Contract Pilot Question Intn'l Issue

Henning said:
Personally I find the options provided in administrative law make up some for the lack of "due process". I've been called to the carpet before and it has always worked out pretty simply and painlessly, although I will grant I have never been called in by the IRS.
Click to expand...

Now there's something you don't see very often. ;)
 
Btw, I know the PPL being paid pro-rata really meaning he can't get anything or even log the flight...or look out the window or smile as all that is OBVIOUSLY compensation issue has been beat to next Thursday on this forum. But when it comes to someone flying in a private plane can't they pay for the gas? The owner is still paying or better put, losing money, on the deal. In this case my entire salary is being paid by the owner as is the time and cycles on the plane.

I thought the whole issue is a private plane can't compete with for hire planes. If they lose money (spend money) on every flight wouldn't the "non-compete" standard be met?
 
Last edited:
I've got nothing here Captain, you've forgotten more than I know about this and it's your livelihood so I figured I shouldn't mess with it. Hope you find your answers.
 
Henning said:
Personally I find the options provided in administrative law make up some for the lack of "due process". I've been called to the carpet before and it has always worked out pretty simply and painlessly, although I will grant I have never been called in by the IRS.
Click to expand...

You mean there is something you haven't done??? :hairraise:

:rofl:
 
Captain said:
Btw, I know the PPL being paid pro-rata really meaning he can't get anything or even log the flight...or look out the window or smile as all that is OBVIOUSLY compensation issue has been beat to next Thursday on this forum. But when it comes to someone flying in a private plane can't they pay for the gas? The owner is still paying or better put, losing money, on the deal. In this case my entire salary is being paid by the owner as is the time and cycles on the plane.

I thought the whole issue is a private plane can't compete with for hire planes. If they lose money (spend money) on every flight wouldn't the "non-compete" standard be met?
Click to expand...
No...the PPL issue is that a Private Pilot can't be paid to fly, with the exception of the cost-sharing allowance.

Making or losing money has nothing to do with whether it's considered a 135 flight to not. But if the passengers contribute, they're paying your boss to provide transportation, including a pilot, which makes it fall under 135.
 
Last edited:
PaulS said:
I've been called by the IRS, it's not fun.
Click to expand...
These are scam calls. My mom's phone number gets a lot of them probably because she was elderly. But I've even gotten a scam call. I told him off and I haven't gotten another one.
 
PaulS said:
I've been called by the IRS, it's not fun.
Click to expand...

I got a letter from the IRS once. The certified letter said they showed income in excess of $3,000,000 for me that year and asked why I didn't claim it. Let me be clear, I've never made anywhere near that much and I damn near had a heart attack! :hairraise:

I called my tax lady and she sorted it out quick with the stern letter. Way more aggressive than I ever would have dreamed to be. She concluded the letter with, "In fact, you own HIM money!" It was awesome and I was skeptical, but the whole issue went away. That was almost a decade ago.
 
Again not exactly Maule, Captain is not a private pilot and it makes no difference what ratings the pilot has. The question was about a pt. 91 corporate aviation scenario utilizing a commercial pilot. The second part of your post is correct. Profit has no bearing. The owner is providing air transportation in exchange for compensation. The amount of compensation does not enter into the equation.

Short answer to Captain's scenario is if any money changes hands it is a violation, period.
 
ronnieh said:
Again not exactly Maule, Captain is not a private pilot and it makes no difference what ratings the pilot has. The question was about a pt. 91 corporate aviation scenario utilizing a commercial pilot.
Click to expand...

You might read read the post to which I was responding. (Although admittedly I could've made it more clear.):dunno:
 
Last edited:
Ah, point taken. I thought you were referring to the original topic. But, yes a little confusing. It takes very little to confuse me these days.

Related question that I THINK I know the answer to.

Scenario one: Joe owner setting around with a couple of his drinking buddies says why don't we go to the Keys to fish a little next weekend. I have a plane and pilot and my DOC would be about $3K for the round trip. We will split that three ways and fish a couple days. Joe owner will be on the plane but, is not the pilot. Can he legally furnish the plane and pilot and be compensated?

Scenario two: Joe owner (non pilot) hears that his good friend's mother is on her death bed in another state. Joe calls his friend and offers his plane at no cost (really good friend:yesnod:). The only thing is Joe uses a contract pilot and tells his good friend he will have to contact the contract pilot direct and work out a deal with the pilot. Would this flight be legal?
 
ronnieh said:
Ah, point taken. I thought you were referring to the original topic. But, yes a little confusing. It takes very little to confuse me these days.

Related question that I THINK I know the answer to.

Scenario one: Joe owner setting around with a couple of his drinking buddies says why don't we go to the Keys to fish a little next weekend. I have a plane and pilot and my DOC would be about $3K for the round trip. We will split that three ways and fish a couple days. Joe owner will be on the plane but, is not the pilot. Can he legally furnish the plane and pilot and be compensated?

Scenario two: Joe owner (non pilot) hears that his good friend's mother is on her death bed in another state. Joe calls his friend and offers his plane at no cost (really good friend:yesnod:). The only thing is Joe uses a contract pilot and tells his good friend he will have to contact the contract pilot direct and work out a deal with the pilot. Would this flight be legal?
Click to expand...

1-questionable

2- totally legal
 
My thoughts exactly. Anybody with the definitive answer.
 
ronnieh said:
Scenario two: Joe owner (non pilot) hears that his good friend's mother is on her death bed in another state. Joe calls his friend and offers his plane at no cost (really good friend:yesnod:). The only thing is Joe uses a contract pilot and tells his good friend he will have to contact the contract pilot direct and work out a deal with the pilot. Would this flight be legal?
Click to expand...

His buddy is the operator of the flight and happens to hire a pilot to execute the flight. There is no law that requires an owner to collect rent on his aircraft.
 
Henning said:
The owner or whomever has the authority to say, "The plane goes to here, fly it there." I just went through a an CBP cluster**** yesterday and this morning straightening out the owner of this boat's mess he created by not following my instructions a few weeks ago. Luckily CBP is aware that most boat owners are idiots so I was able to square it away rather painlessly with a few laughs with CBP this morning and it only cost the owner a $100 cab ride since I was able to talk CBP out of the $10,000 fine.
Click to expand...


Too bad they don't know many aircraft owners are idiots, mmm? ;)
 
Can someone explain why I can't let you fly my plane and pay for the gas? What reg or which interpretation
?
 
I am interested in that question also. To clarify, loaning a plane to a qualified pilot and pilot reimburses owner for expenses.
 
Captain said:
Can someone explain why I can't let you fly my plane and pay for the gas? What reg or which interpretation
?
Click to expand...

As in, "here, you take my airplane, just pay for the gas," or "let's fly to the Bahamas. We'll take my plane, and you can fly and pay for the gas."?
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
As in, "here, you take my airplane, just pay for the gas," or "let's fly to the Bahamas. We'll take my plane, and you can fly and pay for the gas."?
Click to expand...

By 'fly my plane and pay for the gas' I mean take my plane and contract pilot to get from here to there and pay for the gas as you go.
 
MauleSkinner said:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...t standards - (1992) legal interpretation.pdf
Click to expand...

Good read and I guess I understand the intent of the letter. But it seemed to lean heavily on the fact that the lessor was already a 135 certificate holder.

My situation is a little different. A non-pilot, non-certificate holder owns a plane and contracts pilots. He want's to send his buddy on a trip without him with the understanding that the friend pays for the gas. Just the gas. Not the pilot, not the aircraft operating expenses, not the insurance, just gas and whatever ramp/landing fees he incurs.

Still legal? If not what reg or interpretation?
 
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Now don't laugh This was a "serious" question at one time and reputations (and livelihood) were made and destroyed by how you argued the issue.

Here, the Captain has posed the exact same question in the form of how many trips can you make before, yadda, yadda.

The real joke in his question is that whatever you do is allowed until the instant the FAA/DOT says it is not allowed - period.

You can be a world famous and uber competent aerobatic pilot until the instant the FAA says you are not - Bob Hoover - because you 'dissed' a couple of inspectors by not licking their boots.

You can be a permitted Part 91 flight until the instant the FAA ramp inspector says that the rivets in the frame of your aftermarket sun visor do not have the required paper trail back at the manufacturer to be certificated rivets.
Now, you can puff up and and righteously intone 'ow in ell am I spozed to have known that?"
And the inspector will quietly put his finger on the paragraph that says the PIC is responsible for determining that the aircraft is legal to fly - and shrug.
That's a big ten-four gotcha, buddy.
And if they are looking to get you no amount of arguing that you could not have known about this or that will make the slightest difference.
The reg's clearly say you HAVE to know.

Now, the real answer to the Captain's original question is that the pilot's best defense is ignorance (already cited by several).
You loaded the passengers. None were obviously intoxicated, carrying visible weapons, no naked screaming sex slaves were dragged aboard, yadda, yadda.
So you did your W&B and flew the plane (shrug).

Let me pose a more likely question. You are the commercial pilot hired to fly the C-180 dropping skydivers at the local jump port. Now, the big guy with the cute girlfriend is paying her jump fee back at the office and she is paying him back with sex...
Are you legal to fly them?

careful now :D
 
Dr. O said:
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Now don't laugh This was a "serious" question at one time and reputations (and livelihood) were made and destroyed by how you argued the issue.

Here, the Captain has posed the exact same question in the form of how many trips can you make before, yadda, yadda.

The real joke in his question is that whatever you do is allowed until the instant the FAA/DOT says it is not allowed - period.

You can be a world famous and uber competent aerobatic pilot until the instant the FAA says you are not - Bob Hoover - because you 'dissed' a couple of inspectors by not licking their boots.

You can be a permitted Part 91 flight until the instant the FAA ramp inspector says that the rivets in the frame of your aftermarket sun visor do not have the required paper trail back at the manufacturer to be certificated rivets.
Now, you can puff up and and righteously intone 'ow in ell am I spozed to have known that?"
And the inspector will quietly put his finger on the paragraph that says the PIC is responsible for determining that the aircraft is legal to fly - and shrug.
That's a big ten-four gotcha, buddy.
And if they are looking to get you no amount of arguing that you could not have known about this or that will make the slightest difference.
The reg's clearly say you HAVE to know.

Now, the real answer to the Captain's original question is that the pilot's best defense is ignorance (already cited by several).
You loaded the passengers. None were obviously intoxicated, carrying visible weapons, no naked screaming sex slaves were dragged aboard, yadda, yadda.
So you did your W&B and flew the plane (shrug).

Let me pose a more likely question. You are the commercial pilot hired to fly the C-180 dropping skydivers at the local jump port. Now, the big guy with the cute girlfriend is paying her jump fee back at the office and she is paying him back with sex...
Are you legal to fly them?

careful now :D
Click to expand...

Damn, that was a good post. Nicely played.
 
Captain said:
Good read and I guess I understand the intent of the letter. But it seemed to lean heavily on the fact that the lessor was already a 135 certificate holder.

My situation is a little different. A non-pilot, non-certificate holder owns a plane and contracts pilots. He want's to send his buddy on a trip without him with the understanding that the friend pays for the gas. Just the gas. Not the pilot, not the aircraft operating expenses, not the insurance, just gas and whatever ramp/landing fees he incurs.

Still legal? If not what reg or interpretation?
Click to expand...

The gist of the letter is that the 135 really has nothing to do with them being a 135 operator. They were, just like you, trying to determine that an operator (in your case the airplane's owner) providing both the aircraft and pilot for any fee is a Part 91 OP. As in the excerpt I quoted, providing both generally makes it fall under 135....whether you hold a certificate or not.
 
So, let me help with regs as I know how much y'all love to pick them apart.

Let's suppose an aircraft owner is offering a ride to his friend with the understanding the friend will pay for gas and fees. The pilot is paid for by the owner. The owner is using 91.501 to complete this. Pilot has no idea what the business relationships are or if the plane is on the market or if the friend is looking to buy a plane....none of it.

Pilot is just paid to fly as pilots are wont to do.

Now, let's say owner is asking for a W-9 for past work and pilot doesn't really want to pay taxes and assumes tying himself to said flights through the IRS may not be a super idea. Let's suppose the pilot is thinking about removing said flights from his log book.


So, 91.501. Anyone see how that's a loophole in the much cherished 'can't accept money' argument? Please advise otherwise...really, looking for a DF steer here for my hypothetical pilot here.

:)
 
Captain said:
So, let me help with regs as I know how much y'all love to pick them apart.

Let's suppose an aircraft owner is offering a ride to his friend with the understanding the friend will pay for gas and fees. The pilot is paid for by the owner. The owner is using 91.501 to complete this. Pilot has no idea what the business relationships are or if the plane is on the market or if the friend is looking to buy a plane....none of it.

Pilot is just paid to fly as pilots are wont to do.

Now, let's say owner is asking for a W-9 for past work and pilot doesn't really want to pay taxes and assumes tying himself to said flights through the IRS may not be a super idea. Let's suppose the pilot is thinking about removing said flights from his log book.


So, 91.501. Anyone see how that's a loophole in the much cherished 'can't accept money' argument? Please advise otherwise...really, looking for a DF steer here for my hypothetical pilot here.

:)
Click to expand...

Those tricks will get you 5-20 in the federal pen...:yes:..
 
Captain said:
So, let me help with regs as I know how much y'all love to pick them apart.

Let's suppose an aircraft owner is offering a ride to his friend with the understanding the friend will pay for gas and fees. The pilot is paid for by the owner. The owner is using 91.501 to complete this. Pilot has no idea what the business relationships are or if the plane is on the market or if the friend is looking to buy a plane....none of it.

Pilot is just paid to fly as pilots are wont to do.

Now, let's say owner is asking for a W-9 for past work and pilot doesn't really want to pay taxes and assumes tying himself to said flights through the IRS may not be a super idea. Let's suppose the pilot is thinking about removing said flights from his log book.


So, 91.501. Anyone see how that's a loophole in the much cherished 'can't accept money' argument? Please advise otherwise...really, looking for a DF steer here for my hypothetical pilot here.

:)
Click to expand...

Seems to me that a person in that situation would need to consult an attorney.
 
Captain said:
So, let me help with regs as I know how much y'all love to pick them apart.

Let's suppose an aircraft owner is offering a ride to his friend with the understanding the friend will pay for gas and fees. The pilot is paid for by the owner. The owner is using 91.501 to complete this. Pilot has no idea what the business relationships are or if the plane is on the market or if the friend is looking to buy a plane....none of it.

Pilot is just paid to fly as pilots are wont to do.

Now, let's say owner is asking for a W-9 for past work and pilot doesn't really want to pay taxes and assumes tying himself to said flights through the IRS may not be a super idea. Let's suppose the pilot is thinking about removing said flights from his log book.


So, 91.501. Anyone see how that's a loophole in the much cherished 'can't accept money' argument? Please advise otherwise...really, looking for a DF steer here for my hypothetical pilot here.

:)
Click to expand...

Without looking it up, I'm guessing you are using the 'demonstration for sale' loophole. Let me say this about that, it is a very broadly and openly used loophole in selling rides at air shows in planes in Experimental categories.
 
ronnieh said:
Tim, Tim, Tim, for someone who is supposedly in some type of aviation business you should know better. You can have a contract an inch thick but, it will not take precedence over the FAR's. The PIC is responsible for the legality of the flight, period. The FAA may hold others jointly liable but, no contract is going to suspend the FAR's. There is language in 135 ops that talk about the operator or certificate holder but, this has no bearing on 91 ops which is what is being discussed. The PIC has the regulatory responsibility to insure any given flight is legal under 91 ops. Others MAY be found liable, for example a log book showing compliance with an AD, signed by a licensed mechanic which in reality was not done will most likely bring said mechanic into the action. The FAA MAY consider this mitigating circumstances concerning the pilot and not bring action against the pilot. NO contract will absolve the pilot of his regulatory responsibility.
http://www.aerolegalservices.com/Articles/Pilot In Command.shtml
Click to expand...

Exactly - in fact it has been widely held that "contracting" for something illegal (against the rules) is not a voidable contract, it is a void one...meaning there is no contract...
 
ronnieh said:
Ah, point taken. I thought you were referring to the original topic. But, yes a little confusing. It takes very little to confuse me these days.

Related question that I THINK I know the answer to.

Scenario one: Joe owner setting around with a couple of his drinking buddies says why don't we go to the Keys to fish a little next weekend. I have a plane and pilot and my DOC would be about $3K for the round trip. We will split that three ways and fish a couple days. Joe owner will be on the plane but, is not the pilot. Can he legally furnish the plane and pilot and be compensated?

Scenario two: Joe owner (non pilot) hears that his good friend's mother is on her death bed in another state. Joe calls his friend and offers his plane at no cost (really good friend:yesnod:). The only thing is Joe uses a contract pilot and tells his good friend he will have to contact the contract pilot direct and work out a deal with the pilot. Would this flight be legal?
Click to expand...

1) I believe the rules say "owner or operator" and Joe is the owner so he could split expenses...the pilot is an expense, he is paying for 1/3rd pro-rata share...I don't see the issue

2) not a problem, people do it all the time as "political donations"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top