Ferry Flight - PPL

[Chester]

I recently got into a discussion with someone about bring an airplane from one airport to another with only a PPL. I wanted to throw a few scenarios out there to get some other opinions and maybe some clarification before I go to someone else concerning the matter.

1. A PPL is approached and asked to bring an aircraft from one airport to another and pays all of the expenses himself. The aircraft is operated under a ferry permit. This can only be done with a CPL, correct?

2. Let's say this PPL is working for Company A and his boss asks him to pick the aircraft up from another state and to bring it "home." The aircraft will be used strictly for business with Company A purposes and, like scenario 1, the PPL will pay for all of the expenses for the flight. Once again, the flight is operated under a ferry permit. Can this be done legally with only a PPL?

3. Lastly, let's say a PPL is an employee of Company A and is on vacation in another state for a personal reason. His boss calls him up and asks if he can bring an airplane back while paying for all of the expenses himself like scenario 1 and 2. However, like the previous scenarios, the flight will be operated under a ferry permit. How would this work out?

Do you need a CPL to operate an aircraft under a ferry permit regardless of the scenario?

Sorry if the answers are obvious and I'm just missing it. I've been thinking so much about it and need some fresh minds to take a look.

Thanks for any help.

 

[gismo]

I recently got into a discussion with someone about bring an airplane from one airport to another with only a PPL. I wanted to throw a few scenarios out there to get some other opinions and maybe some clarification before I go to someone else concerning the matter.

1. A PPL is approached and asked to bring an aircraft from one airport to another and pays all of the expenses himself. The aircraft is operated under a ferry permit. This can only be done with a CPL, correct?

Yes, unless the pilot lacks a required endorsement or type rating etc. Basically no different than any other VFR solo flight.

2. Let's say this PPL is working for Company A and his boss asks him to pick the aircraft up from another state and to bring it "home." The aircraft will be used strictly for business with Company A purposes and, like scenario 1, the PPL will pay for all of the expenses for the flight. Once again, the flight is operated under a ferry permit. Can this be done legally with only a PPL?

For the most part yes but there are exceptions on this one. If the company is in an air transport related business I could see where a commercial cert might be required given that the pilot is basically being paid (salary) to fly the plane. But given that the pilot is paying the expenses I think a valid argument could be made the other way as well. If it were me I'd probably query the local FSDO for their (often inaccurate) opinion via email so I'd have something in writing.

3. Lastly, let's say a PPL is an employee of Company A and is on vacation in another state for a personal reason. His boss calls him up and asks if he can bring an airplane back while paying for all of the expenses himself like scenario 1 and 2. However, like the previous scenarios, the flight will be operated under a ferry permit. How would this work out?

Do you need a CPL to operate an aircraft under a ferry permit regardless of the scenario?

I don't see how the airworthiness (i.e. "ferry permit") factors into any of these scenarios. I do believe that you can voluntarily fly anyone's airplane solo while paying for the direct costs with nothing more than a PPL and required endorsements.


Sorry if the answers are obvious and I'm just missing it. I've been thinking so much about it and need some fresh minds to take a look.

Thanks for any help.[/QUOTE]

 

[craigvince]

There is NO requirement on a ferry permit that the pilot hold a CPL. Keep in mind that the ferry permit will specify that only the required crew be in the airplane. In most cases, this means only the pilot.

As for who is paying for the ferry flight, there is some gray area that your local FSDO might interpret differently from region to region. I would simply call your local FSDO and ask. Back in the day, I did many ferry flights as a private pilot. It's a great way to get to fly a variety of airplanes, which ultimately helped me decide what my first airplane purchase would be. Plus, it's a lot of fun flying all over the country.

 

[DJTorrente]

Re 2) & 3):

A PP cannot act as PIC for compensation or hire, (and the FAA, with the blessing of the NTSB and the courts, has described "compensation" VERY broadly - it can include anything of value including the free flight time logged or the goodwill of the another), except as provided in FAR 61.113 (b)-(h). Which of those exceptions do you want to apply to your circumstance to take advantage of this safe harbor?

If you're flying to a client location for a meeting or a remote job site for business, then it can be interpreted that "The flight is only incidental to that business or employment" [(b)(1)]. If, on the other hand, the boss calls and asks an employee to fetch a plane for them, is flight incidental?

 

[poadeleted20]

1. A PPL is approached and asked to bring an aircraft from one airport to another and pays all of the expenses himself. The aircraft is operated under a ferry permit. This can only be done with a CPL, correct?

There are two issues here -- compensation, and PIC under a Special Flight ("ferry") permit. A Private Pilot may provide pilot services, but not where any compensation is involved. Thus, a PP may fly someone else's plane somewhere as long as the PP pays all the direct expenses of the flight him/herself and receives no other form of compensation (monetary or otherwise). While it's theoretically possible that a ferry permit could be written to require a Commercial Pilot, I've never heard of that being done. Thus, as long as the PP meets the Part 61 FAA requirements to act as PIC of that aircraft under whatever flight conditions exist, there should be no FAA reason a PP cannot make a flight under a ferry permit as long as the PP receives no compensation from the aircraft owner in any form, either monetary or otherwise.

2. Let's say this PPL is working for Company A and his boss asks him to pick the aircraft up from another state and to bring it "home." The aircraft will be used strictly for business with Company A purposes and, like scenario 1, the PPL will pay for all of the expenses for the flight. Once again, the flight is operated under a ferry permit. Can this be done legally with only a PPL?

No, and the issue is compensation. One assumes the PP is receiving his/her regular pay during that flight, in which case s/he is being compensated for providing pilot services, and that takes a CP or better. The fact that the PP is paying the direct expenses of the flight does not change the fact that he PP is still being paid for his/her time while flying the airplane. This cannot be done under the "incidental to employment" exception, since that is only for flying yourself somewhere that your job requires you to be, not for providing pilot services on a flight which is not facilitating the accomplishment of your regular job.

3. Lastly, let's say a PPL is an employee of Company A and is on vacation in another state for a personal reason. His boss calls him up and asks if he can bring an airplane back while paying for all of the expenses himself like scenario 1 and 2. However, like the previous scenarios, the flight will be operated under a ferry permit. How would this work out?

From an FAA perspective, the existing business relationship between the PP and his/her employer creates the opportunity for "good will" with the employer as a form of compensation to the PP. See Administrator v. Murray on the concept of "good will" as compensation where there is a prior/existing business relationship. That compensation, even though nonmonetary in nature, makes this flight a violation of 61.113. In addition, aside from the FAA issues, there may be other legal/insurance issues arising if the PP gets hurt or someone else is injured or someone else's property is damaged while s/he is doing something not within the scope of his/her employment.

Do you need a CPL to operate an aircraft under a ferry permit regardless of the scenario?

Not unless it is specifically stated in that ferry permit, and I've never heard of that.

And welcome to PoA! Glad to have you aboard.

 

[Skylane81E]

I have done a bit of flying under 61.113(b) as the flying was just how I got to the job. Being the only PP on staff means that if someone else needs to come the CP can act as PIC, even if I am PF.

 

[Chester]

Sorry for the late response and thanks a bunch for the help. It cleared up a bit.

Hope to spend more time here in the near future.

 

[Clip4]

Before jumping in a plane that has been issued a ferry permit, you should check insurance coverage. Some policies exclude coverage when the plane is operated under a ferry permit. ie. AOPA renters insurance.

 

[gismo]

Before jumping in a plane that has been issued a ferry permit, you should check insurance coverage. Some policies exclude coverage when the plane is operated under a ferry permit. ie. AOPA renters insurance.

And most insurers that do cover "ferry permit" flights require that you notify them in advance of the proposed flight.

 

[David7700]

There are two issues here -- compensation, and PIC under a Special Flight ("ferry") permit. A Private Pilot may provide pilot services, but not where any compensation is involved. Thus, a PP may fly someone else's plane somewhere as long as the PP pays all the direct expenses of the flight him/herself and receives no other form of compensation (monetary or otherwise). While it's theoretically possible that a ferry permit could be written to require a Commercial Pilot, I've never heard of that being done. Thus, as long as the PP meets the Part 61 FAA requirements to act as PIC of that aircraft under whatever flight conditions exist, there should be no FAA reason a PP cannot make a flight under a ferry permit as long as the PP receives no compensation from the aircraft owner in any form, either monetary or otherwise.

No, and the issue is compensation. One assumes the PP is receiving his/her regular pay during that flight, in which case s/he is being compensated for providing pilot services, and that takes a CP or better. The fact that the PP is paying the direct expenses of the flight does not change the fact that he PP is still being paid for his/her time while flying the airplane. This cannot be done under the "incidental to employment" exception, since that is only for flying yourself somewhere that your job requires you to be, not for providing pilot services on a flight which is not facilitating the accomplishment of your regular job.

From an FAA perspective, the existing business relationship between the PP and his/her employer creates the opportunity for "good will" with the employer as a form of compensation to the PP. See Administrator v. Murray on the concept of "good will" as compensation where there is a prior/existing business relationship. That compensation, even though nonmonetary in nature, makes this flight a violation of 61.113. In addition, aside from the FAA issues, there may be other legal/insurance issues arising if the PP gets hurt or someone else is injured or someone else's property is damaged while s/he is doing something not within the scope of his/her employment.

Not unless it is specifically stated in that ferry permit, and I've never heard of that.

And welcome to PoA! Glad to have you aboard.

As regards #1 above, say the compensation is just logging hours. No money changes hands, but the ppl ferries the plane (forget about the ferry permit issue) from A to B for the owner, say after owner buys the plane.

Is the fact that the time was logged considered compensation in and of itself, or would the FAA need to also show that the hours were logged in order to attain an additional rating?

 

[Henning]

I recently got into a discussion with someone about bring an airplane from one airport to another with only a PPL. I wanted to throw a few scenarios out there to get some other opinions and maybe some clarification before I go to someone else concerning the matter.

1. A PPL is approached and asked to bring an aircraft from one airport to another and pays all of the expenses himself. The aircraft is operated under a ferry permit. This can only be done with a CPL, correct?

2. Let's say this PPL is working for Company A and his boss asks him to pick the aircraft up from another state and to bring it "home." The aircraft will be used strictly for business with Company A purposes and, like scenario 1, the PPL will pay for all of the expenses for the flight. Once again, the flight is operated under a ferry permit. Can this be done legally with only a PPL?

3. Lastly, let's say a PPL is an employee of Company A and is on vacation in another state for a personal reason. His boss calls him up and asks if he can bring an airplane back while paying for all of the expenses himself like scenario 1 and 2. However, like the previous scenarios, the flight will be operated under a ferry permit. How would this work out?

Do you need a CPL to operate an aircraft under a ferry permit regardless of the scenario?

Sorry if the answers are obvious and I'm just missing it. I've been thinking so much about it and need some fresh minds to take a look.

Thanks for any help.

No, a ferry permit has no tie to what rating a pilot has, in fact, on a ferry permit, you don't need a type rating on planes that require one, just category and class.

CPL/PPL distinction is strictly determined by compensation.

 

[Henning]

As regards #1 above, say the compensation is just logging hours. No money changes hands, but the ppl ferries the plane (forget about the ferry permit issue) from A to B for the owner, say after owner buys the plane.

Is the fact that the time was logged considered compensation in and of itself, or would the FAA need to also show that the hours were logged in order to attain an additional rating?

Yes, logged time has been adjudicated as compensation.

 

[poadeleted20]

As regards #1 above, say the compensation is just logging hours. No money changes hands, but the ppl ferries the plane (forget about the ferry permit issue) from A to B for the owner, say after owner buys the plane.

Is the fact that the time was logged considered compensation in and of itself, or would the FAA need to also show that the hours were logged in order to attain an additional rating?

Yes, the time is considered compensation in and of itself, and no, they don't do a case-by-case analysis on this point. See the Bobertz memo for the exact wording on that -- page 3, first paragraph, second sentence. Also page 2 of the original Harrington letter, near the top of the page.

 

[poadeleted20]

No, a ferry permit has no tie to what rating a pilot has, in fact, on a ferry permit, you don't need a type rating on planes that require one, just category and class.

Can you point to the regulation which says this? Yes, 61.31(b) allows a letter of authorization in lieu of type rating to be granted for ferry flights, but it's not automatic and there are a number of limitations. See FAA Order 8900.1 for details on the process.

Sec. 61.31

Type rating requirements, additional training, and authorization requirements.

(a) Type ratings required. A person who acts as a pilot in command of any of the following aircraft must hold a type rating for that aircraft:

• 
  (1) Large aircraft (except lighter-than-air).
  (2) Turbojet-powered airplanes. (3) Other aircraft specified by the Administrator through aircraft type certificate procedures.

(b) Authorization in lieu of a type rating. A person may be authorized to operate without a type rating for up to 60 days an aircraft requiring a type rating, provided--

• 
  (1) The Administrator has authorized the flight or series of flights;
  (2) The Administrator has determined that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved through the operating limitations on the authorization;
  (3) The person shows that compliance with paragraph (a) of this section is impracticable for the flight or series of flights; and
  (4) The flight--
  • 
    (i) Involves only a ferry flight, training flight, test flight, or practical test for a pilot certificate or rating;
    (ii) Is within the United States;
    (iii) Does not involve operations for compensation or hire unless the compensation or hire involves payment for the use of the aircraft for training or taking a practical test; and (iv) Involves only the carriage of flight crewmembers considered essential for the flight.
  
  (5) If the flight or series of flights cannot be accomplished within the time limit of the authorization, the Administrator may authorize an additional period of up to 60 days to accomplish the flight or series of flights.

 

[David7700]

Yes, the time is considered compensation in and of itself, and no, they don't do a case-by-case analysis on this point. See the Bobertz memo for the exact wording on that -- page 3, first paragraph, second sentence. Also page 2 of the original Harrington letter, near the top of the page.

That's great, Ron. Thanks!!

 

[David7700]

I posted in this thread because it is about Ferry Flights. Let's assume there is a ferry flight, but no ferry permit is needed.

Ron buys a plane in Richmond and asks me to fly it to him in Maryland. I am a PP-ASEL, not instrument rated.

Can I fly the plane from Richmond to Maryland? I am not carrying passengers, so that is not an issue. Certainly, if the necessary insurance coverage is in place and I am type rated for the plane (let's assume it is a Cessna 172), I should be able to fly anyone's plane for my own purposes.

The "common purpose" test is not an issue because I am not carrying passengers.

Ron doesn't pay me for this service--I pay for the fuel. I log the hours.

1. Is my logging the hours "compensation" in this case for doing Ron a favor? Per the opinions Ron cites, yes. Hours logged is compensation and not evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

2. Let's say I not only pay for the fuel, but I agree to pay Ron $133.00/hr. as a fair rental costs (based on what the flight school charges to rent a plane). Isn't this in effect paying for the hours I log and negating the "compensation" the logging creates?

 

[dell30rb]

^ As far as that goes, I think you are ok as long as you pay for the fuel and do not receive any $$ from Ron. You don't need to pay him a rental fee. In fact, that might complicate things more.

 

[David7700]

^ As far as that goes, I think you are ok as long as you pay for the fuel and do not receive any $$ from Ron. You don't need to pay him a rental fee. In fact, that might complicate things more.

In reading Harrison just now, I think I'd have to pay the operating costs of flying the aircraft.

So what are the 'operating costs'? Harrison does not specifically say, but does hint that it includes fuel and oil.

 

[Henning]

I posted in this thread because it is about Ferry Flights. Let's assume there is a ferry flight, but no ferry permit is needed.

Ron buys a plane in Richmond and asks me to fly it to him in Maryland. I am a PP-ASEL, not instrument rated.

Can I fly the plane from Richmond to Maryland? I am not carrying passengers, so that is not an issue. Certainly, if the necessary insurance coverage is in place and I am type rated for the plane (let's assume it is a Cessna 172), I should be able to fly anyone's plane for my own purposes.

The "common purpose" test is not an issue because I am not carrying passengers.

Ron doesn't pay me for this service--I pay for the fuel. I log the hours.

1. Is my logging the hours "compensation" in this case for doing Ron a favor? Per the opinions Ron cites, yes. Hours logged is compensation and not evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

2. Let's say I not only pay for the fuel, but I agree to pay Ron $133.00/hr. as a fair rental costs (based on what the flight school charges to rent a plane). Isn't this in effect paying for the hours I log and negating the "compensation" the logging creates?

1. Technically one should have a CPL, but this one wouldn't cost more than an educational talking to if it got there.

2. Makes it completely legal, you're renting a plane from another individual same as always.

 

[dell30rb]

In reading Harrison just now, I think I'd have to pay the operating costs of flying the aircraft.

So what are the 'operating costs'? Harrison does not specifically say, but does hint that it includes fuel and oil.

What did it cost to get the plane from point A to point B? Probably just some fuel and oil.

If you're flying the plane for weeks/months and many hours only paying for fuel/oil that's a different story. At that point, you are putting measurable wear and tear on the airplane.

 

[TMetzinger]

Don't forget the invisible hand of insurance. When you fly someone else's airplane you need to be sure that YOU are covered.

 

[David7700]

Don't forget the invisible hand of insurance. When you fly someone else's airplane you need to be sure that YOU are covered.

Good point, but I assumed it away!!

 

[poadeleted20]

I posted in this thread because it is about Ferry Flights. Let's assume there is a ferry flight, but no ferry permit is needed.

IOW, moving a perfectly good plane from one place to another, rather than making a flight on a "special flight permit" because it is not legally airworthy for one reason or another. Got it.

Ron buys a plane in Richmond and asks me to fly it to him in Maryland. I am a PP-ASEL, not instrument rated.

Can I fly the plane from Richmond to Maryland?

Sure -- as long as you pay the direct cost of the fllght (only fuel, oil, and airport expenditures, per 61.113). My insurer might have a cow about it, since my insurance is written for someone with an ATP and 10,000 hours, but that's another issue.

I am not carrying passengers, so that is not an issue.

It isn't, since you are receiving no compensation, and any passengers you might have are paying nothing for the flight.

Certainly, if the necessary insurance coverage is in place and I am type rated for the plane (let's assume it is a Cessna 172), I should be able to fly anyone's plane for my own purposes.

Technically, for a 172, it's only category and class ratings, not type. And why this Grumman fanatic would buy a 172 is beyond me, but...

The "common purpose" test is not an issue because I am not carrying passengers.

And it wouldn't be even if you were since you are paying the full direct cost of the flight.

Ron doesn't pay me for this service--I pay for the fuel. I log the hours.

"Direct cost" is bit more than fuel (you'd have to pay any oil used or airport fees such as landing, ramp, handling, parking, etc), but we'll assume you covered those, too.

1. Is my logging the hours "compensation" in this case for doing Ron a favor?

No, because you paid for them -- I didn't give them to you in return for providing a service.

Per the opinions Ron cites, yes. Hours logged is compensation and not evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

It is only when you get those hours in return for providing something to whoever paid for the flight ("Quid pro quo, Clarisse, quid pro quo"). That's the basic definition of "compensation" -- something given in exchange for something else in return. In this case, you paid for the hours, so they are just something you purchased, not something given in return for something from me.

2. Let's say I not only pay for the fuel, but I agree to pay Ron $133.00/hr. as a fair rental costs (based on what the flight school charges to rent a plane). Isn't this in effect paying for the hours I log and negating the "compensation" the logging creates?

Now you really buggered my insurance coverage, since it's not written for renting the plane out to anyone. But from an FAA standpoint, that's the same as renting a plane from an FBO. The only difference is that this time I made money on the deal, but that's not part of the FAA's equation.

IOW, it's all about who paid for the flying. So on this issue, as long as you paid for it (and the FAA sets the minimum payment as the direct cost as noted above), it's OK for you to fly it. Got the idea?

 

[poadeleted20]

So what are the 'operating costs'? Harrison does not specifically say, but does hint that it includes fuel and oil.

The regulation involved is 61.113(c), which says:

(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

Since there are no other passengers, your pro rata share is 1/1 of the total, or 100%.

 

[poadeleted20]

1. Technically one should have a CPL, but this one wouldn't cost more than an educational talking to if it got there.

Technically, no, that is not necessary as long as I'm not giving him the flight time free, i.e., he pays the full operating expenses of the flight as defined in 61.113(c). He can certainly pay more, just as he does with an FBO, but he has to pay at least that much.

 

[poadeleted20]

What did it cost to get the plane from point A to point B? Probably just some fuel and oil.

...and maybe some "airport expenses" like landing fees -- and he must pay any of those, too.

If you're flying the plane for weeks/months and many hours only paying for fuel/oil that's a different story. At that point, you are putting measurable wear and tear on the airplane.

That's beyond the scope of the regulations. From the FAA's perspective, he could legally fly my plane forever as long as he pays all the operating expenses as defined in 61.113(c).

 

[Henning]

Technically, no, that is not necessary as long as I'm not giving him the flight time free, i.e., he pays the full operating expenses of the flight as defined in 61.113(c). He can certainly pay more, just as he does with an FBO, but he has to pay at least that much.

Ok, I missed the part where he said he paid the fuel, but as you point out, fuel alone doesn't technically cover it, minor issue.

As for renting on your policy, you may want to look into that a bit deeper. Every policy I have seen or had has had at a limited ability to rent to typically 5 named pilots.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ok, I missed the part where he said he paid the fuel, but as you point out, fuel alone doesn't technically cover it, minor issue.

Right -- the oil and airport expenditures are usually only a small fraction of the total operating expense.

As for renting on your policy, you may want to look into that a bit deeper. Every policy I have seen or had has had at a limited ability to rent to typically 5 named pilots.

Unless he's got a whole lot more experience than I think, he's not going to get named on my policy without an increased premium.

 

[Henning]

Right -- the oil and airport expenditures are usually only a small fraction of the total operating expense.

Unless he's got a whole lot more experience than I think, he's not going to get named on my policy without an increased premium.

If you're down around .8% value on your premium, yeah, but then he wouldn't make the open pilot warranty to fly it regardless of rental status.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you're down around .8% value on your premium, yeah, but then he wouldn't make the open pilot warranty to fly it regardless of rental status.

Which page of my policy says that? And how did you get into my house to read it? Or did my broker tell you that (in which case he's fired for talking about my business to outsiders)?

 

[Henning]

Which page of my policy says that? And how did you get into my house to read it? Or did my broker tell you that (in which case he's fired for talking about my business to outsiders)?

Lol, insurance is pretty easy to figure, all the policies are standardized by the states, insurance companies don't write policies, they underwrite them, the states define the products they can sell and sets maximum rates, competition and actuarial prognostication/voodoo sets the minimum rate. On a simple aircraft (that doesn't have an extra risk levee applied) the base premium for someone with 100hrs in type or more is right around .8% of insured value.

 

[David7700]

IOW, moving a perfectly good plane from one place to another, rather than making a flight on a "special flight permit" because it is not legally airworthy for one reason or another. Got it.

Sure -- as long as you pay the direct cost of the fllght (only fuel, oil, and airport expenditures, per 61.113). My insurer might have a cow about it, since my insurance is written for someone with an ATP and 10,000 hours, but that's another issue.

It isn't, since you are receiving no compensation, and any passengers you might have are paying nothing for the flight.

Technically, for a 172, it's only category and class ratings, not type. And why this Grumman fanatic would buy a 172 is beyond me, but...

And it wouldn't be even if you were since you are paying the full direct cost of the flight.

"Direct cost" is bit more than fuel (you'd have to pay any oil used or airport fees such as landing, ramp, handling, parking, etc), but we'll assume you covered those, too.

No, because you paid for them -- I didn't give them to you in return for providing a service.

It is only when you get those hours in return for providing something to whoever paid for the flight ("Quid pro quo, Clarisse, quid pro quo"). That's the basic definition of "compensation" -- something given in exchange for something else in return. In this case, you paid for the hours, so they are just something you purchased, not something given in return for something from me.

Now you really buggered my insurance coverage, since it's not written for renting the plane out to anyone. But from an FAA standpoint, that's the same as renting a plane from an FBO. The only difference is that this time I made money on the deal, but that's not part of the FAA's equation.

IOW, it's all about who paid for the flying. So on this issue, as long as you paid for it (and the FAA sets the minimum payment as the direct cost as noted above), it's OK for you to fly it. Got the idea?

Got it!! When did you want your 172 anyway?!?

 

[David7700]

If you're down around .8% value on your premium, yeah, but then he wouldn't make the open pilot warranty to fly it regardless of rental status.

I don't have the time in type to fly a Grumman on open pilot!!! Or probably the total time either.

 

[poadeleted20]

Got it!! When did you want your 172 anyway?!?

In the "for sale" pages of Trade-a-Plane. I'll use the proceeds to upgrade my Tiger. I only fly Cessnas when someone's paying me to do it. Only exception I might think of might be a Cessna 318.