Does TANSTAAFL apply to this??

Neat idea. I think it's ok; no one is being paid to fly.
 
One could argue that the pilot is being paid something of value (flight instruction) in exchange for making the flight.
 
A nice idea, though I suspect a fair number of Angel Flight pilots are already instrument rated. Don't understand the concern over compensation - an Angel Flight pilot is always compensated more for their effort than what they pay out - even when there isn't a CFI on board. Just ask anyone in Whoville.
 
kkoran said:
One could argue that the pilot is being paid something of value (flight instruction) in exchange for making the flight.
Click to expand...
The pilot is paying full direct cost of the flight, and patient isn't receiving air transportation for compensation/hire. However, I suspect that if it got to the Chief Counsel's office, they'd say it wasn't kosher because of the quid pro quo -- valuable flight instruction in return for making the flight. It sounds too similar to the situation which led to the interpretation that you can't receive fuel discounts from the FBO for doing Young Eagles flights (other than under the rather complicated exemption the EAA obtained).
 
Last edited:
I think Angel Flight may also have issues with this. In the Mid Atlantic region you have to have the rating to qualify as a pilot and all flights have to be conducted on a flight plan (this part could be covered if the CFII files). Rules vary from region to region but most that a I have flown for have the IFR requirement.
 
Yeah, I was more interpreting this that the CFII is the "AngelFlight pilot", but doesn't have a plane available. So the CFII would be the PIC, which might run afoul of the student / airplane provider's insurance or rental agreement, but at least avoids the "acting as PIC for hire" issue even if flight instruction is "valuable".
 
There we go again trying to use common sense to interpret the rules. Don't think the FAA would let the quid quo pro go without causing a problem.
 
frfly172 said:
There we go again trying to use common sense to interpret the rules. Don't think the FAA would let the quid quo pro go without causing a problem.
Click to expand...

The Angel Flight aspect is OK because the pilot is paying for everything.
Now take that out of the picture.
If an instructor charges $X/hour for their services, I don't see the issue regardless of the value of any non-negative value of X used. To say otherwise is to insert the FAA into free market valuation of instructor services. That is beyond the authority granted them that allows them to write the regulation in question.

I think the paranoia over the compensation and hire regulation causes some people here to lose their sanity.
 
Jim Logajan said:
The Angel Flight aspect is OK because the pilot is paying for everything.
Now take that out of the picture.
If an instructor charges $X/hour for their services, I don't see the issue regardless of the value of any non-negative value of X used. To say otherwise is to insert the FAA into free market valuation of instructor services. That is beyond the authority granted them that allows them to write the regulation in question.
Click to expand...
The counterargument which I think the FAA Chief Counsel would make is that the provision of the instruction (fair market value estimated by the CFI as $150) is contingent on the trainee providing free air transportation to a third party. That is the quid pro quo which queers the deal. Note that when it comes to compensation, the FAA does not quibble over the minimum amount -- to paraphrase the law on another issue, any payment however slight is sufficient to complete the offense.

We already know that free or discounted fuel for such flights is considered prohibited compensation, and I personally see no difference in the situation if you give the pilot involved fuel, instructional services, a free handheld device, or anything else of value in return for providing this air transportation. It is too well established that pilots doing Young Eagles, Pilots'n'Paws, Angel Flight, etc., cannot accept compensation for such volunteer/charitable flights (the only exception being 91.146 charity sightseeing rides).

I think the paranoia over the compensation and hire regulation causes some people here to lose their sanity.
Click to expand...
Even paranoids may have real enemies, and in this case, the enemy is, I believe, real, and not imagined. I am reasonably certain the Chief Counsel would say this is an impermissible form of compensation, so I would strongly advise against not doing it, especially not on a public website where any passing FAA person can see it. Of course, it is the pilot providing the flight, not the instructor giving the compensatory training, who is in violation, so the instructor is in effect trolling for violations (albeit most likely unintentionally).
 
Ron Levy said:
Even paranoids may have real enemies, and in this case, the enemy is, I believe, real, and not imagined. I am reasonably certain the Chief Counsel would say this is an impermissible form of compensation, so I would strongly advise against not doing it, especially not on a public website where any passing FAA person can see it. Of course, it is the pilot providing the flight, not the instructor giving the compensatory training, who is in violation, so the instructor is in effect trolling for violations (albeit most likely unintentionally).
Click to expand...

The bad part is, you're probably right...

From a policy (as opposed to legal) perspective, I think this ad represents a fantastic idea.

1. It increases safety by having people receive training in Instrument Flight. Inadvertent entry into IMC is still a significant cause of accidents, and as such, the more people receive training the better. I think this offer advances the FAA's objectives of increasing safety in the air.

2. It provides more aircraft and pilots to an incredibly worthy cause (Angel Flight).

3. It provides 2-pilot flight crews for Angel Flight missions, which, if I recall correctly, is preferred but not required for AF, right?

#1 and #3 both increase safety in air commerce. #2 is just a good thing to do.

That said, I think this would meet the burden that the FAA imposes on those who request waivers of regulations, in that it provides at least the same, if not greater, level of safety in air-commerce. If I were a lawyer, I'd even offer to help this CFII out and write up the request for the exemption and do my best to get the FAA to accept it...it might just fly (pun intended).
 
Ron Levy said:
The counterargument which I think the FAA Chief Counsel would make is that the provision of the instruction (fair market value estimated by the CFI as $150) is contingent on the trainee providing free air transportation to a third party. That is the quid pro quo which queers the deal. Note that when it comes to compensation, the FAA does not quibble over the minimum amount -- to paraphrase the law on another issue, any payment however slight is sufficient to complete the offense.
Click to expand...

Your claim seems to be: anytime a CFI provides instruction below market rate, no matter how small - and as determined by the FAA Chief Counsel - the pilot accepting that instruction is accepting compensation for the flight, which is in violation of the regulations. Is that a fair summary of the argument?
 
Ron Levy said:
The counterargument which I think the FAA Chief Counsel would make is that the provision of the instruction (fair market value estimated by the CFI as $150) is contingent on the trainee providing free air transportation to a third party.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the rule wasn't "provide air transportation" for compensation, but rather "act as PIC" for compensation.

In this scenario, presumably the CFII is acting as PIC, and the trainee (while possibly logging PIC as sole manipulator) is not acting as PIC. The more I think about it, the more I think it can't run afoul of any rules, even to include likely insurance restrictions, as presumably the owner would be insured to receive instruction in their own plane.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yup...:sigh:

While I agree, I just don't think the FAA Counsel would see it in that light. :sigh: :sigh:
Click to expand...

FAA Counsel isn't interested in the "policy" argument, purely the legal. That's his (please forgive me if the Chief Counsel is female, using "his" in the generic sense) job.

That's why I made the case for an exemption to the regulations for this scenario...policy questions should be decided by flight standards and similar groups, not the Chief Counsel...his job is to interpret and enforce the regulations as written, not play what policy "should" be.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Your claim seems to be: anytime a CFI provides instruction below market rate, no matter how small - and as determined by the FAA Chief Counsel - the pilot accepting that instruction is accepting compensation for the flight, which is in violation of the regulations. Is that a fair summary of the argument?
Click to expand...
More or less. The issue is not so much that the CFI is charging below-market rates, but rather that this rate (and the value to the pilot) is contingent on the pilot/trainee providing air transportation to a third party. In that light, it's no different than someone saying "I'll pay $150 per flight to any pilot providing air transport to sick people" -- that's a straight-up charter deal.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Your claim seems to be: anytime a CFI provides instruction below market rate, no matter how small - and as determined by the FAA Chief Counsel - the pilot accepting that instruction is accepting compensation for the flight, which is in violation of the regulations. Is that a fair summary of the argument?
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
More or less. The issue is not so much that the CFI is charging below-market rates, but rather that this rate (and the value to the pilot) is contingent on the pilot/trainee providing air transportation to a third party. In that light, it's no different than someone saying "I'll pay $150 per flight to any pilot providing air transport to sick people" -- that's a straight-up charter deal.
Click to expand...

So if the passenger is taken out of the scenario, then the pilot would not be considered to be receiving compensation regardless of how little the CFI charges?

Also, I'm wondering what has become of the 61.113(c) pro rata exception in these cases?
 
Ron Levy said:
More or less. The issue is not so much that the CFI is charging below-market rates, but rather that this rate (and the value to the pilot) is contingent on the pilot/trainee providing air transportation to a third party. In that light, it's no different than someone saying "I'll pay $150 per flight to any pilot providing air transport to sick people" -- that's a straight-up charter deal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is what throws the wrench into this one.
 
Jim Logajan said:
So if the passenger is taken out of the scenario, then the pilot would not be considered to be receiving compensation regardless of how little the CFI charges?

Also, I'm wondering what has become of the 61.113(c) pro rata exception in these cases?
Click to expand...

Correct, the passenger ride is what causes the problem. Common purpose of the flight is lacking which is what queers the pro rata part. The passenger is going for transportation, the pilot is going for instruction.

This all said it's an unlikely bust, but it doesn't pass the basic tests.
 
What if the CFI got $1 per hour, so there was documented tangible consideration?
 
G-Man said:
What if the CFI got $1 per hour, so there was documented tangible consideration?
Click to expand...

The instructor isn't the problem, it's the sick person in the back. The problem is that there is 'holding out' being done. If the pilot is already an Angel Flight pilot giving the passenger a ride and the CFII says, "Hey, that's nice of you, I'll do you a kindness as well and give you some instrument instruction along the way.", that would be okay. But what is happening is that the CFII is basically brokering a ride for compensation.
 
It always amazes me at the time and effort put into trying to get around the regulations governing compensation of pilots.:dunno:
 
ronnieh said:
It always amazes me at the time and effort put into trying to get around the regulations governing compensation of pilots.:dunno:
Click to expand...

Well, in this guy's case it's the other way around sadly. He isn't trying to get around compensation rules, he's just trying to attract volunteers for a decent cause, he just so happens to run afoul doing so.
 
So, the pilot, who pays every single dime of the direct and indirect costs of the flight, and isn't advertising or "holding out" in any way shape or form, is going to get busted for letting the CFII ride along and give instruction on the return trip (also paid for by the private pilot).

Someone in the FAA has way too much time on their hands.
 
Henning, Geoff I agree with both points. However, it is not the instructor but the pilot who is getting compensation. It is still just amazing to me at the time and effort...:dunno:
 
Henning said:
The instructor isn't the problem, it's the sick person in the back. The problem is that there is 'holding out' being done. If the pilot is already an Angel Flight pilot giving the passenger a ride and the CFII says, "Hey, that's nice of you, I'll do you a kindness as well and give you some instrument instruction along the way.", that would be okay. But what is happening is that the CFII is basically brokering a ride for compensation.
Click to expand...

I'm still not sure this would run afoul of the rules, mostly because I don't think this qualifies as "holding out". As I see it, the CFII is saying "I'd like to rent your plane in return for IFR training," which is allowed compensation for services. Specifically, the following illegal things are not happening:

1. Private pilot being compensated for acting as pilot in command - the private pilot is getting something (instrument training) out of the deal, but is not acting as pilot in command.

2. Holding out to the public as a transport service - The private pilot is not offering to take anybody anywhere in his plane. The CFII isn't offering to take anybody anywhere, aside from how it works under AngelFlight's charity deal.

The things that are happening (and I don't see how they run afoul of the regs) are:

1. CFII is renting plane from private pilot, with the compensation being the instrument instruction.

2. CFII in his "rented" plane offers to fly AngelFlight flight.

3. CFII provides instruction while AngelFlight passenger sits in the back.

All of that seems fine to me... The only question in my mind being whether the plane needs a 100-hour inspection. What am I missing?
 
ronnieh said:
Henning, Geoff I agree with both points. However, it is not the instructor but the pilot who is getting compensation. It is still just amazing to me at the time and effort...:dunno:
Click to expand...

Correct, but the CFI is acting as a 'charter broker' and the pilot is getting compensated for a flight they would not make without the compensation.
 
mcmanigle said:
I'm still not sure this would run afoul of the rules, mostly because I don't think this qualifies as "holding out". As I see it, the CFII is saying "I'd like to rent your plane in return for IFR training," which is allowed compensation for services. Specifically, the following illegal things are not happening:

1. Private pilot being compensated for acting as pilot in command - the private pilot is getting something (instrument training) out of the deal, but is not acting as pilot in command.

2. Holding out to the public as a transport service - The private pilot is not offering to take anybody anywhere in his plane. The CFII isn't offering to take anybody anywhere, aside from how it works under AngelFlight's charity deal.

The things that are happening (and I don't see how they run afoul of the regs) are:

1. CFII is renting plane from private pilot, with the compensation being the instrument instruction.

2. CFII in his "rented" plane offers to fly AngelFlight flight.

3. CFII provides instruction while AngelFlight passenger sits in the back.

All of that seems fine to me... The only question in my mind being whether the plane needs a 100-hour inspection. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

That's not how the guy worded his advert though. The guy worded the advert "You give these people a ride, I will give you instruction"
 
I don't see the problem here. Nobody is holding out to the public. Angle Flight has always facilitated matching up pilots who want to fly together.

As a judgement issue, I'm not sure running this ad on Craigslist is a good idea, just because there are people in the FAA who want to essentially ban using GA for any purpose other than pure pleasure flying.

If this pilot is violated I hope he fights it, because I don't think the actual law is as restrictive as the FAA lawyers would like it to be. And these days the NTSB doesn't have to favor the FAA lawyers.
 
Henning said:
pilot is getting compensated for a flight they would not make without the compensation.
Click to expand...

How do we know that? The pilot was planning on making Angel Flights and decided to take advantage of the free instruction while he was at it.

Would a pilot spend $400 on a flight just to get $100 worth of free flight instruction?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
How do we know that? The pilot was planning on making Angel Flights and decided to take advantage of the free instruction while he was at it.

Would a pilot spend $400 on a flight just to get $100 worth of free flight instruction?
Click to expand...

If the ad read "Angel Flight Pilots..." Or "Considering becoming an Angel Flight Pilot? Here's a premium for you to join" that would work, but that's not the way the ad read. The ad read "Give these people a ride and I'll give you instruction", and that words it as quid pro quo for the ride. The devil is in the details.
 
Jim Logajan said:
So if the passenger is taken out of the scenario, then the pilot would not be considered to be receiving compensation regardless of how little the CFI charges?
Click to expand...
Correct. If you take the passenger out of the scenario, there is no quo for which the free/cut-rate training is the quid.

Also, I'm wondering what has become of the 61.113(c) pro rata exception in these cases?
Click to expand...
Since the pilot is paying the full direct costs on these charity flights, there is no pro rata expense-sharing issue.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So, the pilot, who pays every single dime of the direct and indirect costs of the flight, and isn't advertising or "holding out" in any way shape or form, is going to get busted for letting the CFII ride along and give instruction on the return trip (also paid for by the private pilot).
Click to expand...
Not quite the situation. In this case, as Henning pointed out, the CFI is offering free instruction to anyone who'll fly the mission. That's the offer which the pilot cannot accept -- compensation in return for providing air transportation. Not much different than someone putting a sign up at the airport "I'll pay $150 for anyone who'll fly my friend to XYZ) -- clearly illegal for any pilot without a 135 operating certificate to accept.

Someone in the FAA has way too much time on their hands.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, the FAA isn't involved in this -- just an academic discussion based on something someone saw on the internet. Whether the FAA would get involved or not is entirely unknown. I'm just saying that if they did, I think the Chief Counsel would say this wasn't legal for the pilot involved.
 
mcmanigle said:
I'm still not sure this would run afoul of the rules, mostly because I don't think this qualifies as "holding out".
Click to expand...
That doesn't matter -- providing air transportation in return for compensation without a commercial operating certificate is against the rules whether it's done publicly or privately. Second, this is holding out, since the CFI involved put the notice up on the internet (Craigslist, IIRC).

As I see it, the CFII is saying "I'd like to rent your plane in return for IFR training," which is allowed compensation for services.
Click to expand...
No, that's not what the instructor is saying at all. He's saying "if you carry this person from point A to point B, I'll compensate you for doing that." It's a clear violation of 61.113 (among other rules) for any PP to accept that offer.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
That's not how the guy worded his advert though. The guy worded the advert "You give these people a ride, I will give you instruction"
Click to expand...
Exactly -- there's an expression vice cops have about this sort of thing which goes "Five dollar s*****/f*****, you're busted."
 
Henning, the best I can tell we are agreeing:dunno:

Jim in Texas, the FAA is not trying to prevent part 91 aircraft from being used in business. What they are trying to prevent is private pilots being paid to fly or any situation where one entity is supplying air transportation for ANY compensation to another entity. Just trying to enforce the FAR's. Now whether the rules are fair is another thread, one which has been hashed to death on POA.
 
ronnieh said:
Henning, the best I can tell we are agreeing:dunno:

Jim in Texas, the FAA is not trying to prevent part 91 aircraft from being used in business. What they are trying to prevent is private pilots being paid to fly or any situation where one entity is supplying air transportation for ANY compensation to another entity. Just trying to enforce the FAR's. Now whether the rules are fair is another thread, one which has been hashed to death on POA.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I don't think the FAA actually spends near the time and effort as on web boards....:lol:
 
Yes I hope they have more to do than hang around POA looking for PP's being paid to fly or third parties setting up charter flights with out the 135 cert.:rofl:
 
ronnieh said:
Yes I hope they have more to do than hang around POA looking for PP's being paid to fly or third parties setting up charter flights with out the 135 cert.:rofl:
Click to expand...

Yeah, normally the way a bust works is a guy with a 135 cert complains and the FAA tell them "You can't do that".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top