Legal to have someone else pay for the rental cost?

[RyanB]

As a private pilot i know you cannot have someone pay you for a flight, but i know under one of the privileges it 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.
Can someone explain this? Does this mean someone can only compensate me like 50/50? Is it legal to have the passenger pay the whole rental fee?

 

[drotto]

That means if there are two people in the plane and the plane is $100 the passenger can pay no more than $50. If there are four people in the plane the PIC must pay at least $25. It is not legal for the passenger to pay the entire rental fee (unless that rental fee was less than 50% of the cost of the entire flight and the PIC picks up the other flight costs). This means not just the plane and fuel costs, but also means any assorted landing fees etc.

 

[MAKG1]

That means if there are two people in the plane and the plane is $100 the passenger can pay no more than $50. If there are four people in the plane the PIC must pay at least $25. It is not legal for the passenger to pay the entire rental fee. This means not just the plane and fuel costs, but also means any assorted landing fees etc.

However, it does not preclude someone else paying for lessons or solo flight, as long as it isn't for commercial purposes (e.g., hauling cargo). The instructor does not qualify as a passenger. So, it's legal for your parents to buy lessons for you.

There are also exceptions for search and rescue (CAP or CGAUX, when directed by the Feds) or for hauling candidates in elections.

 

[RyanB]

That means if there are two people in the plane and the plane is $100 the passenger can pay no more than $50. If there are four people in the plane the PIC must pay at least $25. It is not legal for the passenger to pay the entire rental fee (unless that rental fee was less than 50% of the cost of the entire flight and the PIC picks up the other flight costs). This means not just the plane and fuel costs, but also means any assorted landing fees etc.

Thank you, just needed to have that cleared up

 

[drotto]

However, it does not preclude someone else paying for lessons or solo flight, as long as it isn't for commercial purposes (e.g., hauling cargo). The instructor does not qualify as a passenger. So, it's legal for your parents to buy lessons for you.

There are also exceptions for search and rescue (CAP or CGAUX, when directed by the Feds) or for hauling candidates in elections.

That makes sense. The charity loophole is also there. If you are PIC and the flight is being made for a charity purpose, then they charity can "donate" the money used to pay for the flight.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Isn't it funny that the more people you have in the plane, the less the pilot's pro rata share will be.

Imagine someone flying a 747 under Part 91 ops and charging all the passengers their pro rata share.

You could probably actually afford to fly the thing!

 

[MAKG1]

That makes sense. The charity loophole is also there. If you are PIC and the flight is being made for a charity purpose, then they charity can "donate" the money used to pay for the flight.

The charity "loophole" is generally impractical for people who have to ask that question, due to the total flight hours requirement, other limitations, and the process involved. The CAP exception is not.

See 14 CFR 91.146.

 

[MAKG1]

You could probably actually afford to fly the thing!

Well, except for the currency requirements.

3 takeoffs and landings in 90 days in category, class and type (it's a turbine).

If you don't keep that, you get to do it with required crew only.

 

[RyanB]

Isn't it funny that the more people you have in the plane, the less the pilot's pro rata share will be.

Imagine someone flying a 747 under Part 91 ops and charging all the passengers their pro rata share.

You could probably actually afford to fly the thing!

Lol thats great!

 

[jordane93]

Isn't it funny that the more people you have in the plane, the less the pilot's pro rata share will be.

Imagine someone flying a 747 under Part 91 ops and charging all the passengers their pro rata share.

You could probably actually afford to fly the thing!

 

[midlifeflyer]

That makes sense. The charity loophole is also there. If you are PIC and the flight is being made for a charity purpose, then they charity can "donate" the money used to pay for the flight.

I'm not so sure I'd be comfortable applying the term "loophole" to the list of requirements for compliance with 91.146.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Well, except for the currency requirements.

3 takeoffs and landings in 90 days in category, class and type (it's a turbine).

If you don't keep that, you get to do it with required crew only.

I think that currency can be done in a sim though, can it not? Not that the required one would be cheap, but still....

 

[MAKG1]

I think that currency can be done in a sim though, can it not? Not that the required one would be cheap, but still....

Yes, but I believe it has to be Level D, and there are only a few of those. And they require a crew to run, too, both in the flight deck and at the safety station.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm not so sure I'd be comfortable applying the term "loophole" to the list of requirements for compliance with 91.146.

Amen to that!

 

[Zeldman]

So is it legal for a private pilot to fly someone elses plane without pay, but not paying for flight time? I would think free flight time could be considered compensation.

Say for example, a private pilot flies a friends plane to another airport for maintenance, then flew it back, and the owner buys lunch for that pilot a few days later in appreciation for his time.

 

[Sac Arrow]

So is it legal for a private pilot to fly someone elses plane without pay, but not paying for flight time? I would think free flight time could be considered compensation.

Say for example, a private pilot flies a friends plane to another airport for maintenance, then flew it back, and the owner buys lunch for that pilot a few days later in appreciation for his time.

I think where the technical fail is, is in that flying a friend's plane for service might constitute a de-facto fly for hire op in itself. As far one friend letting another friend use the plane for free to fly someplace, I don't see an issue there because the friend owning the plane isn't benefiting.

Now a direct compensation, like "lunch in appreciation" is a clear no, but, nothing precludes passengers from buying the pilot lunch, dinner or drinks as long as it isn't connected with the flight, if you get my drift.

I'm sure Ron Levy will be here shortly to answer definitively.

 

[jordane93]

So is it legal for a private pilot to fly someone elses plane without pay, but not paying for flight time? I would think free flight time could be considered compensation.

Say for example, a private pilot flies a friends plane to another airport for maintenance, then flew it back, and the owner buys lunch for that pilot a few days later in appreciation for his time.

Yes. It is illegal because flight time is considered compensation

 

[arejay]

Hmmm.... illegal to borrow your friends airplane? Can't buy the pilot lunch? I can't help but wonder if we are being too strict in the interpretation of the rules? I mean... there's the letter of the law, and then there's the spirit of the law... Yes, I get that many of the rules are to be strictly adhered to... especially anything safety related. But this is more administrative in nature and IMHO the only purpose it serves is to keep pilots/owners from running illegal charter operations. This brings to mind that every large company I've ever worked at has an ethics and anti kickbacks policy where we are not allowed to accept gifts of high value... however if the gift is of low value, ie, lunch, ink pens, etc are perfectly acceptable because they are of such a low monetary value. Wouldn't the FAA take this same point of view?

 

[Henning]

How many seats are filled on the flight? That's how many ways you can divide the rental cost of the airplane and you have to come up with your share. That's what it means. Either that or if you own, the direct costs of the flight, fuel, oil, airport fees, (I've oft wondered about out station repairs to get back.)

 

[Henning]

However, it does not preclude someone else paying for lessons or solo flight, as long as it isn't for commercial purposes (e.g., hauling cargo). The instructor does not qualify as a passenger. So, it's legal for your parents to buy lessons for you.

There are also exceptions for search and rescue (CAP or CGAUX, when directed by the Feds) or for hauling candidates in elections.

After the Northridge quake they kept me fueled, fed, and flying diapers and toilet paper between Burbank and Long Beach, same for anyone who would, I was still PP then, and no one seemed to ask or care. There are always exceptions. As long as you aren't ****ing off a 135 operator, the chances of a bust are really slim.

 

[poadeleted20]

Thank you, just needed to have that cleared up

Just remember that in order to take advantage of the expense sharing exemption, you and your passengers must have "common purpose" for the flight. The FAA defines that as each person having a reason to be flying from that departure point to that destination point on that date. They need not share the same reason (e.g., it's OK if I want to go to a ball game and my passenger wants to go to a family event in the same city), but they must all have reasons other than flying to go to that destination on that date.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes, but I believe it has to be Level D, and there are only a few of those. And they require a crew to run, too, both in the flight deck and at the safety station.

I doubt there are many (if any) 747 sims which are not approved for this purpose.

 

[Palmpilot]

Hmmm.... illegal to borrow your friends airplane? Can't buy the pilot lunch? I can't help but wonder if we are being too strict in the interpretation of the rules? I mean... there's the letter of the law, and then there's the spirit of the law...

A lot of the interpretations being thrown around, including some of the ones written by the Chief Counsel's office and the NTSB, go WAY beyond the letter of the law!

 

[poadeleted20]

So is it legal for a private pilot to fly someone elses plane without pay, but not paying for flight time? I would think free flight time could be considered compensation.

It may or may not be legal. I can let you fly my plane anywhere you want, any time you want, and you don't have to pay me a dime for the flying as long as you're not doing anything for me (e.g., dropping a package off somewhere for me). OTOH, if I'm getting anything out of it (e.g., having my plane delivered to the shop for maintenance), you must pay the direct cost of the flight.

Say for example, a private pilot flies a friends plane to another airport for maintenance, then flew it back, and the owner buys lunch for that pilot a few days later in appreciation for his time.

In this case, the pilot is providing pilot services for hire/compensation. The owner is getting something s/he wants (having the airplane flown to the maintenance facility) and the pilot is receiving both free flying time and lunch in return for providing that service. That's a quid pro quo, and requires that the pilot have Commercial privileges. I'm not saying things like this don't happen all the time, but it's not legal, and if the FAA hears about it, they're going to do something about it even if it's only a ticking off, explanation of the rules, and warning not to do it again.

 

[poadeleted20]

Hmmm.... illegal to borrow your friends airplane?

It's not illegal to borrow your friend's airplane. It is illegal to fly it without paying the direct cost of the flight (fuel, oil, landing fees, etc) or to do the owner a favor in return for free flying.

Can't buy the pilot lunch?

Yes, it is illegal for a Private Pilot to accept that lunch in return for providing pilot services to the owner. The FAA has learned from experience that if they don't apply an absolute total ban on compensation (certain exceptions being noted), somebody will try to sneak a camel under the tent flap. So, they keep that tent flap buttoned tight.

I can't help but wonder if we are being too strict in the interpretation of the rules? I mean... there's the letter of the law, and then there's the spirit of the law... Yes, I get that many of the rules are to be strictly adhered to... especially anything safety related. But this is more administrative in nature and IMHO the only purpose it serves is to keep pilots/owners from running illegal charter operations. This brings to mind that every large company I've ever worked at has an ethics and anti kickbacks policy where we are not allowed to accept gifts of high value... however if the gift is of low value, ie, lunch, ink pens, etc are perfectly acceptable because they are of such a low monetary value. Wouldn't the FAA take this same point of view?

No, they wouldn't if it came to their attention. What they'd do about it would depend on the situation and the pilot's history, but they wouldn't let it pass without some action.

 

[poadeleted20]

A lot of the interpretations being thrown around, including some of the ones written by the Chief Counsel's office and the NTSB, go WAY beyond the letter of the law!

Nevertheless, those interpretations are what the FAA, ALJ, and NTSB will apply unless you can show they are not valid -- and that's very hard to do. You'd probably have to get the US Court of Appeals to accept your interpretation over the FAA's, and that's a pretty hard case to win.

 

[Palmpilot]

Nevertheless, those interpretations are what the FAA, ALJ, and NTSB will apply unless you can show they are not valid -- and that's very hard to do. You'd probably have to get the US Court of Appeals to accept your interpretation over the FAA's, and that's a pretty hard case to win.

I agree. I was just making the point that presumptively binding interpretations are not the same thing as "the letter of the law."

 

[bluerooster]

Well, except for the currency requirements.

3 takeoffs and landings in 90 days in category, class and type (it's a turbine).

If you don't keep that, you get to do it with required crew only.

As long as you make at least one haul every 30 days, you're good to go.

 

[MAKG1]

I doubt there are many (if any) 747 sims which are not approved for this purpose.

I have one running on my desk right now.

Dryden wrote it to evaluate the mission systems. It's far too elaborate just for that, but it does simulate all the engines, trim systems, cavity door, gear, all the flight control surfaces, and so on.

And of course there are a ton of MSFS toys.

 

[poadeleted20]

I have one running on my desk right now.

You couldn't fit a 747 flight simulator on a desk. You couldn't even fit it through the door of your office unless you work in a barn or big hangar.

Dryden wrote it to evaluate the mission systems. It's far too elaborate just for that, but it does simulate all the engines, trim systems, cavity door, gear, all the flight control surfaces, and so on.

Sounds like a part-task trainer.

And of course there are a ton of MSFS toys.

Those are computer games, not flight simulators.

 

[MAKG1]

You couldn't fit a 747 flight simulator on a desk. You couldn't even fit it through the door of your office unless you work in a barn or big hangar.

Sounds like a part-task trainer.

Those are computer games, not flight simulators.

I agree with you on all points, except that you're shortening "full flight simulator" to "flight simulator."

If you add that word, it's all true. The FAA has a carefully crafted definition. If you leave it out, there are several different meanings in the sim world.

The Dryden sim is not a task simulator. It doesn't have appropriate interfaces for that. It's for evaluating potential changes in control systems. It's very definitely a simulator from that perspective. Simulators are not only used for training purposes.