Hi
I had a question? Can you get paid to FLY people around with only a Private Pilot License? I know that you need to have a Commercial but is there any exceptions?
Thanks for your input.
>>Information on Flying<<
And you're violating the regulations when you do that if you have only a PP certificate. The case you describe is most definitely not "incidental" to your employment as the FAA defines that term. If you don't believe me, just ask the Chief Counsel.
No, as a PP, he cannot accept pay for flying a 91.321 flight. He can't even be the pilot without pay. The aircraft operator can be paid for the transportation, but a Private Pilot cannot be PIC. That section provides relief only from the requirements of Parts 121, 125, and 135, not the Part 61 requirement that the PIC of an aircraft carrying persons for hire/compensation hold a CP or better. So, he can provide the plane, and be paid as required by Federal election laws by the candidate for providing the transportation, but must get a CP or better to be the pilot.
Welcome aboard. I hope you find this forum useful.Hi
There are a few exceptions listed in 14 CFR 61.113 (which should have been discussed as part of your PP training, and were probably discussed during your PP practical test). Essentially, they are as follows:
Happy to help.
Yes, you can do that, but it isn't legal, and if anyone complains to the FAA about it, they FAA will say something about it. Might not be the same as what they'd do if you were holding out to the public, but you will get at least a talking-to, probably in the "I didn't hear about this and I don't want to hear about it again" vein. Fundamentally, what Ed's statement assumes is not that it's actually legal to get paid by relatives, but rather that none of your family will complain to the FAA no matter what happens, and while that is generally a good assumption (especially where your Mom is concerned), there are families where it might very well happen. The line Carroll O'Connor had as Chief Gillespie in the TV show "Heat of the Night" about "In the South, we only shoot relatives" comes to mind, and in the period between when she found out about his infidelity and the finalization of their divorce, I think my ex-sister-in-law would have turned in my brother for spitting on the sidewalk.
Hardly a statement of FAA policy/legal interpretation -- just advice to let something lie. Ferry flights are not incidental to your employment as an aircraft, and posting on a nationally-read web board that you as a Private Pilot illegally accept payment for pilot services that way is not a wise decision.
You're raising an entirely different issue. Parents can certainly give money to their kids so the kids can go flying where and when the kids want. The parents just can't legally be passengers on flights for which they have paid other than within the limits of the shared expense/common purpose rules. The key is that it's only prohibited compensation if the parents get something of value (like air transportation or pilot services) in return for the money they paid (and children's love is not something on which the FAA puts a value).
Well, perhaps in your mind, but the FAA defines it rather differently, and I'm going with the FAA's definition since that's the only one which matters in this context. As I said, the FAA says that in order for it to be "compensation," there must be an exchange of items of value (I think that's the pretty general legal definition, too), and they don't put such a price tag on filial affection.
That's towing gliders, not carrying passengers (unless you think being compensated to tow a glider with someone in it to be "get[ting] paid to fly people" -- and I don't think that's what the OP meant).
Several people have offered to buy gas after I take them for a ride. I always refuse.
I still have somewhere in my office a check one of the dog rescue groups gave me for a Pilots'n'Paws run a few years back -- with VOID written in big black letters across it. I kept refusing to accept any money, so she dropped the check in the plane when I wasn't looking. I didn't want to hurt her feelings, and I figured that voiding and holding it was the best way to be sure it never got cashed by me or anyone else.
Not quite -- an airplane that big would fall under Part 125, and there are a lot of things involved in obtaining a Part 125 operating certificate. But bring the plane down to a size below the Part 125 threshold (seating configuration of 20 or more passengers or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more), and you could do that all day long and half the night without violating the FAA's rules.
Not so much that as the idea of "you get what you pay for" and if you're not paying for it, you can't expect much. It's when people are paying for the ride that the FAA sets much higher standards, although in an effort to avoid quibbling, they have set that standard very low -- any compensation, however slight, in any form (the filial affection mentioned above notwithstanding), is sufficient to complete the offense.
Exactly -- and their assumption is that if the passengers aren't paying, they shouldn't be unsuspecting, but if they are, they deserve this protection.
The FAA doesn't see it that way. Transporting aircraft to a maintenance facility for maintenance is not "an activity completely unrelated to aviation activities," and would be an integral part of the service he offers, so ferrying the plane for maintenance is not just incidental to performing the maintenance. In addition, Tom is transporting the property of another (the airplane in question) by air (note that per Mangiamele, you can't pick up a piece of a customer's equipment and take it to your shop to work on). Tom can legally charge for his time and expenses while flying himself and his tools (but nobody else and nothing belonging to the customer) in his own plane to the location of the aircraft to be worked on -- that is incidental. But being compensated to ferry planes requires a CP or better.
"But I read on the Internet"..........
