"FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies"

[poadeleted20]

I don't think you can conclude from this case that if I fly a business associate to Llano for some BBQ that the FAA would come after me the way they did this guy.

Conclude for sure? Of course not. However, you also cannot say from either that interpretation or regulations themselves that giving rides to people with whom you do business is certainly legal unless the pilot has a CP ticket. I advise caution in such a case, or at least a low profile.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Reality Check Time.

During my time in the Agency not once, not ever did anyone consider running out to the airport to ramp pilots at the airport cafe to see if everyone was paying their fare share in the 172 that just came in for some hamburgers. Never, ever did we have a staff meeting where the subject was " OK guys, let's all sit down and read the latest Chief Counsel letters and see how it applies to our operations". Nor did we ever go out and investigate Slim and his 172 because someone heard he took Gertrude to see her Great Aunt Bessie in Bum**** as a favor.

However, there were a couple of occasions where someone put up ads advertising "charter" with their airplanes and were very creative about it. That ended with a phone call of "please remove your ad and if you would like an air carrier certificate, come see us".

 

[poadeleted20]

Amen to what R&W said. Stay off the radar, and the FAA won't become involved. Just remember that posting offers on the internet is not how to stay off the radar.

 

[David7700]

Since you paid all the costs, there is no violation. You haven't been compensated by anyone except yourself, and that's OK. The problem arises is when you receive compensation from someone else for providing air transportation to someone else. Since I'm not paying for the ride, it's perfectly OK for you to do me a favor by running me up to Lancaster to pick up my plane at Lancaster Avionics.

That said, if I happen to buy you lunch at Fiorentino's while we're there, it better be because I just felt like it and not because I was giving you lunch in exchange for the ride -- that would be a quid pro quo, and constitute prohibited compensation.

The pilot in the Bobertz memo was collecting money from all passengers. That's the problem. He could certainly have given them all free rides legally, but once he started taking money, the line was crossed.

Dias makes clear that it's only a problem "if the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft". Since in your scenario, you're paying all the costs and logging all the time, there's no problem.

So relax and enjoy your lunch, and please don't fight me for the check and I guarantee I won't tell the FAA, "I bought David lunch in return for a ride to Lancaster."

I was thinking in Bobertz the FAA said even if you weren't collecting money from passengers, the logging of time would still be compensation. I'll have to check that again tomorrow.

 

[MikeELP]

The "holding out rule" applies to holding out to the public an offer of air transportation for hire/compensation. So, you can "hold out" to anyone you like an offer of a free ride without violating any rules..

OK..so a Private pilot stands outside the terminal at BWI with a cardboard sign that says "I WILL FLY YOU TODAY IN MY OWN AIRPLANE TO ANY AIRPORT WITHIN 400 MILES AND COME PICK YOU UP AND BRING YOU HOME WHENEVER YOU NEED ME TO COME GET YOU. ALL FREE!!!"



Mike

 

[CTLSi]

If you guys wanna get paid to fly then get your commercial. It's not a big deal. Quit trying to stretch the PPL.

 

[David7700]

It's the operating certificate that's the trick.

 

[Palmpilot]

If you guys wanna get paid to fly then get your commercial. It's not a big deal. Quit trying to stretch the PPL.

There's quite a lot more to flying for hire than having your commercial. From what I hear, getting an air taxi certificate is pretty involved.

 

[tlglenn]

I was thinking in Bobertz the FAA said even if you weren't collecting money from passengers, the logging of time would still be compensation. I'll have to check that again tomorrow.

The Bobertz interpretation references the Harrington interpretation:

If these pilots are not paying the costs of operating the aircraft while ferrying the aircraft then the building up of flight time would be considered compensation.

 

[Henning]

The Bobertz interpretation references the Harrington interpretation:

Doesn't that have to do with CP/PP privileges?

 

[tlglenn]

Doesn't that have to do with CP/PP privileges?

Yeah, it looks like CPs can accept free flight time flying another entity's aircraft while PPs cannot.

 

[Henning]

Yeah, it looks like CPs can accept free flight time flying another entity's aircraft while PPs cannot.

Right, which is actually a separate subject to this one. There are two distinct though related issues that need to be met: Pilot and Airplane certification. What we are dealing with here is if the airplane operation is legal, not so much the pilot. Can the airplane be operated in this fashion without a Pt 135 Operating Certificate?

 

[JeffDG]

Amen to what R&W said.

Who are you, and what have you done with Ron?

 

[poadeleted20]

I was thinking in Bobertz the FAA said even if you weren't collecting money from passengers, the logging of time would still be compensation. I'll have to check that again tomorrow.

When you look again, you'll see the Bobertz memo involved collection of expense money from the passengers -- first paragraph, first sentence.

 

[poadeleted20]

OK..so a Private pilot stands outside the terminal at BWI with a cardboard sign that says "I WILL FLY YOU TODAY IN MY OWN AIRPLANE TO ANY AIRPORT WITHIN 400 MILES AND COME PICK YOU UP AND BRING YOU HOME WHENEVER YOU NEED ME TO COME GET YOU. ALL FREE!!!"



Mike

Uther than the possible application of 14 CFR 67.307(c), I can't think of any FAA regulation that would violate, although the Maryland Airport Administration might have some of their own issues with doing that on their property.

 

[Henning]

I once saw a guy who had a 421 and a 135 Cert with sign for Charter Flights in a major terminal once. He said he always does it when there are flights cancelled and it's always good business. He said the airport doesn't hassle him.

 

[Palmpilot]

The Bobertz interpretation references the Harrington interpretation:

If these pilots are not paying the costs of operating the aircraft while ferrying the aircraft then the building up of flight time would be considered compensation.

Incidentally, the Harrington interpretation says you can avoid that problem by not logging the time.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I was thinking in Bobertz the FAA said even if you weren't collecting money from passengers, the logging of time would still be compensation. I'll have to check that again tomorrow.

Bobertz was a pay-for-ride scenario.

I'm not completely sure one can find in the official stuff a completely pure "flight time as compensation" scenario where absolutely the only form of compensation to anyone or from anyone is flight time logged by the pilot.

For example in Harrington, the pilot is getting free use of an aircraft in exchange for his piloting services. But I guess the Chief Counsel figured the use of a $200/hour aircraft was of no real value unless the pilot also logged a few hours in it.

 

[poadeleted20]

I once saw a guy who had a 421 and a 135 Cert with sign for Charter Flights in a major terminal once. He said he always does it when there are flights cancelled and it's always good business. He said the airport doesn't hassle him.

Nobody puts up advertising at BWI without paying for the space to put the sign. And nobody's out there walking around with an advertising sandwich board, either, without MAA approval. You can be sure they will get their cut one way or another.

 

[poadeleted20]

Incidentally, the Harrington interpretation says you can avoid that problem by not logging the time.

They didn't say not logging the time was guaranteed to be legal, just a possibility which they'd consider on a case-by-case basis. As Mark said, there are lots of things which would be considered.

 

[comanchepilot]

Hey, who wants to go to Camarillo for Tri-Tip?

We all go - I pay for the airplane - they buy my lunch.

Legal? It's not pro-rata . . .

 

[mcmanigle]

Hey, who wants to go to Camarillo for Tri-Tip?

We all go - I pay for the airplane - they buy my lunch.

Legal? It's not pro-rata . . .

You just have to pay "not less than" your pro-rata share. Consider the lunch purchase to be paying you in cash money. Did that suddenly drop your contribution below the magic line? I'm guessing not.

Similarly, my understanding is that if you and five friends are flying somewhere, and you pay 1/6 of the cost, some especially generous friend of yours can pay the other 5/6; it doesn't have to be pro-rata for anyone other than the pilot. Similarly, if you're flying with 5 friends and you pay half and collect half in bits and bobs from the others, that's fine.

The rule isn't "everyone pays their pro-rata share." It's "the pilot pays at least his/her pro-rata share."

Of course, a situation like the random friend paying for all 5 passengers seems a little suspicious for commercial operation -- did the other four buy "tickets" from him or anything like that? But as long as all the other rules are followed, and it's really just a group of friends, one of whom is feeling generous that day, it's all good.

 

[David7700]

When you look again, you'll see the Bobertz memo involved collection of expense money from the passengers -- first paragraph, first sentence.

Yes, I was reading it to say even if the pilot didn't collect money, there would still be compensation. I don't think it does say that, though, and I think that Harrington (the CAF letter) makes that clear.

[FONT=&quot]If these pilots are not paying the costs of operating the aircraft while ferrying the aircraft then the building up of flight time would be considered compensation. To avoid compensation, these pilots could either not log the flight time or they could log the flight time while bearing the full cost, including fuel and oil, for ferrying the aircraft.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[David7700]

Bobertz was a pay-for-ride scenario.

I'm not completely sure one can find in the official stuff a completely pure "flight time as compensation" scenario where absolutely the only form of compensation to anyone or from anyone is flight time logged by the pilot.

For example in Harrington, the pilot is getting free use of an aircraft in exchange for his piloting services. But I guess the Chief Counsel figured the use of a $200/hour aircraft was of no real value unless the pilot also logged a few hours in it.

That's what I have been looking for and unable to find as well.

 

[Palmpilot]

They didn't say not logging the time was guaranteed to be legal, just a possibility which they'd consider on a case-by-case basis. As Mark said, there are lots of things which would be considered.

They didn't use the word "guarantee," but they didn't say it was "a possibility which they'd consider on a case-by-case basis" either. Here are the exact words:

"If these pilots are not paying the costs of operating the aircraft while ferrying the aircraft then the building up of flight time would be considered compensation. To avoid compensation, these pilots could either not log the flight time or they could log the flight time while bearing the full cost, including fuel and oil, for ferrying the aircraft."​

That looks like a pretty definite statement to me.

 

[poadeleted20]

They didn't use the word "guarantee," but they didn't say it was "a possibility which they'd consider on a case-by-case basis" either. Here are the exact words:

"If these pilots are not paying the costs of operating the aircraft while ferrying the aircraft then the building up of flight time would be considered compensation. To avoid compensation, these pilots could either not log the flight time or they could log the flight time while bearing the full cost, including fuel and oil, for ferrying the aircraft."​

That looks like a pretty definite statement to me.

They have repeatedly said these will always be considered on a case-by-case basis, and "could" is not a definitive word.

 

[Palmpilot]

They have repeatedly said these will always be considered on a case-by-case basis...

I've seen them say that some things will be considered on a case-by-case basis, but I've never seen them say that about the concept of not logging the time.

...and "could" is not a definitive word.

"To avoid compensation, these pilots could either not log the flight time or they could log the flight time while bearing the full cost, including fuel and oil, for ferrying the aircraft."​

That sentence gives the pilots involved two ways to avoid compensation, and says that they could choose either one. How you morph that into meaning something else is beyond me.