Charity flights

flyersfan31

flyersfan31

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
14,269
Display Name
Display name:
Freiburgfan31
My wife, unbeknownst to me, signed me up to provide an aerial sightseeing trip for a church auction. The auction has yet to occur; they're still in the planning stages. My immediate response was "You did what? Did you check the FARs? I'm not sure I can do that." She was extremely surprised that such a thing would be a problem. I said, "Welcome to the FAA."

I only have my Comm Multi, since I've yet to finish the SEL add-on. Hence, i'd be covered under private pilot regs. I reviewed 61.113 for guidance. I wasn't sure if this qualifies as an "airlift" as mentioned in the section.

What I'd do is this. Person bids on a, say, 1hr sightseeing trip at church auction. $$$ for winning bid are paid to church. I take the person up in the air for a nice little ride around the area, at my cost (I wouldn't bother with the tax deduction). Would you say this constitutes an "airlift" for the purposes of 61.113, thus requiring FSDO notification and all that paperwork?.

At the very least, I imagine a call to the Feds would be worthwhile. I just don't like calling attention to myself with them. I'm more inclined to suggest a charity car ride in the country to my wife!!
 
My wife's church has done this in the past with one of the members there. He is PP only as well, and I believe he contacts the FDSO and does the 25nm "sightseeing" type flight around the Quakertown Area.

Then again, as long as he isn't walking around the terminal or shouting off to people that he won this flight or paid for the flight at an auction, I don't think the Feds will know....
 
Let's see here...

FAR 61.113(d) said:
A private pilot may act as pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event flight described in 91.146, if the sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of 91.146
Click to expand...

So, let's see...

FAR 91.146(a) said:
Charitable event means an event that raises funds for the benefit of a charitable organization recognized by the Department of the Treasury whose donors may deduct contributions under section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. Section 170).
Click to expand...

FAR 91.146(b)(1) said:
The flight is nonstop and begins and ends at the same airport and is conducted within a 25-statute mile radius of that airport
Click to expand...

And you technically can get reimbursed for part of it.

FAR 91.146(b)(7) said:
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
Click to expand...

However...

FAR 91.146(b)(9) said:
A private pilot acting as pilot in command has at least 500 hours of flight time
Click to expand...

Which I think you meet, but I've never seen your log book.

Read the rest of 91.146 to make sure, but I don't see anything in there that makes me think you can't do it.

But hurry up and get your CP-ASEL. If you really want, I'll trade you my CP-ASEL for your CP-AMEL. ;)

Thanks for giving me an excuse to read through my FAR/AIM. :)
 
One of the previous posts detailed some of the elements of 14 CFR Part 91.146. Note the requirements in 91.146(e) for reporting the flight to the FSDO seven days in advance of the event including copies of certificate, medical and logbook entries demonstrating appropriate currencies.

I am doing something very similar (someone bought the flight but I haven't connected with them yet). The Minneapolis FSDO was very helpful over the phone, and in email, to describe the requirements.
 
Re: Charity flights <Does anyone have a hold-harmless that they use>

I have never asked someone to sign anything before a flight with the exception of the Young Eagles and AngelFlights. In those cases the organization provided a liability waiver.

Does anyone have a "generic" one that they use to protect themselves personally?

I have a general understanding of the power of a covenent not to sue, but am only asking if anyone has a generic one that they use when taking up non-family passengers.
 
Andrew I think they are just trying to avoid charity flights over things like the Grand Canyon. Traffic congestion issue is my guess.
 
I'd figure the issue would be less traffic congestion and more trying to prevent people from disguising tourist flights as charity flights. Standard FAA paranoia.
 
Re: Charity flights <Does anyone have a hold-harmless that they use>

twdeckard said:
Does anyone have a "generic" one that they use to protect themselves personally?
Click to expand...
Generic ones are generally worthless. Without one crafted specifically for the operation intended, in accordance with the laws of the state within which the event takes place, you are likely only to be wasting your time. In addition, unless you offer optional insurance to the passenger and have them decline it, even a good waiver isn't worth much, and you probably don't have a system to do that.
 
Re: Charity flights <Does anyone have a hold-harmless that they use>

Ron Levy said:
Generic ones are generally worthless.
Click to expand...

Why do you say this (honest question)? Are you an attorney? Are there statistics on settlements/awards and the quality of the hold-harmless?

I do understand some of the variables (you are not binding the family/heirs, and law trumps contract) but it is a line of defense, prudent if thin.

I am convinced that if I took the AngelFlight release (the new one) and hacked it up I would at least have something. I am also anxious that our Church auction does not realize the liability it is exposed too for the measly donation.

In the end, my real legal strategy is to try not to crash ...
 
Re: Charity flights <Does anyone have a hold-harmless that they use>

twdeckard said:
In the end, my real legal strategy is to try not to crash ...
Click to expand...
Always a good strategy, and the one that may save you in the end.
 
Re: Charity flights <Does anyone have a hold-harmless that they use>

twdeckard said:
Why do you say this (honest question)? Are you an attorney? Are there statistics on settlements/awards and the quality of the hold-harmless?
Click to expand...
I'm quoting J. Scott Hamilton, author of "Practical Aviation Law."
In the end, my real legal strategy is to try not to crash ...
Click to expand...
That's the only truly effective strategy you have.
 
Re: Charity flights <Does anyone have a hold-harmless that they use>

Okay, I have a dumb question. In the regs, for flying in a charatable event, one of the requirements is for the aircraft to have a "standard airworthyness certificate". Does this exclude experimentals?
 
Last edited:
Re: Charity flights <Does anyone have a hold-harmless that they use>

Geico266 said:
Okay, I have a dumb question. In the regs, for flying in a charatable event, one of the requirements is for the aircraft to have a "standard airworthyness certificate". Does this exclude experiments?
Click to expand...

Yes, AFaIK.
 
Re: Charity flights <Does anyone have a hold-harmless that they use>

Young Eagles flights could be considered a "charitable event" but no money changes hands. Experimentals are used for those.

I know Grace Flight and Angel Flight won't allow passengers to be carried in experimental category aircraft, but donated organs can be. Go figure. I guess I could transport someone piece by piece and it would be ok.

Geico266 said:
Okay, I have a dumb question. In the regs, for flying in a charatable event, one of the requirements is for the aircraft to have a "standard airworthyness certificate". Does this exclude experiments?
Click to expand...
 
Re: Charity flights <Does anyone have a hold-harmless that they use>

Steve said:
Young Eagles flights could be considered a "charitable event" but no money changes hands. Experimentals are used for those.

I know Grace Flight and Angel Flight won't allow passengers to be carried in experimental category aircraft, but donated organs can be. Go figure. I guess I could transport someone piece by piece and it would be ok.
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about a pilot donating a ride in an airplane as a prize. That's the situation where the FARs on "Charitable events" come into play including the requirement for a "standard" AC. Young Eagles involves nothing more than pilot's giving rides to all kids that show up and any pilot can give a free ride to anyone who's willing to accept (with parental permission for minors etc).
 
Re: Charity flights <Does anyone have a hold-harmless that they use>

Steve said:
Young Eagles flights could be considered a "charitable event" but no money changes hands.
Click to expand...
...which is why they aren't considered "charitable events" under 91.146.
I know Grace Flight and Angel Flight won't allow passengers to be carried in experimental category aircraft, but donated organs can be.
Click to expand...
That's their decision, not the FAA's.
 
Re: Charity flights <Does anyone have a hold-harmless that they use>

Geico266 said:
Okay, I have a dumb question. In the regs, for flying in a charatable event, one of the requirements is for the aircraft to have a "standard airworthyness certificate". Does this exclude experiments?
Click to expand...
Yes -- they don't have Standard Airworthiness Certificates, they have Experimental Airworthiness Certificates, and so are ineligible. 14 CFR 91.146(b)(5) applies.
 
Re: Charity flights <Does anyone have a hold-harmless that they use>

Ron Levy said:
Yes -- they don't have Standard Airworthiness Certificates, they have Experimental Airworthiness Certificates, and so are ineligible. 14 CFR 91.146(b)(5) applies.
Click to expand...

Yet another reason to own experimental aircraft. I don't have to get involved with giving charity rides. ;)
 
Last edited:
Re: Charity flights <Does anyone have a hold-harmless that they use>

Steve said:
Young Eagles flights could be considered a "charitable event" but no money changes hands. Experimentals are used for those.
Click to expand...

Well, that is not really true when you think about it. The whole reason for giving kids rides is to get them into aviation. If they are into aviation they will likely become EAA members. YE is a recruiting tool for members and therefore, the motive is money. Using the same logic, experimentals should be excluded from YE flights also.

The point is the FAA has written the FARS and can twist them anyway the political winds are blowing.

"We're not happy, until you're not happy".
 
Last edited:
Re: Charity flights <Does anyone have a hold-harmless that they use>

Geico266 said:
Well, that is not really true when you think about it. The whole reason for giving kids rides is to get them into aviation. If they are into aviation they will likely become EAA members. YE is a recruiting tool for members and therefore, the motive is money. Using the same logic, experimentals should be excluded from YE flights also.

The point is the FAA has written the FARS and can twist them anyway the political winds are blowing.

"We're not happy, until you're not happy".
Click to expand...

The money changing hands part has to be directly related to the flight in question, not some potential future re-investment.
 
Re: Charity flights <Does anyone have a hold-harmless that they use>

Geico266 said:
Well, that is not really true when you think about it. The whole reason for giving kids rides is to get them into aviation. If they are into aviation they will likely become EAA members. YE is a recruiting tool for members and therefore, the motive is money. Using the same logic, experimentals should be excluded from YE flights also.
Click to expand...
Geico's logic is beyond even the FAA's limits. Don't worry -- unless you break EAA's rules, the FAA won't say YE flights fall under 91.147.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top