Clubs with Experimentals

ArrowFlyer86

ArrowFlyer86

En-Route
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
3,285
Location
Around
Display Name
Flight
Random question: are there clubs that operate experimental aircraft? I've seen partnership for experimentals (of course), but I've never seen a flying club with one.

It could just be the area I live at, or that I haven't looked at enough clubs. But I don't think I've ever seen one that operated experimentals. Anyone have counter examples of ones that do? (I'm wondering if there are regulatory or insurance issues with experimentals in a club setting)
 
Last edited:
We had one in Seattle, operating the original Bowers Fly Baby. Pete lent the plane to the club. Carried liability coverage only, the club rules was that you break it, you fix it.

As it worked out, for most of its existence, we had only one or two paying members. So I ended up paying most of the expenses, anyway.

I think partnership is a better approach. The Second Story Flying Club was a four-member partnership, flying the immediate predecessor to the Fly Baby. It operated from 1956 through about 2002. $1500 for a quarter-interest in the airplane. Had some turnover in membership, though one guy was in it the whole time.

Could do the same thing with a Fly Baby. With four members, purchase cost would be ~$3000 a person.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Review 91.319(f) (excerpted below) and determine how a "club" (which is usually just an LLC with a bunch of members who are allowed to use/rent the airplane(s) by virtue of their role as a member) can have an experimental airplane that it "rents" (leases) to its members.
---
(e) No person may operate an aircraft that is issued an experimental airworthiness certificate under § 21.191(i), (k), or (l) of this chapter for compensation or hire, except:

(1) A person may operate an aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate under § 21.191(i)(1) of this chapter to tow a glider that is a light-sport category aircraft or unpowered ultralight vehicle in accordance with § 91.309; or​
​
(2) A person may operate an aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate under § 21.191(i), (k), or (l) of this chapter to conduct operations authorized under § 91.326.​

(f) No person may lease an aircraft that is issued an experimental airworthiness certificate under § 21.191(i), (k), or (l) of this chapter, except—

(1) In accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section; or​
​
(2) To conduct a solo flight in accordance with a training program included as part of the deviation authority specified under § 91.326(b).​
 
I know Oklahoma Airmen out of KRVS has two Van's RV12 aircraft, but I'm not positive about whether they're registered as Experimental or not.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
Random question: are there clubs that operate experimental aircraft? I've seen partnership for experimentals (of course), but I've never seen a flying club with one.

It could just be the area I live at, or that I haven't looked at enough clubs. But I don't think I've ever seen one that operated experimentals. Anyone have counter examples of ones that do?
Click to expand...
I don't know a ton about it, but there was a club not too far from me that did experimentals. I think they had one that was flying and one that they were building at any given time. Once they finished building one and getting the initial hours flown off, they'd sell the previous flying one and buy the kit for the next one. Pretty slick arrangement, if you can make sure everyone keeps putting in their time on the building part.

I haven't heard anything from them in quite a while, last I knew one of their planes was crashed by pure pilot foolishness, so that may have done them in.

bradg33 said:
Review 91.319(f) (excerpted below) and determine how a "club" (which is usually just an LLC with a bunch of members who are allowed to use/rent the airplane(s) by virtue of their role as a member) can have an experimental airplane that it "rents" (leases) to its members.
Click to expand...
Those sections would not apply in a normal club situation:

(e) "For compensation or hire" does not mean for rent, it's more of a commercial operation type of thing. Aircraft operated for compensation or hire are required to have 100-hour inspections, for example, and not-for-profit clubs do not generally do such things.

(f) Same thing - There's no lease agreement between a club and its members. There are operating procedures, bylaws, etc but it's not a "lease".

bradg33 said:
---
(e) No person may operate an aircraft that is issued an experimental airworthiness certificate under § 21.191(i), (k), or (l) of this chapter for compensation or hire, except:

(1) A person may operate an aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate under § 21.191(i)(1) of this chapter to tow a glider that is a light-sport category aircraft or unpowered ultralight vehicle in accordance with § 91.309; or​
​
(2) A person may operate an aircraft issued an experimental airworthiness certificate under § 21.191(i), (k), or (l) of this chapter to conduct operations authorized under § 91.326.​

(f) No person may lease an aircraft that is issued an experimental airworthiness certificate under § 21.191(i), (k), or (l) of this chapter, except—

(1) In accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section; or​
​
(2) To conduct a solo flight in accordance with a training program included as part of the deviation authority specified under § 91.326(b).​
Click to expand...
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I don't know a ton about it, but there was a club not too far from me that did experimentals. I think they had one that was flying and one that they were building at any given time. Once they finished building one and getting the initial hours flown off, they'd sell the previous flying one and buy the kit for the next one. Pretty slick arrangement, if you can make sure everyone keeps putting in their time on the building part.

I haven't heard anything from them in quite a while, last I knew one of their planes was crashed by pure pilot foolishness, so that may have done them in.


Those sections would not apply in a normal club situation:

(e) "For compensation or hire" does not mean for rent, it's more of a commercial operation type of thing. Aircraft operated for compensation or hire are required to have 100-hour inspections, for example, and not-for-profit clubs do not generally do such things.

(f) Same thing - There's no lease agreement between a club and its members. There are operating procedures, bylaws, etc but it's not a "lease".
Click to expand...
There are situations where non-profit clubs are required 100 hour inspections such as restricting members to club approved instructors.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Those sections would not apply in a normal club situation:

(e) "For compensation or hire" does not mean for rent, it's more of a commercial operation type of thing. Aircraft operated for compensation or hire are required to have 100-hour inspections, for example, and not-for-profit clubs do not generally do such things.

(f) Same thing - There's no lease agreement between a club and its members. There are operating procedures, bylaws, etc but it's not a "lease".
Click to expand...
"lease" is a very broad term. While there may be no formal "lease" agreement, the member of the club (who is almost never an actual, legal owner of the airplane if it is structured as an LLC), is still effectively renting (leasing) the airplane from the club while they are using it. That is, in legal terms, essentially a lease arrangement.

It's a pretty fine legal distinction, but I'm not sure how else you'd characterize the relationship between a club (LLC) and its members when the member is using the airplane and being charged an hourly fee for said use. It's a rental/lease arrangement. It's just that only members get to rent/lease the plane.

While people muddy the waters by distinguishing "equity" clubs from non-equity clubs, even in an "equity" club, if structured as an LLC, the members do not legally own any interest in the airplane itself. They still have to have a usage/rental/lease agreement/arrangement with the LLC. The only true "equity" club in the sense that the members are true owners of the airplanes are when the planes are registered with individual co-owners rather than in an LLC.
 
bradg33 said:
"lease" is a very broad term. While there may be no formal "lease" agreement, the member of the club (who is almost never an actual, legal owner of the airplane if it is structured as an LLC), is still effectively renting (leasing) the airplane from the club while they are using it. That is, in legal terms, essentially a lease arrangement.
Click to expand...
The overall legal meaning of the term "Lease" isn't really relevant, what matters is what the FAA thinks a lease is.

FWIW, both EAA and AOPA say that it's generally permissible for an equity club to own an experimental aircraft:

Flying Club FAQ | EAA

Our team of aviation experts has compiled a list of Flying Club Frequently Asked Questions to make it easy for you to find the answers you need
www.eaa.org www.eaa.org
 
SoonerAviator said:
I know Oklahoma Airmen out of KRVS has two Van's RV12 aircraft, but I'm not positive about whether they're registered as Experimental or not.
Click to expand...
One (N2120A) is listed as Light Sport, the other, older one (N332W) has a blank in the airworthiness category entry (this isn't unusual). Looks like they were purchased about four months apart.

Ron "You can do marvelous stuff with the FAA Registry" Wanttaja
 
As cheesehead noted, exp clubs allowed under those guidelines…. Biggest is aircraft must be owned or leased by the club and members own equity in club, and , thus plane ,making them ‘owners’ so not technically renters. I think you will see more exp clubs…. Insurance seems to be a snag with the local club here as it’s a new club model without historical data for actuaries to reference in calculating risk factors. But, there’s been more inquires about starting exp clubs and AOPA and EAA chiming in with above guidance.
 
bradg33 said:
"lease" is a very broad term. While there may be no formal "lease" agreement, the member of the club (who is almost never an actual, legal owner of the airplane if it is structured as an LLC), is still effectively renting (leasing) the airplane from the club while they are using it. That is, in legal terms, essentially a lease arrangement.

It's a pretty fine legal distinction, but I'm not sure how else you'd characterize the relationship between a club (LLC) and its members when the member is using the airplane and being charged an hourly fee for said use. It's a rental/lease arrangement. It's just that only members get to rent/lease the plane.

While people muddy the waters by distinguishing "equity" clubs from non-equity clubs, even in an "equity" club, if structured as an LLC, the members do not legally own any interest in the airplane itself. They still have to have a usage/rental/lease agreement/arrangement with the LLC. The only true "equity" club in the sense that the members are true owners of the airplanes are when the planes are registered with individual co-owners rather than in an LLC.
Click to expand...
Actually there is FAA guidance on this that disagree with your opinion. Not for profit Corporation is the key and that non profit corporation doesn’t have to own the plane and may lease the aircraft from a private owner
 
Last edited:
If your buy in is equity ownership, is it still considered a "club" for legal purposes? That is the arrangement for a local club that has an RV6.
 
Sac Arrow said:
If your buy in is equity ownership, is it still considered a "club" for legal purposes? That is the arrangement for a local club that has an RV6.
Click to expand...
Both equity and non-equity clubs can qualify for 501(c)(7) treatment. The main difference is ownership interest. The members of a non-equity club own nothing but the benefits they get from membership and typically have the right to leave the club without a financial downside. The members of an equity club have an ownership stake in either the club entity or its assets, and typically will have to sell their membership in order to avoid a financial hit when leaving. The airplanes themselves might be owned by the club or leased by the club.
 
Last edited:
Mark hit on an important distinction to make. Just because “club” is in the name, does not mean the FAA might consider it a club. FAA Order 5190.6 covers what they consider a club in para 10.6.

“10.6 Flying Clubs.

a. Definition.The FAA defines a flying club as a nonprofit entity (e.g., corporation, association, or partnership) organized for the express purpose of providing its members with aircraft for their personal use and enjoyment only. (See 81 Fed. Reg. 13719 (March 15, 2016)).”

Those entities can operate E-ABs.
 
TCABM said:
Mark hit on an important distinction to make. Just because “club” is in the name, does not mean the FAA might consider it a club. FAA Order 5190.6 covers what they consider a club in para 10.6.

“10.6 Flying Clubs.

a. Definition.The FAA defines a flying club as a nonprofit entity (e.g., corporation, association, or partnership) organized for the express purpose of providing its members with aircraft for their personal use and enjoyment only. (See 81 Fed. Reg. 13719 (March 15, 2016)).”

Those entities can operate E-ABs.
Click to expand...
It's a good point. I've known a number of organizations named "[Name] Flying Club" which were (and are) for-profit operations (not "clubs" under either the FAA or IRS definition). On the flip side, you don't need to call it a "club" to be treated as one under the 5190.6 definition.

One of the things to understand about Order 5190.6 is that it's the FAA's Airport Compliance Manual. It's less about the regulation of aircraft co-ownership than the regulation of airports receiving federal funding. Grant assurances require airports to have minimum standards that are applied uniformly among classes of operations. So, for an easy example, there might be different insurance requirements for a maintenance shop dealing with dangerous chemicals and a 135 charter or big box flight school.

As one might expect, the minimum standards applied to an individual private aircraft owner are typically different than for a charter or for-profit flight school or rental operation. As paragraph 10.6 discusses, "A flying club [under the 5190.6 definition] qualifies as an individual under the grant assurances." The definition of what constitutes a "club" is mostly about differentiating it from a for-profit rental FBO or flight school for grant assurance purposes than differentiating "flying clubs" from other personal (non-commercial) co-ownership arrangements such as partnerships, or LLCs.

Most of the treatments of E-ABs in the club context are applying to some degree this concept of "club" = "individual." But, as I've read through them, I see some potential weeds in the details worthy of professional advice on an individual basis.
 
bradg33 said:
Do you have any actual FAA guidance that says that?
Click to expand...
You can look at the 2023 "Notification of Policy for Implementation of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 for Flight Training, Checking, and Testing in Experimental Aircraft" (now there's a mouthful). That was the FAA's notice discussing the removal of the old LODA requirement that came out of the Warbird case some years back. Anyway, the Notice discusses a number of yes-you-can-no-you-can't scenarios. Here's one of the yes-you-can ones. Close enough? I emphasized the first sentence.

Four people co-own an experimental aircraft as part of a flying club. One of these people needs to get a flight review in the aircraft, so that person hires a flight instructor and pays the instructor for the training, plus pays a pre-arranged hourly rate that covers fuel used during the flight, as well as ongoing maintenance costs. Each co-owner pays the same hourly rate as a part of a co-ownership contract. Members of the flying club do not expect monetary gain or profit, but rather the fee is in place to cover the costs of owning, operating, and maintaining the aircraft. This scenario is permissible under the Act without a LODA.​

(In addition to the club ownership of the experimental, you might also notice that the fees paid by the members are not being treated as a "lease" of the aircraft to them.)
 
midlifeflyer said:
You can look at the 2023 "Notification of Policy for Implementation of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 for Flight Training, Checking, and Testing in Experimental Aircraft" (now there's a mouthful). That was the FAA's notice discussing the removal of the old LODA requirement that came out of the Warbird case some years back. Anyway, the Notice discusses a number of yes-you-can-no-you-can't scenarios. Here's one of the yes-you-can ones. Close enough? I emphasized the first sentence.

Four people co-own an experimental aircraft as part of a flying club. One of these people needs to get a flight review in the aircraft, so that person hires a flight instructor and pays the instructor for the training, plus pays a pre-arranged hourly rate that covers fuel used during the flight, as well as ongoing maintenance costs. Each co-owner pays the same hourly rate as a part of a co-ownership contract. Members of the flying club do not expect monetary gain or profit, but rather the fee is in place to cover the costs of owning, operating, and maintaining the aircraft. This scenario is permissible under the Act without a LODA.​

(In addition to the club ownership of the experimental, you might also notice that the fees paid by the members are not being treated as a "lease" of the aircraft to them.)
Click to expand...
Only interesting distinction is it says "co-ownership" and talks about "co-owners." Does that mean and include owners who "co-own" via an LLC, or just true co-owners (all of whom show up as co-owners on the registration itself)? Given that "co-owner" is a specific type of registration open, that doesn't mean/include LLCs, I'd be worried that it doesn't include an LLC ownership structure with multiple members, etc.
 
bradg33 said:
Only interesting distinction is it says "co-ownership" and talks about "co-owners." Does that mean and include owners who "co-own" via an LLC, or just true co-owners (all of whom show up as co-owners on the registration itself)? Given that "co-owner" is a specific type of registration open, that doesn't mean/include LLCs, I'd be worried that it doesn't include an LLC ownership structure with multiple members, etc.
Click to expand...
I read it as referring to co-own in the generic sense, including pure co-ownership, partnerships, joint ventures, LLCs, closely held corporations, etc. Not a validation of only a specific type of co-ownership.

The FAA knows what a "flying club" is and has used the term in multiple documents for decades. There was even an AC published in 1969 on "Forming and Operating a Flying Club." It was very broad, although it didn't mention LLCs :D

We can go back to the Order 5190.6 definition, but I don't need to. Anything is possible, I guess, but I just don't see a reasonable interpretation of "as part of a flying club," that excludes the most common forms of flying club formation, corporations and LLCs.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
Random question: are there clubs that operate experimental aircraft? I've seen partnership for experimentals (of course), but I've never seen a flying club with one.

It could just be the area I live at, or that I haven't looked at enough clubs. But I don't think I've ever seen one that operated experimentals. Anyone have counter examples of ones that do? (I'm wondering if there are regulatory or insurance issues with experimentals in a club setting)
Click to expand...
I was in one in MD that had an RV-12. I looked at their site and it appears they sold it. It was pretty fragile IMO and was often broken.
 
bradg33 said:
Only interesting distinction is it says "co-ownership" and talks about "co-owners." Does that mean and include owners who "co-own" via an LLC, or just true co-owners (all of whom show up as co-owners on the registration itself)? Given that "co-owner" is a specific type of registration open, that doesn't mean/include LLCs, I'd be worried that it doesn't include an LLC ownership structure with multiple members, etc.
Click to expand...
Our 501c7 Texas Nonprofit Corporation is listed as the owner of our aircraft in the FAA registry. Those aircraft (and other club assets) are corporate assets. The corporation and it’s assets are equally owned by 13 shareholders. Membership in the flying club is limited to shareholders in the corporation. Corporate shares can only be owned by individuals that hold an FAA pilot certificate.

Given all that, the corporation and all its assets are equally co-owned by the shareholders. We could operate an E/AB if we wanted to.
 
TCABM said:
Our 501c7 Texas Nonprofit Corporation is listed as the owner of our aircraft in the FAA registry. Those aircraft (and other club assets) are corporate assets. The corporation and it’s assets are equally owned by 13 shareholders. Membership in the flying club is limited to shareholders in the corporation. Corporate shares can only be owned by individuals that hold an FAA pilot certificate.

Given all that, the corporation and all its assets are equally co-owned by the shareholders. We could operate an E/AB if we wanted to.
Click to expand...
True-ish. You're ignoring the corporate form. Corporation is equally owned by the shareholders, yes. But the shareholders have no direct ownership of the corporation's assets (same in an LLC). All the pilots in your club actually own are shares. They do not own any of the assets of the corporation, legally speaking. The corporation owns all those assets, in its own name. That said, it's a very common misconception that members of an LLC or shareholders of a corporation own the actual underlying assets.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I read it as referring to co-own in the generic sense, including pure co-ownership, partnerships, joint ventures, LLCs, closely held corporations, etc. Not a validation of only a specific type of co-ownership.

The FAA knows what a "flying club" is and has used the term in multiple documents for decades. There was even an AC published in 1969 on "Forming and Operating a Flying Club." It was very broad, although it didn't mention LLCs :D

We can go back to the Order 5190.6 definition, but I don't need to. Anything is possible, I guess, but I just don't see a reasonable interpretation of "as part of a flying club," that excludes the most common forms of flying club formation, corporations and LLCs.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with you if "co-owners" wasn't effectively a term of art in the sense of aircraft registrations. At least creates some ambiguity.

What we can likely agree on is that there is a lot of inconsistent information out there from the FAA, AOPA, EAA, etc. on this point (though I've not looked to see if there's an actual chief counsel opinion on this one). Importantly, though, I also think generally the FAA just doesn't care and isn't out looking for this kind of violation.
 
bradg33 said:
I'd agree with you if "co-owners" wasn't effectively a term of art in the sense of aircraft registrations. At least creates some ambiguity.

What we can likely agree on is that there is a lot of inconsistent information out there from the FAA, AOPA, EAA, etc. on this point (though I've not looked to see if there's an actual chief counsel opinion on this one). Importantly, though, I also think generally the FAA just doesn't care and isn't out looking for this kind of violation.
Click to expand...
The only inconsistency I’ve seen is about E-LSA. The rest seems fairly consistent. I don’t see, “if you are co-owners without an entity, list yourself that way in the registration application” as, “this is the only thing we mean by ‘co-owner’ every time the term is used, no matter the context.”

But that’s me.
 
Maybe so
bradg33 said:
True-ish. You're ignoring the corporate form. Corporation is equally owned by the shareholders, yes. But the shareholders have no direct ownership of the corporation's assets (same in an LLC). All the pilots in your club actually own are shares. They do not own any of the assets of the corporation, legally speaking. The corporation owns all those assets, in its own name. That said, it's a very common misconception that members of an LLC or shareholders of a corporation own the actual underlying assets.
Click to expand...
Dunno. The Bylaws seem pretty clear to me and for 40 years and 7 months across five airplanes the club has owned, neither an underwriter nor broker nor the FAA has told anyone the members don’t co-own the assets of the corporation. But I’m not a lawyer, although several lawyers charged a small fortune in mid-1980s dollars to write these bylaws to comply with state laws and a nod to FAA policy (as it existed when written). When we added a plane last year, only one broker had anything exclusionary to say about writing a policy that included E-AB, and that was no LSA or E-LSAs would be considered for a club policy by at least one underwriter.

IMG_0518.jpeg
 
TCABM said:
neither an underwriter nor broker nor the FAA has told anyone the members don’t co-own the assets of the corporation
Click to expand...
He’s right that, typically, the shareholders of a corporation or the members of an LLC own a piece of the company, not its underlying assets. That’s part of the limited liability package, and embedded in most state law. But even if - big IF - state law made that provision a nullity, I can’t think of a single reason why the FAA would question it.
 
midlifeflyer said:
EAA says the can’t. It actually their first flying club FAQ
Click to expand...
As you can see, they are mostly concerned about pass-thought liability to EAA itself, not that it can't be legally done. They even talk about doing it by creating a separate entity from the chapter itself. I'm not personally aware of any chapter which has done that, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few.
 
midlifeflyer said:
As you can see, they are mostly concerned about pass-thought liability to EAA itself, not that it can't be legally done. They even talk about doing it by creating a separate entity from the chapter itself. I'm not personally aware of any chapter which has done that, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few.
Click to expand...
The one we had was set up within EAA Chapter 26 in Seattle. Don't recall the legal basis, though, it may have been separate. Had to be a Chapter 26 member to join, though. That might have been a provision of Pete Bowers, who retained ownership of the airplane.

Ron Wanttaja
 
bradg33 said:
Review 91.319(f) (excerpted below) and determine how a "club" (which is usually just an LLC with a bunch of members who are allowed to use/rent the airplane(s) by virtue of their role as a member) can have an experimental airplane that it "rents" (leases) to its members.
Click to expand...
If you have an ownership stake you are not renting or leasing. You own it. The LLC can be the owner and you own a share of the LLC with an airplane as an asset. There are specific prohibitions against certain experimental types, but not E/AB.

FAA has a legal interpretation 'Cooling' that should clear things up.
 
for what's it worth....we dove into this when developing the v8 ffw kit and talking with potential buyers, mostly schools and clubs. also spoke with eaa that has written guidance. the main point being the club needed to be equity so no one was renting.... the club owned , or leased, the planes so all were considered owners. the other point was it had to be non profit, however, a few were of opinion there were ways around this. Seemed LLC, Corp, or other entity did not matter and likely one that gives most lawsuit protection in state is best.

most clubs are non profit so mostly moot point. we really think exp clubs could be a huge success and hope to see more.
 
pfarber said:
If you have an ownership stake you are not renting or leasing. You own it. The LLC can be the owner and you own a share of the LLC with an airplane as an asset. There are specific prohibitions against certain experimental types, but not E/AB.

FAA has a legal interpretation 'Cooling' that should clear things up.
Click to expand...

Legally, a member of an LLC does not own the LLC assets. There's a concept of corporate separateness. Maybe the FAA doesn't care in the experimental context, but I have yet to see an actual chief counsel opinion that says so.
 
bradg33 said:
Legally, a member of an LLC does not own the LLC assets. There's a concept of corporate separateness. Maybe the FAA doesn't care in the experimental context, but I have yet to see an actual chief counsel opinion that says so.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think the fact that there aren't a plethora of lawsuits/enforcement actions by the FAA on this matter is enough (or any w.r.t this situation)? Enough for me at least.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
Personally, I think the fact that there aren't a plethora of lawsuits/enforcement actions by the FAA on this matter is enough (or any w.r.t this situation)? Enough for me at least.
Click to expand...
There aren't until there are. All it takes is someone at the FAA to decide this is their new pet project.

That said, your position is probably relatively safe, given that the FAA is pretty understaffed and clearly part 91 operators (especially non-turbine ones) aren't a huge focus. So this may be one of those jaywalking type violations that they just don't care enough to pay attention to.
 
bradg33 said:
There aren't until there are. All it takes is someone at the FAA to decide this is their new pet project.

That said, your position is probably relatively safe, given that the FAA is pretty understaffed and clearly part 91 operators (especially non-turbine ones) aren't a huge focus. So this may be one of those jaywalking type violations that they just don't care enough to pay attention to.
Click to expand...
I can think of a way to ruin that...

I could open up: "TomsExperimentalEquityRentalCo". A club that "sells" equity memberships by the hour with a mandatory repo of that equity stake. Then I technically have an equity member for a few hours at a time while they're rentin... err, I mean, flying the plane they're a part owner of. Then they sell the equity stake back to me when they're done, for a fair pre-agreed residual value of about $1. I bet then I could make the FAA radar and catch the notice of their counsel :) !

(Kidding of course... just a silly thought experiment)
 
Last edited:
Not that silly, actually. If you believe, or at least feel you can prove the point in court, selling temporary equity, like say a time share condo, you could start up. The problem is if FAA wants to make a statement to prevent others from following, they would send you a nasty gram basically saying they disagree and considering some action….. the only way, other than a letter from FAA chief counsel which you may not get, is to tell the FAA you disagree and conininging ops as normal….they in turn take some violation action and now you would have to prove your case at likely a trial setting…. They risk, if you win, that precedent is made and others will surely follow, which they won’t likely want, but will surely appeal and try to make you go broke in the process, which scares the followers away. Federal govt wins something like 96% of their cases, and almost always appeals if they don’t , playing the long game.

We were up against this dilemma with a STC project issue that had no prior guidance or was not done prior, so there was a lot of room for interpretation and only way to resolve was to get violated and fight it out in court…. A fools bet, as they would likely file something else and begin the process over….no one will buy a product that FAA may eventually ground.

So normal equity based exp clubs have prior acceptance, buy equity by the hour may be a stretch but doable …. But likely a fools bet. Cool idea though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top