Private Pilot Cannot Use Airplane for $0 Dry

[JeffDG]

So, if you have a plane, and let another pilot fly it and tell them to just "fill it back up when you're done", and that pilot only has a private certificate (or any certificate and a 3rd Class Medical), that pilot is in violation of 61.113(a) according to the FAA.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...2013/stoner - (2013) legal interpretation.pdf

In the hypothetical example you provided, you as the pilot are obtaining an airplane from an individual who is not charging the full range of costs associated with operation of an airplane. Thus, depending on the terms of the arrangement with your friend and the purpose of the flight, you might receive some financial benefit that may fit under the broad interpretation of compensation under §61.113.

 

[EdFred]

All part of the FAA's plan to kill off GA.

 

[warthog1984]

So if you are a pilot you can only split gas & oil because they are the direct costs.

Except if you borrow the plane, because then the FAA also looks at indirect costs.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

the key consideration in determining if a private Pilot is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft for compensation or hire is whether the pilot's receipt of something of value is conditioned on the pilot operating the aircraft.

So "Go ahead and fly all you want, I don't give a ****, just make sure it's full of gas." would not seem to fit this model.

 

[Mike5250]

If you took the plane with 1/2 tanks and returned it with full tanks would it need a 100hr inspection to be legal? Now the owner is being compensated.

After joining a partnership, it sounds like you could get around this by using aopa's partnership form and give a small deposit, pay small monthly fee, and hourly rate of $0.

 

[poadeleted21]

So "Go ahead and fly all you want, I don't give a ****, just make sure it's full of gas." would not seem to fit this model.

That's the way I read it too.

 

[tmyers]

Absolutely amazing.

Oh and Mr Aircraft owner, based on our broad definition of compensation we find that you are in fact operating as a commercial enterprise renting out aircraft for expenses.

 

[douglas393]

So in essence I according to this I cannot let a friend borrow my plane at all, unless they have a commercial rating. So I guess the FAA would frown upon me allowing my friend use my plane for free or for gas costs to get in some IMC time as well, so how do I determine how much to charge him, so he is not in violation, and I am not in violation.

 

[Silvaire]

This is a classic example of what you'll get if you write an idiotic letter like that to the FAA. You need only ask yourself - under what possible circumstances and on what form would the amount of fuel I put into the tanks of an airplane I borrowed from a friend be reported to the Federal Government?

Let sleeping dogs lie and find something better to do with your idle time than pester the local FSDO with hypothetical questions.

 

[Jay Honeck]

This is a classic example of what you'll get if you write an idiotic letter like that to the FAA. You need only ask yourself - under what possible circumstances and on what form would the amount of fuel I put into the tanks of an airplane I borrowed from a friend be reported to the Federal Government?

Let sleeping dogs lie and find something better to do with your idle time than pester the local FSDO with hypothetical questions.

This sort of thing amazes me, on multiple levels.

1. The FAA obviously needs to be scrapped. There is no reforming this monster -- just dissolve it, and start over with an agency designed to promote aviation.

2. Who would ever ask the Ruling Class such a stupid question? Of COURSE their answer is for going to be onerous nonsense that preserves and expands their power and control -- that's what they DO. That's why they exist.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

So in essence I according to this I cannot let a friend borrow my plane at all, unless they have a commercial rating. So I guess the FAA would frown upon me allowing my friend use my plane for free or for gas costs to get in some IMC time as well, so how do I determine how much to charge him, so he is not in violation, and I am not in violation.

Did you actually read the letter?

 

[JGoodish]

So, if you have a plane, and let another pilot fly it and tell them to just "fill it back up when you're done", and that pilot only has a private certificate (or any certificate and a 3rd Class Medical), that pilot is in violation of 61.113(a) according to the FAA.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...2013/stoner - (2013) legal interpretation.pdf

If you read the full letter, it's clear that the FAA isn't issuing a definitive intepretation in response to the question. They aren't saying that the proposed activity violates or would likely violate 61.113(a), but rather that they don't have enough specifics about the questioner's situation to make a determination, which I think is a fair response.


JKG

 

[docmirror]

This sort of thing amazes me, on multiple levels.

1. The FED GOV obviously needs to be scrapped. There is no reforming this monster -- just dissolve it, and start over with anarchy designed to promote aviation.

2. Who would ever ask the Ruling Class such a stupid question? Of COURSE their answer is for going to be onerous nonsense that preserves and expands their power and control -- that's what they DO. That's why they exist.

FIFY

 

[JimNtexas]

This sort of thing amazes me, on multiple levels.


2. Who would ever ask the Ruling Class such a stupid question? Of COURSE their answer is for going to be onerous nonsense that preserves and expands their power and control -- that's what they DO. That's why they exist.

AMEN!!!

We in the GA are killing ourselves by writing these letters to the FAA!!

STOP IT!!! JUST STOP ASKING QUESTIONS TO WHICH WE CAN'T STAND THE ANSWER!!!!!

 

[Rwsavory]

The letter is meaningless and a WOT.

 

[mcmanigle]

Did you actually read the letter?

Yeah; that's not what the letter says. The letter says that free or below-cost flight time can be considered "compensation," which I think everybody already knew. And a private pilot cannot act as PIC for compensation.

Oscar is an airplane Owner. For the sake of argument, Oscar is not a pilot. (It doesn't actually matter, it just makes some of the scenarios more plausible.) Paul is a Private Pilot.

1. The following is okay: Oscar says to Paul, "I'll let you fly my airplane for free if you mow my lawn." Paul is working (lawn-mowing) for compensation (free flight time), but the work is not acting as PIC. Lawn mowing has nothing to do with being PIC.

2. The following is okay: Oscar says to Paul, "You are my friend, so you can fly my airplane for free." Paul is potentially being "compensated," but he is not doing anything -- far less acting as PIC -- for that compensation.

3. The following is not okay: Oscar says to Paul, "If you fly me to visit my ailing grandmother once in a while, you can fly my plane for free any other time you want to." Paul is acting as PIC on the visit-grandmother trips, and being compensated by Oscar with free flight time. So, he is acting as PIC for compensation.

4. The following is not okay: Oscar says to Paul, "Will you fly me to visit my ailing grandmother? I have this plane we can take." Even the hours of the flight to ailing grandmother's house count as compensation. So, in return for a discounted flight hour (compensation), Paul is flying Oscar to his grandmother's (acting as PIC).

The line between 2 vs 3/4 can get pretty blurry. The easiest way to think of it is to see "getting free/discounted airplane use" as "getting a handful of money". Does the FAA care if somebody gives a private pilot a handful of money? No. Does the FAA care if somebody gives a private pilot a handful of money because the private pilot acted as PIC for them on some occasion? Yes.

And in the shady grey areas ("If we were good friends, you would fly me to visit my grandmother. If we were good friends, I would let you use my plane for free.") are interpreted by real live administrative law judges to try to ponder out by human reasoning whether, by the preponderance of the evidence (ie more likely than not) it's really a tit-for-tat. I think that's the biggest thing people forget about administrative law. In the "grey areas", it comes down to what a (usually) reasonable outside observer would say.

 

[tmyers]

If you read the full letter, it's clear that the FAA isn't issuing a definitive intepretation in response to the question. They aren't saying that the proposed activity violates or would likely violate 61.113(a), but rather that they don't have enough specifics about the questioner's situation to make a determination, which I think is a fair response.


JKG

The responder did state that he needed more information but never stated what else he needed to give an answer. What he did say was that the "FAA construes the term "compensation" very broadly, and then refers to the Legal Interpretation to John W. Harrington, October, 23, 1997. I am assuming this interpretation was not attached.

He further states, you might receive some financial benefit that may fit under the broad interpretation of compensation under 61.113.

So basically the letter says nothing but it also says a great deal, being, go fly and if you bend something we will then determine that you are in violation of the FAR's.

The way many of the FAR's are written reminds me of the building codes I have to deal with on a day to day basis. They are written with enough vaugeness that those responsible for applying the rules can interpret them however they wish to.

His first comment was to apologize for the lateness of the responce which tells me thay have no clue as to how to answer, and the remainder of the letter says you might be ok, but you also might be in violation and we will decide later when something goes wrong.

 

[docmirror]

So basically the letter says nothing but it also says a great deal, being, go fly and if you bend something we will then determine that you are in violation of the FAR's.

The way many of the FAR's are written reminds me of the building codes I have to deal with on a day to day basis. They are written with enough vaugeness that those responsible for applying the rules can interpret them however they wish to.

Who is John Galt?

(for those who have never done so, get all books by Ayn Rand and have at it)

 

[Clip4]

Dear Chief Council, I am a private pilot. A buddy of mine let me fly his 172, free of charge, for my wife and I to go on vacation. During the trip, I found 37 cents in change in the seat cushion and kept it. Did I improperly accept compensation for this flight?

 

[denverpilot]

Please send us more information so we can make up some more rules about private use of things. Love, FAA.

 

[tmyers]

Good point, the less information the better!!!

 

[docmirror]

Dear Chief Council, I am a private pilot. A buddy of mine let me fly his 172, free of charge, for my wife and I to go on vacation. During the trip, I found 37 cents in change in the seat cushion and kept it. Did I improperly accept compensation for this flight?

Dear private pilot. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Please report to the nearest FEMA station within the next 12 hours.

We know where you live.

Once you are processed through, expect to stay from 3 days to 16 years for re-education.

 

[JeffDG]

Another Scenario:

Oscar tells Paul: Hey, I need my plane flown a bit...I haven't been flying enough lately to keep the plane in use. If you fill it up, fly it as much as you like.

So, no Paul is accepting compensation (indirect flying costs) for doing something for Oscar (putting some hours on the plane), so now he's acting as PIC for compensation.

 

[Silvaire]

Well we haven't seen the actual letter of inquiry that was written to the FAA but I have to wonder what kind of moron boxes himself into a mental corner such that he has to actually write a letter and ask such an inane question? Has he absolutely nothing else to think about or do in his spare time?

 

[bnt83]

Dear Chief Council, I am a private pilot. A buddy of mine let me fly his 172, free of charge, for my wife and I to go on vacation. During the trip, I found 37 cents in change in the seat cushion and kept it. Did I improperly accept compensation for this flight?

I just about blew coffee out of my nose

 

[JeffDG]

Dear Chief Council, I am a private pilot. A buddy of mine let me fly his 172, free of charge, for my wife and I to go on vacation. During the trip, I found 37 cents in change in the seat cushion and kept it. Did I improperly accept compensation for this flight?

Dear Private Pilot,

Please be advised that you obviously accepted compensation in exchange for acting as a Pilot in Command of an aircraft carrying passengers or property.

Please surrender your certificate, and your cojones, immediately for asking such a stupid question.

Sincerely
Chief Counsel

 

[EdFred]

Well we haven't seen the actual letter of inquiry that was written to the FAA but I have to wonder what kind of moron boxes himself into a mental corner such that he has to actually write a letter and ask such an inane question? Has he absolutely nothing else to think about or do in his spare time?

I think that "kind of moron" is a member on this board.

 

[DFH65]

So the other day I was at a friends airstrip and another friend of his flew his plane back from it's annual inspection for him was that a commercial flight?

Someone I know may or may not have flown a plane that he had rented on many occasions to an airport to get the radio fixed for the owner and didn't pay for the flight and got a little over 2 hours in the log book was that compensation?

If a parent owns a plane and lets his pilot kid fly it at no charge is there an issue?

I think I actually lost several brain cells reading that response from the FAA.

 

[JeffDG]

What about aircraft clubs who let members fly planes, for free, to or from maintenance? The pilot is performing a flying service for the club, and being compensated for that.

 

[Palmpilot]

Well we haven't seen the actual letter of inquiry that was written to the FAA but I have to wonder what kind of moron boxes himself into a mental corner such that he has to actually write a letter and ask such an inane question? Has he absolutely nothing else to think about or do in his spare time?

The guy's a Stoner; what do you expect?

 

[DFH65]

What happens on the hundred dollar hamburger trip when the passenger buys the burger? I guess I better write the FAA on that.

 

[JeffDG]

What happens on the hundred dollar hamburger trip when the passenger buys the burger? I guess I better write the FAA on that.

Sir:

The answer to your question is highly fact dependent. For example, did the PIC in question consume the hamburger alone, or were side orders included in the price? Was an appropriate beverage consumed with the meal? What condiments were added to both the hamburger and any side items?

Thank you for raising this critical issue related to the safety of air commerce and the national airspace system.

Sincerely,
Chief Counsel

 

[bnt83]

I'm waiting for everyone to surrender their certificates in protest. Mail back about 10k certificates on black Friday and see how that goes. I mean everything, airworthiness, pilot, mechanics, repair station, just go nuts.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

A strict interpretation of what is in that letter would be that an FBO, for whatever reason, that is operating at *any* loss on their aircraft rentals is causing the private pilots to be in violation of the not-for-compensation rule.

I've reached the unfortunate conclusion that the collective IQ of the FAA lawyers is around 60. The collective IQ of the pilots that insist on asking these questions isn't any higher.

 

[Brad Z]

What sort of response are folks expecting from the FAA?

"Nah, bro...yer good!"

??

Last I checked, planes cost more than $0 per hour to run. They have no option but to respond as they did. Another vote here for the writer being a fool to ask a question he lready knows the answer to.

 

[douglas393]

Did you actually read the letter?

Yes and my question and post remains. The letter said

In the hypothetical example you provided, you as the pilot are obtaining an airplane from an
individual who is not charging the full range of costs associated with operation of an
airplane. Thus, depending on the terms of the arrangement with your friend and the purpose
of the flight, you might receive some financial benefit that may fit under the broad
interpretation of compensation under §61.113.

So the way I read this is that if I lend my plane to a friend and I do not charge him anything for the use of that plane, or only charge him for the fuel he used, but not "the full range of costs associated with operation of an airplane"(whatever that may mean or how to determine that) he is "receiving some financial benefit" and may be in violation. And if I am acting as his safety pilot, then they can construe his payment to me as financial compensation and then I am in violation unless we figure it out to the penny and am able to tell what the FAA considers "the full range of costs with operation of an airplane."

I think I am going to go old style military on this one. As long as they don't ask, I won't tell. And if they ask then the old Sgt Schultz answer, "I know nothin"​

 

[Palmpilot]

I always thought that compensation was when you receive something of value for providing a product or service to the person compensating you. I HOPE that's what they were referring to when they wrote

We note that while the FAA has defined compensation broadly, the key consideration in determining if a private Pilot is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft for compensation or hire is whether the pilot's receipt of something of value is conditioned on the pilot operating the aircraft. (Legal Interpretation to John W. Harrington, October 23, 1997.)​

However, for those who are still worried about this, the earlier interpretation they cited appears to provide an easy out: simply don't log the flight.

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

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../harrington - (1997) legal interpretation.pdf

 

[Clip4]

What about aircraft clubs who let members fly planes, for free, to or from maintenance? The pilot is performing a flying service for the club, and being compensated for that.

If the member is paying dues is he really flying for free?

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm waiting for everyone to surrender their certificates in protest. Mail back about 10k certificates on black Friday and see how that goes. I mean everything, airworthiness, pilot, mechanics, repair station, just go nuts.

You first.

 

[bnt83]

You first.

FWIW


My A&P school had a seperate Repair Station Certificate, and when the FAA started bitchin about the Repair Station General Operating Manual (RSGOM) or something else, the head of the A&P school always responded "well, we really don't need the repair station or to keep supporting the costs associated with it I guess".