Another-nother Pro-Rata Share Question

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,034
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
My daughter's birthday is coming up but my mother has a scheduling conflict. She needs to be in another state (about 1-2hrs flight) for an dance recital that she promised she'd be in attendance for that morning.

If she drives, she can't make it back in time for the party. Mom wants to be at the birthday party, but a promise is a promise. My wife and I have tried to change the reservation date at the party location, but....alas, not going to happen.

When discussing the party date with my mom (after the fact) is when I learned about this dance recital. I asked where it is and she tell me and follows-up with "Are you going to fly me there?"

If our common purpose is for mom to make the birthday party, will this work as a legit reason to conduct the flight with mom paying a portion?

(note- MOST of this story is true; what's not true is that we were able to solve the jam and get another party date, but the story is better with a little drama)
 
I think the fact that your mother most likely has an established history of vesting you with gifts, an unrelated monetary contribution from her would be credible, if the issue ever came up.
 
It's your mother. Even the FARs don't take priority over your mother.
 
I wouldn't sit in a plane with my mother for 2 hrs. You are a hell of a guy for even considering the trip regardless if she paid 100% of the fuel.

Your assets (disposable) should be going towards your children not your mother, unless she doesn't have the ability to pay that is another matter.
 
This only works if mom actually arrives at the destination -- intact, and still alive. :lol:
 
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?
 
Jay - Sharing costs with family, particularly parents, is not likely to raise any eyebrows, unless your mom decides to complain about you to the FAA.
 
A non-issue, brought on by reading too many threads in POA.

Bob Gardner
 
DavidWhite said:
I've never had an issue with my parents paying for flying.
Click to expand...

Lucky! Mine detest the fact that I'm taking to the skies, and insist that I will die in a firey crash if I forget a strobe light or am a foot below the glideslope.
 
The question itself is prima facie evidence of the absurdity of 14 CFR 61.113(b). The FAA General Counsel has even determined that the generation of "good will" constitutes "compensation". So Mom is a passenger and if you are generating "good will" with Mom, you are in violation of 61.113 ["Goodwill is a form of prohibited compensation." Administrator v. Blackburn, 4 NTSB 409 (1982)].

Here's another good one: Your brother, a non-pilot, wishes to hitch a ride with you on your airplane to a business meeting that he has in connection with his employment. His employer is willing to fully reimburse HIM for the expenses (fuel, oil and landing fees that he, out of brotherly affection, pays on the trip). Are you in violation for accepting your brother's offer? (Rhetorical question)
 
TMetzinger said:
Jay - Sharing costs with family, particularly parents, is not likely to raise any eyebrows, unless your mn?om decides to complain about you to the FAA.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

Why even ask such a question? Are you planning to advertise your mother's financial contribution to the world? Is she? Has she ever turned you in to the cops before? :dunno:
 
Ron Levy said:
:yeahthat:

Why even ask such a question? Are you planning to advertise your mother's financial contribution to the world? Is she? Has she ever turned you in to the cops before? :dunno:
Click to expand...

As the great B.B.King sang

"Nobody loves me, but my mother And she could me jivin' too"


​
 
DrMack said:
The question itself is prima facie evidence of the absurdity of 14 CFR 61.113(b). The FAA General Counsel has even determined that the generation of "good will" constitutes "compensation". So Mom is a passenger and if you are generating "good will" with Mom, you are in violation of 61.113 ["Goodwill is a form of prohibited compensation." Administrator v. Blackburn, 4 NTSB 409 (1982)].

Here's another good one: Your brother, a non-pilot, wishes to hitch a ride with you on your airplane to a business meeting that he has in connection with his employment. His employer is willing to fully reimburse HIM for the expenses (fuel, oil and landing fees that he, out of brotherly affection, pays on the trip). Are you in violation for accepting your brother's offer? (Rhetorical question)
Click to expand...
In this case, I wouldn't be the recipient of the goodwill. It's preservation of grandmother-daughter relationship.
 
For the record, the discussion did occur, but the need to fly my mother has expired. And I've never done anything requiring an interview behind a big one way mirror.
 
DrMack said:
The question itself is prima facie evidence of the absurdity of 14 CFR 61.113(b).
Click to expand...
Really? The absurdity of FAA interpretations attempting to get at conduct by "creative" pilots trying to perform Part 135-style operations without meeting and paying for stricter requirements is established by an absurd question about flying ones own mother?

The question itself is better "prima facie" evidence of what Bob described as
A non-issue, brought on by reading too many threads in POA.
Click to expand...
But if one's looking for "evidence" to support an attack on almost any rule (FAA or not), one can usually find it.

I think the FAA rules on what constitutes compensation tend to get silly in the abstract. But I don't think I've come across many cases of them being applied to something that did not quack like a duck. More a justification for a result than leading to the result itself. (Yes, that's problematic and potentially subject to abuse)

Of course, if one has problems with 61.113, the easiest and clearest solution is to toss it entirely. So much easier, and no need for interpretations, for a rule that simply precludes the receipt of any compensation at all by a pilot exercising private privileges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top