Can you Get Paid to Fly people with a Private Pilot License?

PilotNas

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
11
Location
Castro Valley, CA
Display Name

Display name:
PilotNas
Hi :goofy:

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<<
 
The only exception I know of is partial payment (<50%) for sharing expenses and for charity flights the passenger can pay the charity, but this requires prior notification to the FAA. Generally if you have a PPL, you CANNOT get paid to transport people or cargo.
 
Oh jeez, not this again. Figure out the SEARCH function, this gets beat to death about every 3 months. For your purposes the answer is NO.
 
Oh jeez, not this again. Figure out the SEARCH function, this gets beat to death about every 3 months. For your purposes the answer is NO.

Your right ,always looking for a chance to make money without doing the time. If enough of us say go for it,it doesn't make it right.
 
Alberta Brown FAA, meet pilotNas. Sigh.

"oh it can't be true, it can't be true, it can't be true, I wish it were not true, so it must not be true". By the way, I read it on an internet board......

It's called a Commercial Airman working for a Certificate holder....PilotNAS read parts 135 and part 119, they are all devoted to plugging any holes in the "get paid to fly" scenario.....
 
I make money flying, it is incidental to my job of fixing the aircraft.

When I must come pick up your aircraft I charge the time to do that. 8 hours charged may include the time I spend in all portions of the repair/servicing/inspecting.
 
Oh jeez, not this again. Figure out the SEARCH function, this gets beat to death about every 3 months. For your purposes the answer is NO.

Bruce, this reminds me of why I hated phone duty at the FSDO. You get asked the question, you cite the applicable regs and then the response is "but I was told"..........
 
Folks lets give a new user a bit of slack. He's just asking a question. Not everyone understands message board usage the way others do. Not everyone has been a member of this community for several years like many of us. They op just joined last week. How about we give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
Bruce, this reminds me of why I hated phone duty at the FSDO. You get asked the question, you cite the applicable regs and then the response is "but I was told"..........

"But I was told" ........ By another FSDO is was no problem. ;)

Yes, it happened to me. :rolleyes2:
 
Bruce, this reminds me of why I hated phone duty at the FSDO. You get asked the question, you cite the applicable regs and then the response is "but I was told"..........

It's like those tax clients that are given tax advice by non CPAs. Have a tax client that every year insists that landscaping for his 100% personal residence is deductible, by his neighbor. Show him the regs. Two years ago I told him he could rep are his own return and I would visit him. In jail. He had me prepare the return as I saw fit. Last year not a peep.....why? Neighbor got audited by IRS on other matters and they caught him on the landscaping. Big penalties and interest. Karma is a *****.
 
Hi :goofy:

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<<

To answer your question, yes, if you fly Candidates for an elected federal office, you may accept pay as necessary to comply with federal election commission requirements. 14 CFR 91.321
 
To answer your question, yes, if you fly Candidates for an elected federal office, you may accept pay as necessary to comply with federal election commission requirements. 14 CFR 91.321

Yep, I don't think a politician can take a freebie.
 
I make money flying, it is incidental to my job of fixing the aircraft. When I must come pick up your aircraft I charge the time to do that.
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.
 
Last edited:
To answer your question, yes, if you fly Candidates for an elected federal office, you may accept pay as necessary to comply with federal election commission requirements. 14 CFR 91.321
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.

BTW, this section was added primarily to allow corporations to carry candidates in their bizjets without running afoul of Federal campaign contribution laws. In those cases, the aircraft are flown by professional CP/ATP pilots in the corporation's employ. As an unintended consequence, it allows privately owned planes to do the same thing, but only with CP or better pilots. It was not intended to bypass the 61.113 restrictions on PP's flying airplanes with paying passengers, and does not do so.
 
Last edited:
Welcome aboard. I hope you find this forum useful.

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?
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:

  • Flying yourself on business for your employer, subject to several restrictions
    • Must not have anyone else in the plane
    • Must not be reimbursed more than the direct cost of the flight in addition to your regular pay
  • Sharing expenses with your passengers
    • Must have a "common purpose" for the flight -- everyone aboard including the pilot has a reason to be going to the same destination at the same time
    • Pilot must pay at least his/her pro rata share of the direct cost of the flight and cannot receive more than the remainder of direct cost
  • Receiving reimbursement for 91.147 charitable airlift flights providing "Reimbursement of the operator of the airplane or helicopter is limited to that portion of the passenger payment for the flight that does not exceed the pro rata cost of owning, operating, and maintaining the aircraft for that flight, which may include fuel, oil, airport expenditures, and rental fees."
  • Reimbursement for fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees for SAR flights for CAP and similar local, State, or Federal agency organizations.
  • Aircraft salesmen on demonstration flights

Thanks for your input.
Happy to help.
 
Whatever exceptions exist are far more difficult to make happen then getting your commercial rating.
 
Yep, as long as the people on the plane are ONLY the following and it is strictly personal - no business flights:

Your:
Spouse
Mother
Father
Sister
Brother
Child
Grandparent

Those people can pay you to fly them, and only those people on the list I mentioned and the FAA will not say one word about it. Anyone you aren't sharing a lot of DNA or a bed with, not gonna happen.
 
Yep, as long as the people on the plane are ONLY the following and it is strictly personal - no business flights:

Your:
Spouse
Mother
Father
Sister
Brother
Child
Grandparent

Those people can pay you to fly them, and only those people on the list I mentioned and the FAA will not say one word about it.
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.
 
Last edited:
Way back when I ran a bill for the gas I bought from Harbor Air, a couple times when I went to pay my bill I would find that some one had already paid it.
Once that happened while my PMI was standing at the counter, I asked him how he would deal with that, he simply said "I wouldn't"
 
Way back when I ran a bill for the gas I bought from Harbor Air, a couple times when I went to pay my bill I would find that some one had already paid it.
Once that happened while my PMI was standing at the counter, I asked him how he would deal with that, he simply said "I wouldn't"
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.
 
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.

And yet in other threads you have said it's perfectly legal for parents to pay for all of their kids flying. Free flying = compensation under 61.113. So which is it? Can parents pay for their kids flying, or can they not? You can't have it both ways.
 
And yet in other threads you have said it's perfectly legal for parents to pay for all of their kids flying. Free flying = compensation under 61.113. So which is it? Can parents pay for their kids flying, or can they not? You can't have it both ways.
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).

So, I'm not having it both ways -- the thread involves getting paid to fly people with only a Private Pilot license, not who can pay for you to go flying on your own.
 
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).

So, I'm not having it both ways -- the thread involves getting paid to fly people with only a Private Pilot license, not who can pay for you to go flying on your own.

Yeah, because parents that give their kids money specifically for flying, never, ever go for a ride with them. Compensation is compensation - solo or not.
 
Yeah, because parents that give their kids money specifically for flying, never, ever go for a ride with them. Compensation is compensation - solo or not.
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.
 
Last edited:
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).

Yeah - I had to re-read the OP.
 
.... a couple times when I went to pay my bill I would find that some one had already paid it.
Several people have offered to buy gas after I take them for a ride. I always refuse.

I never put gas in the airplane when I have passengers. Tanks are filled before the guests arrive at the airport, partly so they don't know how much it costs to fly!

I have paid for my daughter to take some flying lessons. That is not paying her to fly. She receives no compensation. I just pay the FBO invoice for the airplane and instructor.

To the original post: Easiest to just keep your nose clean, and not get near a grey area (even though this is pretty black & white). I don't ever even accept partial reimbursement if I take somebody with me.
I consider it a gift to share the joy of flight with a friend.
 
Really the regulation exists to prevent private pilots from starting up a for-hire service.

If your best friend/family member wants to gift you dinner or a hotel room out of gratitude for a flight, I don't think anyone cares. If the evidence is thrown in the FAA's face they'll have to prosecute but that's not what they are after.

If you start an illegal for-profit transport service though, I think they'd very much care.
 
So, if you had the means and wanted to, you could buy a 747 and start giving away flights. Anywhere, any time, totally free. And you'd be legal? As long as you aren't compensated, sounds like you're good to go.

If so, I assume the FAA is relying on the economics of the situation to prevent that in practice. Are the rules about compensation designed to keep less experienced pilots and less well maintained airplanes from taking up unsuspecting passengers? If not, I don't see the reason they're so strict about it.
 
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.
 
So, if you had the means and wanted to, you could buy a 747 and start giving away flights. Anywhere, any time, totally free. And you'd be legal? As long as you aren't compensated, sounds like you're good to go.
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.

If so, I assume the FAA is relying on the economics of the situation to prevent that in practice.
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.

Are the rules about compensation designed to keep less experienced pilots and less well maintained airplanes from taking up unsuspecting passengers?
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.
 
I make money flying, it is incidental to my job of fixing the aircraft.

When I must come pick up your aircraft I charge the time to do that. 8 hours charged may include the time I spend in all portions of the repair/servicing/inspecting.

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.

You are wrong - if you don't believe me, just ask the Chief Counsel.

The FAA has consistently indicated that a private pilot may transport himself or herself to conduct business for a company under § 61.113(b). Since the aircraft could be transported by truck - or tools transported to it for it to be worked on - movement of the aircraft is also therefore incidental to its repair, servicing, or inspection. The flights are not an integral, normal, or necessary part of Tom's business. They are therefore incidental using those criteria.
 
You are wrong - if you don't believe me, just ask the Chief Counsel.

The FAA has consistently indicated that a private pilot may transport himself or herself to conduct business for a company under § 61.113(b). Since the aircraft could be transported by truck - or tools transported to it for it to be worked on - movement of the aircraft is also therefore incidental to its repair, servicing, or inspection. The flights are not an integral, normal, or necessary part of Tom's business. They are therefore incidental using those criteria.
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.

See the following interpretations on "incidental":
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...ps/1992/cox - (1992) legal interpretation.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...s/1997/grau - (1997) legal interpretation.pdf
Legal Interpretation to Mr. Wayne M. Del Rossi, from John H. Cassady, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations & Enforcement Division, June 17, 1987. (not on the internet)
 
Last edited:
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.

BTW, this section was added primarily to allow corporations to carry candidates in their bizjets without running afoul of Federal campaign contribution laws. In those cases, the aircraft are flown by professional CP/ATP pilots in the corporation's employ. As an unintended consequence, it allows privately owned planes to do the same thing, but only with CP or better pilots. It was not intended to bypass the 61.113 restrictions on PP's flying airplanes with paying passengers, and does not do so.

Thanks for clarifying that Ron. I misunderstood the rule, what has sinc been changed to allow the same for state and local candidates as well. It seems this is commonly misunderstood; even AOPA was mentioning in one of its communications that a PP could accept compensation. The FAA's intent is clear-in the docket of the 2006 revision they made it clear that the pilots must hold a commercial certificate.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...62571D200490F0D?OpenDocument&Highlight=91.321

Presently, Section 91.321 allows aircraft operators, who are not air carriers or commercial operators conducting flights under 14 CFR part 121, 125 or 135, to carry--for compensation--candidates in Federal elections without having to comply with FAA safety rules applicable to air carriers if the rules of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) require the candidate to make the payment. In view of the Congressional mandate, the FAA has revised its regulations to allow aircraft operators who transport candidates for public office in state and local elections for compensation, to do so without complying with FAA safety rules applicable to air carriers and other commercial operators. Neither the existing rules applicable to the transportation of candidates in Federal elections nor the new rules applicable to the transportation of candidates for public office in state and local elections relieve the pilots from the airman certification requirements of possessing, at a minimum, a commercial pilot certificate when the pilot is paid for the transportation service. The present rules and the revised rules merely relieve the aircraft operator from the requirements to possess an air carrier/commercial operator certificate.
 
Back
Top