owner, Company A. Nothing meets the definition of “private carriage” more than that. Only one customer which in intimately related to it. No holding out at all. But it is Part 135.

Besides, remember the CFI in this scenario is "advertising" for "customers" from a segment of the public on Facebook so, if it's "carriage" good chance the FAA would see it as public, not private.

 

[EdFred]

So when the one pilot isn't under the hood, wouldn't pro-rata needed to be figured out for that time since one of the pilots wouldn't be a required, and therefore would be a passenger?

 

[MauleSkinner]

So when the one pilot isn't under the hood, wouldn't pro-rata needed to be figured out for that time since one of the pilots wouldn't be a required, and therefore would be a passenger?

That’s factored into the fact that the hourly rate is based on tach, not Hobbs, therefore the owner is paying for that time, not the passenger.

 

[Jon Howard]

You need to know what the owner's insurance policy does or does not cover. If his policy does not cover "rental" to you, if any damage occurs while you are acting as PIC, then the insurance company COULD ask you to pay for it. Additionally, if you cause damage to somone else (say you collide with another aircraft while taxiing) and you get sued the owner's policy might not protect you. You will probably need/want no-owned/renters insurance to cover the value of the aircraft and your own liability just in case.

 

[MauleSkinner]

You need to know what the owner's insurance policy does or does not cover. If his policy does not cover "rental" to you, if any damage occurs while you are acting as PIC, then the insurance company COULD ask you to pay for it. Additionally, if you cause damage to somone else (say you collide with another aircraft while taxiing) and you get sued the owner's policy might not protect you. You will probably need/want no-owned/renters insurance to cover the value of the aircraft and your own liability just in case.

Even if it does cover the “rental”, it only covers the owner/policy holder. Unless you’re listed as an additional insured, the owner’s policy won’t protect you from anything.

 

[Jon Howard]

Even if it does cover the “rental”, it only covers the owner/policy holder. Unless you’re listed as an additional insured, the owner’s policy won’t protect you from anything.

Depends on the policy. Some policies allow rental to named pilots - and the renter might be covered. You have to read the whole policy to determine what is covered and what is excluded.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Depends on the policy. Some policies allow rental to named pilots - and the renter might be covered. You have to read the whole policy to determine what is covered and what is excluded.

And the way to tell if that renter is covered is by reading the policy and seeing if he is listed as an “additional insured”.

 

[unsafervguy]

everybody seems to be throwing in things that are not really important.
1. if he supplies the aircraft and gives instruction for hire, then a 100hr is required.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire, and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has received an annual or 100-hour inspection and been approved for return to service in accordance with part 43 of this chapter or has received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

If he is flat out renting the aircraft to the person, and no passenger is carried for hire, then it is not required.

2. as to his insurance, that is between him and his insurance company and has no legal basis on the question of is this legal. The FAA does not care.

3. as to logging it, it simple you can log PIC for any time that you are sole manipulator of the controls. you can log time as safety pilot when the other pilot is under the hood. no hood, no time. under 61.51 there is no clause that allows logging of PIC time just because you are ACTING as PIC. so, if he is rated and sole manipulator of the controls, and you are not giving flight instruction, you are a passenger. period. its that simple.

 

[MauleSkinner]

2. as to his insurance, that is between him and his insurance company and has no legal basis on the question of is this legal. The FAA does not care.

True, the FAA doesn’t care. But if something happens and the insurance company subrogates against the OP, it suddenly becomes a very big legal issue.

if the OP wants to disregard the insurance info, that’s his prerogative. But to assume the OP already knows the ins and outs of insurance better than most pilots seems a bit of a stretch, as does the assumption that the OP prefers to remain ignorant about something he maybe hadn’t even considered.