Here's an interesting situation (student pilot seeks co-pilot)

TMetzinger

TMetzinger

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
9,660
Location
Northern Virginia
Display Name
Display name:
Tim
This message (redacted/altered slightly to protect the innocent and the stupid) came across from my flight club mail server today:

I plan to fly to YYY from our home base on 10/26 departing 10 AM using N123XY. The flight time is slightly over 2 hours. I need someone to accompany me to YYY and fly the plane back solo to home base. I am a student pilot who has passed the written test and all required flight times, waiting to schedule the check ride.

I also need someone to fly N23XY to YYY from our home base solo on 10/31 arriving at YYY around 1 PM so that we can fly back to JYO together.

[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Please let me know if any of you are interested and whether you are willing to share some of the cost.[/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']I grok a lot of wrongness in this request, which makes me think that this student doesn't understand the FAR very well. [/FONT][FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']He's not inviting someone to share a flight he's going to make - he's not a rated pilot so can't carry passengers, and he's made it clear that he essentially want's drop off / pick up service. I think the motivator here is that he's not allowed to keep the airplane solo overnight until he's rated, and he probably also doesn't want to pay the minimums (which would be higher than the 8 hours for two there-and-backs).[/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Now, if he OWNED the airplane in question, any current commercial pilot could be hired to fly him out and pick him up, and he could handle the controls as much as the pilot allowed (he couldn't log it, though as he's not yet rated). But this is a rental airplane. Possibly he could be the operator (airplane dispatched to him) on the trip out, but not sure that the club would dispatch in his name for the pick up, given he's not there.[/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']I think he could hire a club CFI to give him a lesson on the way out, and then return, and then go pick him up and give him a lesson on the way back, but it still "smells" a little to me - the purpose for the flights is clearly to get this guy to and from his destination.[/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']One may to make it more kosher would be for him to say something like:[/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']If anyone is going to YYY on the 26th, and/or coming back from YYY on the 31st, I would be willing to share expenses.[/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Anyway, I figured this might fuel some debate about sharing costs and commonality of purpose and such.[/FONT]
 
TMetzinger said:
This message (redacted/altered slightly to protect the innocent and the stupid) came across from my flight club mail server today:

I plan to fly to YYY from our home base on 10/26 departing 10 AM using N123XY. The flight time is slightly over 2 hours. I need someone to accompany me to YYY and fly the plane back solo to home base. I am a student pilot who has passed the written test and all required flight times, waiting to schedule the check ride.

I also need someone to fly N23XY to YYY from our home base solo on 10/31 arriving at YYY around 1 PM so that we can fly back to JYO together.

Please let me know if any of you are interested and whether you are willing to share some of the cost.

I grok a lot of wrongness in this request, which makes me think that this student doesn't understand the FAR very well. He's not inviting someone to share a flight he's going to make - he's not a rated pilot so can't carry passengers, and he's made it clear that he essentially want's drop off / pick up service. I think the motivator here is that he's not allowed to keep the airplane solo overnight until he's rated, and he probably also doesn't want to pay the minimums (which would be higher than the 8 hours for two there-and-backs).

Now, if he OWNED the airplane in question, any current commercial pilot could be hired to fly him out and pick him up, and he could handle the controls as much as the pilot allowed (he couldn't log it, though as he's not yet rated). But this is a rental airplane. Possibly he could be the operator (airplane dispatched to him) on the trip out, but not sure that the club would dispatch in his name for the pick up, given he's not there.[/font]

I think he could hire a club CFI to give him a lesson on the way out, and then return, and then go pick him up and give him a lesson on the way back, but it still "smells" a little to me - the purpose for the flights is clearly to get this guy to and from his destination.

One may to make it more kosher would be for him to say something like:If anyone is going to YYY on the 26th, and/or coming back from YYY on the 31st, I would be willing to share expenses.
Anyway, I figured this might fuel some debate about sharing costs and commonality of purpose and such.
Click to expand...

Just removed all the html tags to make it more readable.
 
I think even if he were to hire a CFI to take him in the rental plane there is an issue of an on demand part 135 operation here. The main purpose of the flight is to get the student form point a to point b not the lesson. This smells real bad to me.
 
smigaldi said:
I think even if he were to hire a CFI to take him in the rental plane there is an issue of an on demand part 135 operation here. The main purpose of the flight is to get the student form point a to point b not the lesson. This smells real bad to me.
Click to expand...

Nah, I did this all the time when I was a student, having my CFI Pick me up from, and drop me off at, AVX while I spent my days off between lessons OT (over town). As long as there is actual instruction going on, there is not an issue with the FAA. It has been an issue when CFIs were found to be making this type of flight while NOT providing instruction. If there is a record of instruction, no worries.
 
I got the email too. He's actually looking for someone to fly the plane with him and fly it back - and share costs.
 
Well, except for sharing expenses for the legs for which he wasn't on board, so long as the other pilot is legal PIC I don't see the problem :confused: Club rules aside...
 
TMetzinger said:
Thanks! I'll remember the notepad trick next time.
Click to expand...

Well, for Elizabeth (correct me if I'm wrong here) since she herself is a student you have the issue of two students alone in a plane which is not only illegal since one of them will be a passenger, and students cant have passengers, it would also be down right scary:hairraise: . For a PP, since there is no common purpose of the flight, the PP would have to pay the whole bill. For a CPL, since there will be a landing at an airport other than that of departure, he would have to be operating under a 135 certificate. The CFI, provided he is actually providing instruction, is perfectly legal to do this.
 
Henning said:
Well, for Elizabeth (correct me if I'm wrong here) since she herself is a student you have the issue of two students alone in a plane which is not only illegal since one of them will be a passenger, and students cant have passengers, it would also be down right scary:hairraise: . For a PP, since there is no common purpose of the flight, the PP would have to pay the whole bill. For a CPL, since there will be a landing at an airport other than that of departure, he would have to be operating under a 135 certificate. The CFI, provided he is actually providing instruction, is perfectly legal to do this.
Click to expand...

If it is a CP I am not so sure that 135 would apply if the plane is provided by the student. It should be a part 91 flight with a hired pilot.

It would only be a part 135 flight if the plane and the pilot are provided together. Hiring of just the pilot is the same as anyone who would hire a CP to move an airplane for them to a new airport or just to fly with them to keep them company.
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
If it is a CP I am not so sure that 135 would apply if the plane is provided by the student. It should be a part 91 flight with a hired pilot.

It would only be a part 135 flight if the plane and the pilot are provided together. Hiring of just the pilot is the same as anyone who would hire a CP to move an airplane for them to a new airport or just to fly with them to keep them company.
Click to expand...

Student isn't providing the plane if there is cost share involved. Student would have to pay the whole bill.
 
So what were to happen if someone was like "Hey, I was going to go up there anyway, and the club WILL let me keep it over night. I'm good."

Who's to say the pilot who accepts this offer didn't already have plans to go there (wink wink, nudge nudge), and this student happened to get on the rental schedule before him? The PP would of course have to stay the night, be the renter, and have the SP pay him for the split costs.
 
EdFred said:
So what were to happen if someone was like "Hey, I was going to go up there anyway, and the club WILL let me keep it over night. I'm good."

Who's to say the pilot who accepts this offer didn't already have plans to go there (wink wink, nudge nudge), and this student happened to get on the rental schedule before him? The PP would of course have to stay the night, be the renter, and have the SP pay him for the split costs.
Click to expand...

Sure, lot's of illegal things happen everyday that go unnoticed. Although if you would happen to get called on it, it better be true to all extents, either that or fess up. "Conspiracy" is a lot bigger of an issue than a little reg fudging.
 
Henning said:
Well, for Elizabeth (correct me if I'm wrong here) since she herself is a student you have the issue of two students alone in a plane which is not only illegal since one of them will be a passenger, and students cant have passengers, it would also be down right scary:hairraise: . For a PP, since there is no common purpose of the flight, the PP would have to pay the whole bill. For a CPL, since there will be a landing at an airport other than that of departure, he would have to be operating under a 135 certificate. The CFI, provided he is actually providing instruction, is perfectly legal to do this.
Click to expand...

Obviously two students would be illegal, but I thought if it was a PP with him, the PP would only have to pay a pro-rata share and none of it would be loggable for the student. And as smigaldi said, I don't know that this would be a 135 operation, but a commercial rated pilot who agreed to this would run into some holding out issues if questioned, I'd imagine. That's the way I read it, anyways.
 
Oh, as usual everyone is getting hung up on this commonality of purpose BS. If two pilots can't go flying and enjoy the trip regardless of whether pilot A wants to spend the night with his girlfriend at Freedonia State or pick up a ham at the local Honey Baked store the next town over, then the interpretation of the regs has been twisted so far out of focus to be ridiculous.

Now I know Ron Levy or someone is going to trot out a FAA legal opinion in response to this post, but my opinion stands.

Pilot A owns his own airplane and is a student. He wants to go flying at times when his CFI isn't available. He asks pilot B to go flying with him so he can visit his Mom. Pilot B is legal PIC, they will split costs pro-rata and the insurance issues are worked out. Is anyone going to sit there at their keyboard and tell me the FAA is going to bust either of them simply because pilot B is not acquainted with the student's Mom? (Keep the sexually suggestive cracks to yourself ;) )
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
Oh, as usual everyone is getting hung up on this commonality of purpose BS. If two pilots can't go flying and enjoy the trip regardless of whether pilot A wants to spend the night with his girlfriend at Freedonia State or pick up a ham at the local Honey Baked store the next town over, then the interpretation of the regs has been twisted so far out of focus to be ridiculous.

Now I know Ron Levy or someone is going to trot out a FAA legal opinion in response to this post, but my opinion stands.

Pilot A owns his own airplane and is a student. He wants to go flying at times when his CFI isn't available. He asks pilot B to go flying with him so he can visit his Mom. Pilot B is legal PIC, they will split costs pro-rata and the insurance issues are worked out. Is anyone going to sit there at their keyboard and tell me the FAA is going to bust either of them simply because pilot B is not acquainted with the student's Mom? (Keep the sexually suggestive cracks to yourself ;) )
Click to expand...

That's perfectly fine. But in this case, Pilot A isn't (yet) a pilot, and he doesn't own the airplane.

If this pilot were rated, and owned the plane, then he could certainly take any pilot buddy along and fly up to whereever, and his buddy could fly the plane back. His buddy could go up and pick him up. His buddy could even OFFER to pay some of the expenses. Or he could hire a commercial pilot and pay the pilot to operate the airplane. If the FBO would let him be the renter/operator for the entire period, then he could hire a commercial pilot. But most FBOs will only rent airplanes to rated pilots except specifically for solo flight when they are enrolled in the FBO's flight instruction program.
 
TMetzinger said:
That's perfectly fine. But in this case, Pilot A isn't (yet) a pilot, and he doesn't own the airplane.

If this pilot were rated, and owned the plane, then he could certainly take any pilot buddy along and fly up to whereever, and his buddy could fly the plane back. His buddy could go up and pick him up. His buddy could even OFFER to pay some of the expenses. Or he could hire a commercial pilot and pay the pilot to operate the airplane. If the FBO would let him be the renter/operator for the entire period, then he could hire a commercial pilot. But most FBOs will only rent airplanes to rated pilots except specifically for solo flight when they are enrolled in the FBO's flight instruction program.
Click to expand...

I thought the plane in your original post was a club plane :confused:
 
alaskaflyer said:
I thought the plane in your original post was a club plane :confused:
Click to expand...
It's not the kind of club where one has any ownership rights. It's called a club but really a standard rental/flight school. Sorry - I can see where that was not clear.

I wish it were a club, then I'd give him a cheap rate and help him out.
 
Teller1900 said:
Obviously two students would be illegal, but I thought if it was a PP with him, the PP would only have to pay a pro-rata share and none of it would be loggable for the student. And as smigaldi said, I don't know that this would be a 135 operation, but a commercial rated pilot who agreed to this would run into some holding out issues if questioned, I'd imagine. That's the way I read it, anyways.
Click to expand...

Unless the PP was going there themself, then no Pro Rata, he'd have to float the whole bill, because a SP with a PP is a passenger and doesn't get to log the time.

The CP wouldn't run into Holding Out, since he was Being Asked. However, the SP has to pay the entire bill. If the CP pays for part of the aircraft, then he is providing part of the aircraft which turns it PT 135.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Oh, as usual everyone is getting hung up on this commonality of purpose BS. If two pilots can't go flying and enjoy the trip regardless of whether pilot A wants to spend the night with his girlfriend at Freedonia State or pick up a ham at the local Honey Baked store the next town over, then the interpretation of the regs has been twisted so far out of focus to be ridiculous.

Now I know Ron Levy or someone is going to trot out a FAA legal opinion in response to this post, but my opinion stands.

Pilot A owns his own airplane and is a student. He wants to go flying at times when his CFI isn't available. He asks pilot B to go flying with him so he can visit his Mom. Pilot B is legal PIC, they will split costs pro-rata and the insurance issues are worked out. Is anyone going to sit there at their keyboard and tell me the FAA is going to bust either of them simply because pilot B is not acquainted with the student's Mom? (Keep the sexually suggestive cracks to yourself ;) )
Click to expand...

You tuurned it into a whole different scenario though by having the SP owning the airplane, absolutely no problems now because he is providing the plane then renting it at a reduced price to a PP or CP.

As far as it being a bust goes, that was never in question.
 
I think this would be legal for the student pilot and a non-instructor CPL/ATP. The plane could be considered to be provided by the student, in which case a commercial or ATP could accept the free flying time (and pay for pilot services rendered) on the legs without the student.

However, there is no way a PPL could do the job legally unless the PPL pays the full pro-rata direct cost (any number divided by one equals the original number) for the legs s/he flies without the student and does not log the time flown with the student. If the student is flying, the PPL doesn't meet 61.51(e). Further, if the PPL is flying the accompanied legs, the PPL could not log the time flown with the student unless the PPL pays the full direct cost of those legs, too.

Either way (PPL or CPL/ATP), the student gets no loggable flight time -- not "rated," not solo, no instructor.

Obviously, if the accompanying pilot is an authorized instructor, and the flights are legitimate training (i.e., the student is in the XC phase of training in that type of aircraft), then the flights would be legal and the student could log "dual" time (training received) for the accompanied legs.

As for Alaskaflyer's comments, what the FAA doesn't hear about, the FAA doesn't prosecute. However, if the FAA did hear about such cost-sharing via a complaint by either student or accompanying pilot, I suspect they would go after the accompanying pilot hammer and tongs (see Administrator v. Hayden J. Shaeffer -- the accompanying PPL bears full responsibility for the actions of the student pilot doing the flying).
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
I think this would be legal for the student pilot and a non-instructor CPL/ATP. The plane could be considered to be provided by the student, in which case a commercial or ATP could accept the free flying time (and pay for pilot services rendered) on the legs without the student. However, there is no way a PPL could do the job legally unless the PPL pays the full pro-rata direct cost (one divided by one equals one) for the legs s/he flies without the student. Either way, the student gets no loggable flight time -- not "rated," not solo, no instructor.

Obviously, if the accompanying pilot is an authorized instructor, and the flights are legitimate training (i.e., the student is in the XC phase of training in that type of aircraft), then the flights would be legal and the student could log "dual" time (training received) for the accompanied legs.
Click to expand...

And that was the rub I was running into. If there is "cost sharing" then a portion of the flying was being paid (therefore a portion of the plane being provided) by the CPL/ATP, so I say it becomes a 135 issue.
 
Henning said:
And that was the rub I was running into. If there is "cost sharing" then a portion of the flying was being paid (therefore a portion of the plane being provided) by the CPL/ATP, so I say it becomes a 135 issue.
Click to expand...
The CPL/ATP is not providing air transportation, just pilot services for hire in an airplane provided by the student (rented from the club by the student on the student's account). Of course, the CPL/ATP can, if s/he chooses, donate as much as s/he feels like towards the cost of the flight -- charity is legal.

The key in this case is that the club renting the plane is not providing the pilot -- the student is obtaining that pilot on his/her own. Thus, no different from Amalgamated Widget leasing a Lear and then paying IASCO to crew it. If the IASCO pilots are in a charitable mood, and choose to pay for some of the loggable flying time out of their own pockets, that's not a concern for the FAA.
 
Ron Levy said:
The key in this case is that the club renting the plane is not providing the pilot -- the student is obtaining that pilot on his/her own.
Click to expand...
The only potential hitch in your theory is that the student is soliciting solely amongst approved club pilots. IOW, the club is, in essence, providing both the pilot & the aircraft. If it is an equity club and the pilot holds a commercial certificate there is no foul. If it isn't an equity club I'd hate to face the FSDO inspector.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
The only potential hitch in your theory is that the student is soliciting solely amongst approved club pilots. IOW, the club is, in essence, providing both the pilot & the aircraft. If it is an equity club and the pilot holds a commercial certificate there is no foul. If it isn't an equity club I'd hate to face the FSDO inspector.
Click to expand...

It's not an equity club,and that's where I run into the problem unless the SP pays the whole tab, then the CP is just providing pilot services. If he pays the deadhead though, I see him as providing the plane as well.
 
Henning said:
It's not an equity club,and that's where I run into the problem unless the SP pays the whole tab, then the CP is just providing pilot services. If he pays the deadhead though, I see him as providing the plane as well.
Click to expand...
Even if the student pays the entire tab you have the plane-pilot via the club connection to consider/cause some concern. The FAA has fried commercial pilots in that situation based on simple financial tests such as who paid for the club (FBO) required checkout flight. If the student paid for the pilot's club checkout it is safe, but if the pilot paid for his/her own checkout the precendece is a certificate suspension. The FAA's position in that particular case was that since the pilot paid for the checkout that relationship proved that the pilot provided the plane, not the customer.

IOW, it isn't a safe bet.
 
My short simple answer is:

I'm close to checkride. I can do this "legally" (or with at least a lot less complications) after the checkride. Instead of going through all the BS of figuring out if it maybe kinda sorta could be considered legal, I'd decide "I am training, and nothing else, no other distractions, this can wait until after the checkride".

I'd be curious to know how many takers this guy got, and, how many people emailed him to warn him he may want to take a closer look before advertising this plan.
 
Assume the student pilot hires a commercial pilot and pays all costs associated with the trips - no problem as far as FAR goes.

But, will an FBO actually rent an airplane to a student, knowing that another person will be flying it (and the student won't even be on board for two of the four legs).

If the airplane is dispatched to the commercial pilot - poof!, he's providing an airplane as well as pilot services, and is in trouble. I just don't see how the FBO's business practices will let them dispatch the airplay to "John", when "Jim" is gonna go fly it (and we'll assume Jim is a known quantity to the FBO), and John isn't even there. When the airplane has a malfunction and lands in a field, who's responsible?
 
TMetzinger said:
Assume the student pilot hires a commercial pilot and pays all costs associated with the trips - no problem as far as FAR goes.

But, will an FBO actually rent an airplane to a student, knowing that another person will be flying it (and the student won't even be on board for two of the four legs).

If the airplane is dispatched to the commercial pilot - poof!, he's providing an airplane as well as pilot services, and is in trouble. I just don't see how the FBO's business practices will let them dispatch the airplay to "John", when "Jim" is gonna go fly it (and we'll assume Jim is a known quantity to the FBO), and John isn't even there. When the airplane has a malfunction and lands in a field, who's responsible?
Click to expand...

On multiple occassions, FBOs have rented non pilot clients of mine aircraft for me to fly them around in.
 
TMetzinger said:
when they weren't even present?
Click to expand...

Actually, on one occassion yes because I was picking them up from a remote airport. They called up and said "Hi, I need to rent a plane, I'm sending my pilot over, here's my Visa card number." I showed up, produced my credentials, did my checkout and left with the plane. Typically though, We walk in together, they present their card and introduce me as their pilot. It's never been an issue.
 
Nice. I'll check with the FBO in question, but the rental agreement is pretty clear that the "renter" needs to be PIC unless there's an approved CFI in the right seat.
 
Ron Levy said:
However, there is no way a PPL could do the job legally unless the PPL pays the full pro-rata direct cost (any number divided by one equals the original number) for the legs s/he flies without the student
Click to expand...

Huh??? Wouldn't the PPL have to pay the FULL cost of the legs WITHOUT the student, PLUS pro-rata on the legs WITH the student?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Huh??? Wouldn't the PPL have to pay the FULL cost of the legs WITHOUT the student, PLUS pro-rata on the legs WITH the student?
Click to expand...
On the legs with the student, the PPL is not getting loggable flight time (and thus can squeak through a loophole left by the FAA Chief Counsel's office) unless the PPL is doing the flying (one assumes the student wouldn't do this unless s/he was getting the stick time at least for practice), and the student can pay for the time he is flying (also without logging).

And guess what -- nobody can log the time the student is flying!
 
The PPL is the PIC for the whole time. If HE lets the stu fly, so what. The stu can log whatever he wants. It probably will not count to ANY rating. Overall, the cost should be borne by the PPL. Anything he gets from the stu with regard to the flight is his gravy.
I certainly wouldn't be doing it to save $$$.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top