Can a PPL get paid to bring a warbird?

Morne

Morne

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
699
Display Name
Display name:
Morne
Strange question, maybe...

Suppose a PPL owns a warbird. Can he get paid to fly his own warbird to an air show? Or would that require a Commercial ticket?
 
<Not a Pilot> From what I understand from other discussions here, and what I think I understand of the regs, (someone tell me if I'm wrong) I think he could be paid to provide his plane for display, but he can't be paid for flying it there.

Am I right?
 
Morne said:
Strange question, maybe...

Suppose a PPL owns a warbird. Can he get paid to fly his own warbird to an air show? Or would that require a Commercial ticket?
Click to expand...
It depends upon what they do at the show, I fly a war bird, I'm not a C/Pilot. but I can fly my aircraft any where any one can fly their own aircraft. But I can not accept any compensation for doing it.

If they are giving away free gas for those war birds who fly in, you bet I'll be in line.
 
Tom-D said:
It depends upon what they do at the show, I fly a war bird, I'm not a C/Pilot. but I can fly my aircraft any where any one can fly their own aircraft. But I can not accept any compensation for doing it.
Click to expand...
Agreed so far.

If they are giving away free gas for those war birds who fly in, you bet I'll be in line.
Click to expand...
I don't believe it's legal to accept any compensation (including compensation in kind, such as gas, food, or lodging) for flying the plane to the show without a CP or better, but I know of no cases on point. If someone has something authoritative on point, I'd like to see it.
 
So far what you've said is in agreement with what I said, but I'm curious if he would be allowed to be paid for displaying his plane, or if that would be considered compensation for flying.
 
WAG, but I would think that the 'duck' test would come in to play. If you kept flying to airshows and being paid exactly the cost of your gas en route for 'static display rights'...
 
If you aren't performing, you aren't exercising your ticket by displaying the aircraft. I don't see how it can be construed as compensation or hire. If there was any flying involved it would be very clear that he wouldn't be able to accept anything.

But if I am wrong, Ron is right. Taking a turkey sandwich for free while you are at the airshow can absolutely be construed as compensation.
 
tiger said:
WAG, but I would think that the 'duck' test would come in to play. If you kept flying to airshows and being paid exactly the cost of your gas en route for 'static display rights'...
Click to expand...
Exactly my thinking. Whether the Chief Counsel thinks the same way, I don't know, but given their hard-nosed position on anything that looks or even smells like compensation to a PPL for flying, it's not something I'd recommend without some sort of prior statement of approval from AGC-200. Personally, I doubt the FSDO would go after Tom if one time at one airshow the show operator forgets to bill Tom for the gas pumped into his Fairchild. However, if word gets around he'll fly to any show any weekend all summer long and put his plane on display in return for gas, that might have a bad outcome for Tom.
 
Inverted said:
If you aren't performing, you aren't exercising your ticket by displaying the aircraft. I don't see how it can be construed as compensation or hire. If there was any flying involved it would be very clear that he wouldn't be able to accept anything.
Click to expand...
Y'see, that's the thing -- there is flying involved -- to and from the show, and his compensation appears to me to be directly related to that flying. Now, if they were paying Tom a flat rate per day for his time and trouble to stand next to that airplane all day, he might have a better argument. But the problem I see as posted is the direct relationship between the cost of the flight and the amount of the compensation, and I suspect that could sound to the FAA like a duck quacking. As I said, I really don't know, but when it comes to compensation issues, past cases suggest it's a lot better to ask permission than forgiveness.
But if I am wrong, Ron is right. Taking a turkey sandwich for free while you are at the airshow can absolutely be construed as compensation.
Click to expand...
...and that Fairchild burns a lot more than one turkey sandwich worth of gas just taxiing out. :wink2:
 
Ya there can be no indication of being compensated for the flight to and from the show. But if they paid you 6,000 bucks to have your plane sit on the airshow ramp for 3 days then hey, thats cool.
 
Here is the easy way - create a corporation to own the airplane. The annual cost of administration and accounting will be a fraction of the annual cost of the aircraft.

The corporation the contracts for an appearance fee for the airplane.

The private pilot flies the airplane there and back and receives no 'compensation' other than the buffet, morning coffee, water, lunch a dinner and the usual freebies available at every airshow to every participant except when the Marines are involved.

The corporation owns and operates the aircraft. It gets paid an appearance fee. Free Gas. Whatever. The PILOT is not being compensated.

End of problem. Sometimes it is possible to do things indirectly that cannot be done directly.
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't believe it's legal to accept any compensation (including compensation in kind, such as gas, food, or lodging) for flying the plane to the show without a CP or better, but I know of no cases on point. If someone has something authoritative on point, I'd like to see it.
Click to expand...

Free gas isn't for flying, free gas is for displaying the aircraft.

If some one pays me to take pictures of my aircraft, and I'm required to fly it to the site the pictures are being taken am I being paid to fly the aircraft? or am I being compensated for making the aircraft available?

If some uses my aircraft and many like it to be the attraction of an event, Am I being paid to fly it? or am I being paid for the display?

I can not be paid to take folks for rides. they can't even take up a collection to buy me fuel.

I can set out a can with a note on it stating that if you want to continue to see this aircraft at these events please donate.
 
Last edited:
comanchepilot said:
Here is the easy way - create a corporation to own the airplane. The annual cost of administration and accounting will be a fraction of the annual cost of the aircraft.
Click to expand...

Except maybe in California, where the franchise tax was $800/year last I checked. So glad I closed my C corp and moved to Oregon.
 
So, how do these warbird pilots get compensated? Are the all Commercially rated? So if I get a warbird and a C rating, I can get compensated for flying to an airshow?
 
Inverted said:
Ya there can be no indication of being compensated for the flight to and from the show. But if they paid you 6,000 bucks to have your plane sit on the airshow ramp for 3 days then hey, thats cool.
Click to expand...
Right.
images
 
Tom-D said:
Free gas isn't for flying, free gas is for displaying the aircraft.
Click to expand...
In that case, everyone would get the same amount of free gas, but that's not what you're suggesting is happening. In fact, the amount you're "paid" in free gas is directly dependent on your travel expenses. That smells to me like compensation for flying, not displaying.

Argue away if you like, but it really doesn't matter what I think, only what the FAA Chief Counsel thinks, and if you can get them to say it's OK, more power to you. That said, while I know of no case specifically on point, the record clearly shows that they are very hard-nosed on this subject.
 
comanchepilot said:
Here is the easy way - create a corporation to own the airplane. The annual cost of administration and accounting will be a fraction of the annual cost of the aircraft.

The corporation the contracts for an appearance fee for the airplane.

The private pilot flies the airplane there and back and receives no 'compensation' other than the buffet, morning coffee, water, lunch a dinner and the usual freebies available at every airshow to every participant except when the Marines are involved.
Click to expand...
...and the free flying time, which the FAA Chief Counsel says is "compensation." End of solution.
 
Anthony said:
So, how do these warbird pilots get compensated? Are the all Commercially rated? So if I get a warbird and a C rating, I can get compensated for flying to an airshow?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, although technically it's a Commercial Pilot certificate, not a rating.
 
> Are the all Commercially rated?

All? No. I'm aware of a T6, F4U, SNB & Connie that have done airshow
appearances for fuel, lodging, food and/or rental car ... positioning flight
PICs were all PPL. Yes, the F4U and Connie PICs had the necessary LOAs.

>> they are very hard-nosed on this subject.

Amen. Their interpretation for the LTA guys was, IMHO, stunningly wrong.
 
Last edited:
Up to about 3-4 years ago the EAA was sponsoring the FLY-IN at AWO. the war birds were getting free fuel for showing up and displaying their aircraft. T he FAA did nothing said nothing or paid no attention to the process. The EAA then stopped the sponsorship and the city of Arlington continued to hold the Fly-In, and refused to provide the free fuel, the war bird operators had a fit and the next year they did not show up for the event and most of the comments by the public was not very nice, ranging from the event was now not worth the price of the ticket.

Every year since the event has drawn fewer and fewer spectators. the event now has more tractors, WWII military stuff, hit and miss engines than aircraft on display.
 
Ron Levy said:
In that case, everyone would get the same amount of free gas, but that's not what you're suggesting is happening. In fact, the amount you're "paid" in free gas is directly dependent on your travel expenses. That smells to me like compensation for flying, not displaying.
Click to expand...
This makes sense to me. I had not thought about the amount paid being equal to fuel needed for the trip. I had only considered that everyone bringing a warbird (or whatever kind of plane is desired) were getting some flat amount. Would that be legit?

Tom-D said:
Up to about 3-4 years ago the EAA was sponsoring the FLY-IN at AWO. the war birds were getting free fuel for showing up and displaying their aircraft. T he FAA did nothing said nothing or paid no attention to the process.
Click to expand...
This reminds me that I saw a perks program for Sun 'n Fun. Is this only available for commercial pilots? I don't see anything that says it is.
 
> What is a LOA?

>> Letter of Authorization

Essentially; a "type rating," but for an aircraft that does not already have a defined type-rating training & test syllabus.
 
hopmedic said:
This makes sense to me. I had not thought about the amount paid being equal to fuel needed for the trip.

The amount of fuel is no way near the usage for the trip in most cases. My 24 only uses 9 gallons per hour, and it's only a 10 minute trip for me, so I'm probably the exception to the rule. most of these war birds use 60-80 gallons per hour, they burn more fuel taxing out that I use coming and going.


I had only considered that everyone bringing a warbird (or whatever kind of plane is desired) were getting some flat amount. Would that be legit?

we all did get the same amount, and it ain't much, but it was incentive to come to the event.

This reminds me that I saw a perks program for Sun 'n Fun. Is this only available for commercial pilots? I don't see anything that says it is.
Click to expand...

Most of the war big pilots are C/PL they are retired airline pilots or a owner with a heavy wallet or a tax free corp that runs on donations. Me I'm simply an owner that can do my own maintenance and can operate the 24 because it isn't a fuel pig. and that syndrome applies to the other small war birds too. (the J3s and Taylor crafts etc.)

The free gas for displaying your warbird has been going on for a long time, and the FAA never paid any attention, we simply thought as long as no one got violate we were go to go. Now the the cost of gas has gone up, and the cost of sponsoring these events has increased, you'll probably see less free gas. so it becomes a pot we don't want to stir, what boils out might be something we don't want.
 
The amount of fuel is no way near the usage for the trip in most cases. My 24 only uses 9 gallons per hour, and it's only a 10 minute trip for me, so I'm probably the exception to the rule. most of these war birds use 60-80 gallons per hour, they burn more fuel taxing out that I use coming and going.
Click to expand...
WOW!

Tom-D said:
Most of the war big pilots are C/PL they are retired airline pilots or a owner with a heavy wallet or a tax free corp that runs on donations. Me I'm simply an owner that can do my own maintenance and can operate the 24 because it isn't a fuel pig. and that syndrome applies to the other small war birds too. (the J3s and Taylor crafts etc.)

The free gas for displaying your warbird has been going on for a long time, and the FAA never paid any attention, we simply thought as long as no one got violate we were go to go. Now the the cost of gas has gone up, and the cost of sponsoring these events has increased, you'll probably see less free gas. so it becomes a pot we don't want to stir, what boils out might be something we don't want.
Click to expand...
Ah..... Got it. Thanks for the explanation.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Except maybe in California, where the franchise tax was $800/year last I checked. So glad I closed my C corp and moved to Oregon.
Click to expand...

and if you are getting $25k a year in appearance fees - and it costs $75k [or more] a year to operate a real warbird - not an T-6 Texan wannabe - $800 is not even a spark plug. . .
 
CMTowner said:
Then the pilot pays $1 and it is no longer free flying.
Click to expand...
$1 isn't enough unless they didn't burn more than about 4 ounces of fuel. The reg does not say "no free flying," it says the Private Pilot must pay no less than his/her pro rata share of the direct expenses of the flight.
 
rainsux said:
> Are the all Commercially rated?

All? No. I'm aware of a T6, F4U, SNB & Connie that have done airshow
appearances for fuel, lodging, food and/or rental car ... positioning flight
PICs were all PPL. Yes, the F4U and Connie PICs had the necessary LOAs.
Click to expand...
Are you aware of anything in writing from the FAA saying that's OK, or even a tacit but knowing approval of PP's ferrying the plane and not paying their pro-rata share of the direct cost of the flights? Or was this just a case of "don't ask, don't tell"?
 
The pilot paying to fly is not part of the OP question. I presume that the PPL is flying a warbird that he/she owns.
 
hopmedic said:
This makes sense to me. I had not thought about the amount paid being equal to fuel needed for the trip. I had only considered that everyone bringing a warbird (or whatever kind of plane is desired) were getting some flat amount. Would that be legit?
Click to expand...
Well, let's just say I don't know of any reason it would not. By doing that, the connection between the compensation and the flying time would appear to be severed, but the Chief Counsel has surprised me before on this subject, most notably the horrible Mangiamele interpretation.

This reminds me that I saw a perks program for Sun 'n Fun. Is this only available for commercial pilots? I don't see anything that says it is.
Click to expand...
That one appears to separate the compensation from the actual cost of the flight, and so appears to me to be legit even for a Private Pilot, but as I said, unless the Chief Counsel has already approved that, I would not be too terribly surprised if they said "no" if the question were asked.
 
comanchepilot said:
and if you are getting $25k a year in appearance fees - and it costs $75k [or more] a year to operate a real warbird - not an T-6 Texan wannabe - $800 is not even a spark plug. . .
Click to expand...
In general, the FAA's view on compensation is not based on whether you make a profit or not, but rather that any compensation, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

Does that phrase ring a bell, Counselor? :D
 
Morne said:
The pilot paying to fly is not part of the OP question. I presume that the PPL is flying a warbird that he/she owns.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's an indirect part of the question, since the FAA requires a PP to pay at least his/her pro rata share of the operating cost for the flight. If s/he is the only person in that warbird, that suggests to me s/he must pay the full cost of the "fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees," and even one drop of fuel pumped free into that plane breaks that rule.
 
> Are you aware of anything in writing from the FAA saying that's OK ... Or was this
> just a case of "don't ask, don't tell"?

No. But it's hardly a secret.

I hope that nobody goes running to a regional counsel or chief counsel to
request [cough] clarification/permission.

I recall that there is some sort of fig leaf for the CAF, EAA, Collings, etc.
warbird "ride" ops, but never really paid attn to the details. I recall that I
had to join CAF and EAA before "riding."
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
$1 isn't enough unless they didn't burn more than about 4 ounces of fuel. The reg does not say "no free flying," it says the Private Pilot must pay no less than his/her pro rata share of the direct expenses of the flight.
Click to expand...

How do you do the math when most Warbirds are single seaters?
 
Ron Levy said:
Actually, it's an indirect part of the question, since the FAA requires a PP to pay at least his/her pro rata share of the operating cost for the flight. If s/he is the only person in that warbird, that suggests to me s/he must pay the full cost of the "fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees," and even one drop of fuel pumped free into that plane breaks that rule.
Click to expand...

There is one big glitch in this theory, the FAA doesn't know who paid for what.

and I'm sure as hell not going to tell them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top