PIC Thread and Getting Paid- Never before seen

[Jaybird180]

Does this belong in the SZ?

Sec. 91.321 — Carriage of candidates in elections.

(a) As an aircraft operator, you may receive payment for carrying a candidate, agent of a candidate, or person traveling on behalf of a candidate, running for Federal, State, or local election, without having to comply with the rules in parts 121, 125 or 135 of this chapter, under the following conditions:

(1) Your primary business is not as an air carrier or commercial operator;
(2) You carry the candidate, agent, or person traveling on behalf of a candidate, under the rules of part 91; and
(3) By Federal, state or local law, you are required to receive payment for carrying the candidate, agent, or person traveling on behalf of a candidate. For federal elections, the payment may not exceed the amount required by the Federal Election Commission. For a state or local election, the payment may not exceed the amount required under the applicable state or local law.
(b) For the purposes of this section, for Federal elections, the terms candidate and election have the same meaning as set forth in the regulations of the Federal Election Commission. For State or local elections, the terms candidate and election have the same meaning as provided by the applicable State or local law and those terms relate to candidates for election to public office in State and local government elections.
[Doc. No. FAA–2005–20168, 70 FR 4982, Jan. 31, 2005]

And it doesn't say what certificate type is required either.
So, I'll just go bug my Local Alderman to pay me to fly him around.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You have a state law or local ordinance that requires you to get paid to carry your alderman around? How did that ever pass the town budget?

And, yes, it's been seen before. It was there to allow even private pilots offer to take candidates around in situations where they were between a rock and a hard place - violating the FAR if they got paid and violating campaign contribution laws if they didn't.

 

[Shawn]

This was created not from the pilot's perspective, but to protect the candidate and their campaign. Candidates and campaigns can not accept "free" or discounted flights without getting into a whole camping finance reporting fiasco. You though FAA regulations were convoluted...look at campaign finance laws.

Guess they figured it was just easier to provide the campaigns the FAA exemption!

 

[tlglenn]

I think the regulation exempts one from having a commercial operator certificate, but the pilot still needs to have at least a commercial pilot certificate.

 

[Henning]

Does this belong in the SZ?




And it doesn't say what certificate type is required either.
So, I'll just go bug my Local Alderman to pay me to fly him around.

Private Pilot is all you need for hauling candidates around.

 

[Henning]

I think the regulation exempts one from having a commercial operator certificate, but the pilot still needs to have at least a commercial pilot certificate.

I don't think so, I remember it being explained to me once and what it boiled down to was that there are election regulations that trump FAA that put any campaigning activities and restrictions thereof outside the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch.

 

[dtuuri]

I think the regulation exempts one from having a commercial operator certificate, but the pilot still needs to have at least a commercial pilot certificate.

I agree. Exemption from Part 61 is not listed.

dtuuri

 

[Brad Z]

I agree. Exemption from Part 61 is not listed.

dtuuri

You don't need to be a commercial pilot. Just operating under part 91.

A PP ticket is sufficient.

 

[acrophile]

Perhaps the safest way to operate flight-sharing sites is to have all the passengers declare themselves candidates for local office, running on a flightshare advocacy platform. Then they can use each flight to campaign for the cause.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I agree. Exemption from Part 61 is not listed.

dtuuri

I think that is correct. Note that while other exceptions to the non-compensation rule of 61.113 are specifically listed (such as charity flights under 91.146 and glider towing), 91.321 flights are not listed as an exception to 61.113's general rule.

There's also 1990 FAA Chief Counsel Opinion under the predecessor to 91.321:

==============================
In response to your memorandum of September 29, 1980, concerning Section 91.59 and private pilots, a private pilot cannot accept payment for the transportation of a federal candidate under Section 91.59 of the FAR. Section 91.59 allows an aircraft operator to receive payment for the carriage of a federal candidate only if such payment is required by regulations of the F.E.C. The pertinent F.E.C. regulations apply only to airplanes which are owned or leased by corporations or labor organizations. Therefore, unless the aircraft used to transport a federal candidate is owned by a corporation or labor organization, payment cannot be accepted by the operator pursuant to Section 91.59.
==============================

That opinion may or may not be of current value when looking at the question from the standpoint of a local campaign or even from what current campaign laws require.

 

[poadeleted20]

And, yes, it's been seen before. It was there to allow even private pilots offer to take candidates around in situations where they were between a rock and a hard place - violating the FAR if they got paid and violating campaign contribution laws if they didn't.

I think the regulation exempts one from having a commercial operator certificate, but the pilot still needs to have at least a commercial pilot certificate.

Ted's right. This was not created to allow Private Pilots to be paid for flying with candidates, but rather to allow operators to be paid for providing air transportation. Situation was companies were giving free rides to candidates in their bizjets. Because the companies didn't have 135 certificates, they were prohibited by FAA regulations from accepting the payments mandated by Federal election law. The FAA added that regulation to fix that Catch-22. However, the only rules for which exemption was granted were Parts 121/125/135; there is no waiver of or exemption from the Part 61 rules on a Private Pilot accepting compensation for piloting. The corporations are OK on that because their pilots are all pros with CP or better, but if a Private Pilot owns his/her own plane and wants to give a Federal candidate a ride, s/he has to engage a pilot with CP privileges to do the flying.

 

[poadeleted20]

Private Pilot is all you need for hauling candidates around.

That's true as long as there's no money involved, but if it's a candidate who must by law pay for the ride, the pilot involved must have Commercial privileges because 91.321 contains no exemption from or waiver of any Part 61 rule. See Mark's quotation two posts above, and there's been no change in the situation since Part 91 was renumbered back in the 90's.

 

[poadeleted20]

That opinion may or may not be of current value when looking at the question from the standpoint of a local campaign or even from what current campaign laws require.

The regulation specifically covers state and local elections, too, as regards state/local election laws requiring payment, but there is still no exemption from or waiver of the Part 61 rules prohibiting Private Pilots from flying the plane when someone is paying to be flown.

 

[Jaybird180]

Ted's right. This was not created to allow Private Pilots to be paid for flying with candidates, but rather to allow operators to be paid for providing air transportation. Situation was companies were giving free rides to candidates in their bizjets. Because the companies didn't have 135 certificates, they were prohibited by FAA regulations from accepting the payments mandated by Federal election law. The FAA added that regulation to fix that Catch-22. However, the only rules for which exemption was granted were Parts 121/125/135; there is no waiver of or exemption from the Part 61 rules on a Private Pilot accepting compensation for piloting. The corporations are OK on that because their pilots are all pros with CP or better, but if a Private Pilot owns his/her own plane and wants to give a Federal candidate a ride, s/he has to engage a pilot with CP privileges to do the flying.

In which FAR or AIM chapter is the language that tells me this?

 

[MAKG1]

I think that is correct. Note that while other exceptions to the non-compensation rule of 61.113 are specifically listed (such as charity flights under 91.146 and glider towing), 91.321 flights are not listed as an exception to 61.113's general rule.

There's also 1990 FAA Chief Counsel Opinion under the predecessor to 91.321:

==============================
In response to your memorandum of September 29, 1980, concerning Section 91.59 and private pilots, a private pilot cannot accept payment for the transportation of a federal candidate under Section 91.59 of the FAR. Section 91.59 allows an aircraft operator to receive payment for the carriage of a federal candidate only if such payment is required by regulations of the F.E.C. The pertinent F.E.C. regulations apply only to airplanes which are owned or leased by corporations or labor organizations. Therefore, unless the aircraft used to transport a federal candidate is owned by a corporation or labor organization, payment cannot be accepted by the operator pursuant to Section 91.59.
==============================

That opinion may or may not be of current value when looking at the question from the standpoint of a local campaign or even from what current campaign laws require.

An interesting implication of that is that it WOULD allow a private pilot to transport such candidates in CAP aircraft, provided the appropriate non-CAP-passenger forms are approved. CAP normally limits the exemption to Air Force missions (which is more or less what the reg says -- though there are state/local missions that could apply); otherwise we have to pay a dry tach rate.

 

[poadeleted20]

In which FAR or AIM chapter is the language that tells me this?

It's in the regulation itself -- "without having to comply with the rules in parts 121, 125 or 135 of this chapter." No exemption from any portion of Part 61, and it is 61.113(a) which prohibits a Private Pilot from flying the plane when someone is paying to be transported by air.

Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire...

Note that there is nothing in paragraphs (b) through (h) of 61.113 which grants permission to do this. And as noted by others, this is further explained in the interpretation quoted above.

 

[poadeleted20]

An interesting implication of that is that it WOULD allow a private pilot to transport such candidates in CAP aircraft, provided the appropriate non-CAP-passenger forms are approved. CAP normally limits the exemption to Air Force missions (which is more or less what the reg says -- though there are state/local missions that could apply); otherwise we have to pay a dry tach rate.

It's been a long time since I've been a CAP member, but I think providing air transportation to a political candidate for election for the purpose of campaigning would violate a lot of CAP rules and probably their basic charter no matter who's flying the plane.

 

[Palmpilot]

It's been a long time since I've been a CAP member, but I think providing air transportation to a political candidate for election for the purpose of campaigning would violate a lot of CAP rules and probably their basic charter no matter who's flying the plane.

I too was under the impression that political activity while engaging in CAP activities was forbidden.

 

[JeffDG]

I think that is correct. Note that while other exceptions to the non-compensation rule of 61.113 are specifically listed (such as charity flights under 91.146 and glider towing), 91.321 flights are not listed as an exception to 61.113's general rule.

There's also 1990 FAA Chief Counsel Opinion under the predecessor to 91.321:

==============================
In response to your memorandum of September 29, 1980, concerning Section 91.59 and private pilots, a private pilot cannot accept payment for the transportation of a federal candidate under Section 91.59 of the FAR. Section 91.59 allows an aircraft operator to receive payment for the carriage of a federal candidate only if such payment is required by regulations of the F.E.C. The pertinent F.E.C. regulations apply only to airplanes which are owned or leased by corporations or labor organizations. Therefore, unless the aircraft used to transport a federal candidate is owned by a corporation or labor organization, payment cannot be accepted by the operator pursuant to Section 91.59.
==============================

That opinion may or may not be of current value when looking at the question from the standpoint of a local campaign or even from what current campaign laws require.

An LLC is a corporation.

 

[JeffDG]

It's been a long time since I've been a CAP member, but I think providing air transportation to a political candidate for election for the purpose of campaigning would violate a lot of CAP rules and probably their basic charter no matter who's flying the plane.

I'm a current member, and your recollection is entirely correct.

Legislative members (a class of honorary membership given to Congresscritters and State Legislators) are permitted as passengers on CAP aircraft, but engaging in campaigning while doing so would be strictly verboten. That permission is for stuff like giving orientation flights to Congresscritters and such.

 

[poadeleted20]

An LLC is a corporation.

Then the pilot would have to be an employee of or contractor to the LLC, and that means at least CP privileges. Also, personal/business use the insurance most people would have for an LLC-owned probably excludes an operation where someone's paying for air transportation like this -- I'm guessing you would need at least Industrial Aid coverage.

 

[poadeleted20]

Legislative members (a class of honorary membership given to Congresscritters and State Legislators) are permitted as passengers on CAP aircraft, but engaging in campaigning while doing so would be strictly verboten. That permission is for stuff like giving orientation flights to Congresscritters and such.

I suspect that there might be exceptions for hauling state officials (elected or otherwise) to a disaster site or the like under the "emergency services" portion of CAP's mission to survey the situation as part of their work as a state official, but not for campaign purposes.

 

[Jaybird180]

It's in the regulation itself -- "without having to comply with the rules in parts 121, 125 or 135 of this chapter." No exemption from any portion of Part 61, and it is 61.113(a) which prohibits a Private Pilot from flying the plane when someone is paying to be transported by air.
Note that there is nothing in paragraphs (b) through (h) of 61.113 which grants permission to do this. And as noted by others, this is further explained in the interpretation quoted above.

I C

 

[JeffDG]

I suspect that there might be exceptions for hauling state officials (elected or otherwise) to a disaster site or the like under the "emergency services" portion of CAP's mission to survey the situation as part of their work as a state official, but not for campaign purposes.

Concur, that would be legit...campaigning is most certainly not permitted.

 

[RotorAndWing]

For christ sakes, if you want to get paid to fly an airplane go get a commercial license.

This is the equivalent of someone with a non professional driver's license trying to figure out how to drive a limousine or taxi and get paid for it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

An LLC is a corporation.

...which is being paid for a flight made with private pilot in command who is not permitted to act as PIC o a flight for compensation.

People seem to forget that 61.113's prohibition says two things. Funny that's it's the first of those two things people seem for forget: A private pilot may not:

• "act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire" or

• "for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft"

The second deals with compensation to the pilot. The first deals with compensation to anyone for the flight.

 

[Jaybird180]

Wait....

Sec. 91.321 — Carriage of candidates in elections.
(2) You carry the candidate, agent, or person traveling on behalf of a candidate, under the rules of part 91

A PP operates IAW Part 91, does he not? What does training and certification have to do with a compensating flight?

 

[dtuuri]

Wait....



A PP operates IAW Part 91, does he not? What does training and certification have to do with a compensating flight?

Part 91 applies to all pilots. Some operations have additional rules, but those specifically don't apply here.

dtuuri

 

[midlifeflyer]

What does training and certification have to do with a compensating flight?

Huh? What do the limitations on the types of operations permitted by different levels of pilot certification have to do with whether or not one may engae in a certain type of operation?

 

[poadeleted20]

A PP operates IAW Part 91, does he not? What does training and certification have to do with a compensating flight?

The issue is Part 61, not Part 91. 14 CFR 61.113 prohibits PP's from acting as PIC while someone is being transported for hire/compensation, and in the 91.321 flights, someone is paying for the flight to transport the candidate. As noted above, 91.321 only waives Parts 121/125/135, not Part 61, so 61.113 would still apply and prohibit a PP from being the pilot on a 91.321 flight.

 

[Jaybird180]

The issue is Part 61, not Part 91. 14 CFR 61.113 prohibits PP's from acting as PIC while someone is being transported for hire/compensation, and in the 91.321 flights, someone is paying for the flight to transport the candidate. As noted above, 91.321 only waives Parts 121/125/135, not Part 61, so 61.113 would still apply and prohibit a PP from being the pilot on a 91.321 flight.

I think it's an obscurely written reg.
I get the bold part but not the red part when the language about part 91 is present.

 

[Palmpilot]

I think it's an obscurely written reg.
I get the bold part but not the red part when the language about part 91 is present.

I don't think we can assume that a regulation creates exceptions for regulations that are not mentioned.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think it's an obscurely written reg.
I get the bold part but not the red part when the language about part 91 is present.

That solves most 61.113 questions. It's irrelevant. Since none of the 119.1 list of things that may be done under Part 91 without an operating certificate mention 61.113 or pilot certificate level as a limitation. So I guess private pilots may act as PIC for paid pipeline towing, air tours, aerial photography, ferrying aircraft, all sorts of neat stuff.

Cool!

 

[poadeleted20]

I think it's an obscurely written reg.
I get the bold part but not the red part when the language about part 91 is present.

Part 91 has nothing to do with pilot certification, and pilot certification is not addressed in 91.321. It is Part 61 which sets the basic rules for pilot certification requirements. Since there's no exemption from any Part 61 rule in 91.321, 61.113 remains in force for 91.321 flights making it illegal for a PP to do a 91.321 flight.