Private Pilot Cannot Use Airplane for $0 Dry

mcmanigle said:
I think I agree with you, but there are areas that get more grey*:

Frank runs an FBO and flight school. Charlie is one of his CFIs. Tom is a Two-thousand hour private pilot who rents from the FBO and hangs out at the airport on weekends.
[snip]
Click to expand...

Let's tweak that for one "a guy I know" almost had...

Frank runs an FBO and flight school. Steve is a Seventy hour private pilot with a handful of complex/HP hours. After a flight Frank tells Steve that one of his planes broke down and the renter left the plane at a field 300 nm away before catching a bus back home. It's been fixed by a mechanic at that field and is stranded.

Frank suggest that Steve takes a CFI and complete the remaining complex/HP instruction enroute at a rate slightly above cost towards the stranded plane. Afterwards, the CFI flys back and Steve flys the stranded plane back to Frank's FBO at no charge.

Obviously "Steve" declined since he didn't have enough insurance to cover a mishap in "that much" plane plus the compensation concern, but did he needlessly miss out on a few free hours? Presumably, this would leave a paper trail as receipts, signatures, radio calls and log entries.
 
Bob Noel said:
The FAA has finally risen to the challenge presented by the DHS/TSA... which agency will be more effective at killing small GA?
Click to expand...

CBP is still my number #1 enemy when it comes to the risk of losing the ability of enjoying my personal aircraft. I won't fly internationally in my GA airplane, strictly as a result of my prior dealings with the CBP and my lack of confidence I would be treated with respect or extended any kind of latitude when it came to complying with their entry/exit procedures. I fully believe they are designed and intended to purposefully trip law-abiding private pilots. As such, I remove myself from that risk altogether. That's a loss of freedom to me.

A ramp check from the FAA wouldn't dissuade from flying to the extent my dealings with the dopes in green already has. What team are those c---%uckers on anyways? :mad2: Not mine I can tell you that, and I work for the military. :rolleyes2:
 
Jay Honeck said:
Yup. It's called creative destruction. Our federal government could use a strong dose of it every few years.
Click to expand...
We do.... its called elections. Too bad it works just like what happened when the FAA took over. Things go from bad to worse.
 
Skylane81E said:
Not quite, as they said it depends on the arraignment. A common one that isn't allowed is "I'll let you fly my plane for free, if it has this banner attached"
Click to expand...

"Arraignment" implies that the matter made it to the court system. :o) How did it get that far, so soon?

HR
 
Ron Levy said:
Excellent analysis. "Quid pro quo, Clarissa, quid pro quo." Without both the quid and the quo, there is no violation.
Click to expand...

Clarice (as in Clarice Starling).
Ron Levy said:
Clear quid pro quo. Ain't legal unless the pilot holds CP or ATP.
Click to expand...
Re: Post #63- You mean to say that I cannot fly the airplane that I have an equal financial stake in as other club members to maintenance and they all agree that my costs of my time getting it there is payment enough???...(ain't buying)
 
Jay Honeck said:
You will never lose money betting on the stupidity of the FAA.
Click to expand...

No one in this country forces you to deal with the FAA, you do it on your own accord. When you first got into aviation you knew the FAA existed and the conditions (regulations) that were required for you to participate in aviation. You didn't become a pilot then one day later the FAA formed and presented you with a book of regulations.

And speaking of stupidity, I can make a similar remark coming from the other side of the fence. If you want to see real stupidity go spend a month working in a FSDO. :rolleyes2:
 
weilke said:
Btw. the chief counsel has answered the question whether you can loan someone a plane without them paying for it. As long as there is no obligation that they act as pilot of the plane to further YOUR interests, there is no problem: (letter to Hancock)

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...013/hancock - (2013) legal interpretation.pdf
Click to expand...

Although it doesn't use those words, that letter does a good job of making Ron's point about quid pro quo being a necessary element for compensation to exist.

Unfortunately, their answer to the second question exposes a previous stupidity, in which the FAA said that the owner of an airplane is in violation if the borrower violates a regulation. What planet do these people live on? :(
 
Palmpilot said:
Unfortunately, their answer to the second question exposes a previous stupidity, in which the FAA said that the owner of an airplane is in violation if the borrower violates a regulation. What planet do these people live on? :(
Click to expand...

Fenner is a bit of a special case in that it was dealing with wanton conduct. They assessed the fine in an attempt to squeeze the name of the pilot out of him.
To find him the 'operator' when he was a thousand miles away seems a bit of a stretch, not sure how often they have used it since.
 
weilke said:
Fenner is a bit of a special case in that it was dealing with wanton conduct. They assessed the fine in an attempt to squeeze the name of the pilot out of him.
To find him the 'operator' when he was a thousand miles away seems a bit of a stretch, not sure how often they have used it since.
Click to expand...

Aha - if the owner was refusing to divulge who the pilot was, then he deserved some kind of penalty. I just wish they could have found a more direct means, like a subpoena or court order, for example, instead of setting a precedent that would later be quoted in a broader context.
 
Ron Levy said:
That would conflict with a few centuries of legal precedent, not to mention opening the door to a nearly infinite number of shenanigans to evade the intent of more laws than one can imagine.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I forgot about the line in Magna Carta:
"Ye verily, be it know to one and all, that henceforth and forever, His Majesty shall consider flight time to be compensation."
 
Jaybird180 said:
Clarice (as in Clarice Starling).

Re: Post #63- You mean to say that I cannot fly the airplane that I have an equal financial stake in as other club members to maintenance and they all agree that my costs of my time getting it there is payment enough???...(ain't buying)
Click to expand...
That is correct. You still have to pay the direct cost of the flight (e.g., fuel/oil/airport fees, per 61.113(c)). As a Private Pilot, your time must be uncompensated (other than the flying-for-business exception in 61.113(b)), else you are providing pilot services for compensation.
 
Last edited:
Steve is prohibited from flying the plane home because he would be accepting compensation, the free use of the plane, in exchange for his pilot services.

It would be legal if Steve paid for the use of either the plane.

Pi1otguy said:
Let's tweak that for one "a guy I know" almost had...

Frank runs an FBO and flight school. Steve is a Seventy hour private pilot with a handful of complex/HP hours. After a flight Frank tells Steve that one of his planes broke down and the renter left the plane at a field 300 nm away before catching a bus back home. It's been fixed by a mechanic at that field and is stranded.

Frank suggest that Steve takes a CFI and complete the remaining complex/HP instruction enroute at a rate slightly above cost towards the stranded plane. Afterwards, the CFI flys back and Steve flys the stranded plane back to Frank's FBO at no charge.

Obviously "Steve" declined since he didn't have enough insurance to cover a mishap in "that much" plane plus the compensation concern, but did he needlessly miss out on a few free hours? Presumably, this would leave a paper trail as receipts, signatures, radio calls and log entries.
Click to expand...
 
But if I wanted to let a student pilot use my plane under the conditions stated by the OP, that should be perfectly legal!
 
DFH65 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Assuming the one who flew didn't pay, yes. I don't have a link handy at the moment, but there's also an interpretation stating that ferry flights, even when the pilot isn't paid, are compensated and require a commercial certificate. Flight time = compensation and all.

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?
Click to expand...

Yes.

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

Doubtful.

I think I actually lost several brain cells reading that response from the FAA.:yikes:
Click to expand...

You still have more than they did when they wrote it! :D

JeffDG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yup. Our club now uses either commercial pilots or board members for most of the ferry flights because of that. (The board members are being compensated for being board members, not pilots.) There's some wiggle room in our club because our pilots DO get a certain amount of flight time for "free" every month (it's built into the monthly dues).
 
Right or wrong I have to agree with the FAA vis a vis the letter of the law. That said, if some idiot wants to donate airplane time to someone else they are free to do it. All they have to do is not tell the FAA.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yup. Our club now uses either commercial pilots or board members for most of the ferry flights because of that. (The board members are being compensated for being board members, not pilots.) There's some wiggle room in our club because our pilots DO get a certain amount of flight time for "free" every month (it's built into the monthly dues).
Click to expand...

That's pushing it too, probably. Imagine twisting that into a club that sells memberships where all flight time is "free" and memberships are what you're "paying for" by contract. Some jerk somewhere will try it, eventually. Something flat rate like an ab initio school. Or membership "credits" that include X number of hours of free flight time. Same thing.

I bet FAA wouldn't like the "Board Member" thing, but I know you guys are smarter than to bother asking.
 
Bob Noel said:
The FAA has finally risen to the challenge presented by the DHS/TSA... which agency will be more effective at killing small GA?
Click to expand...

TSA may actually be helping GA. We are flying longer trips than we used to simply because we don't want to deal with the cattle call treatment when we fly commercial.
 
denverpilot said:
That's pushing it too, probably. Imagine twisting that into a club that sells memberships where all flight time is "free" and memberships are what you're "paying for" by contract. Some jerk somewhere will try it, eventually. Something flat rate like an ab initio school. Or membership "credits" that include X number of hours of free flight time. Same thing.

I bet FAA wouldn't like the "Board Member" thing, but I know you guys are smarter than to bother asking.
Click to expand...

Yea, the member flying the plane for service should pay the club for the flight time and separately charge the club an equal amount for ground transportation back and waiting time.

Edit: Where there is a not-for-profit club/partnership and the member has an ownership interest, I do not believe a PP violates 61.113 for accepting the free flight. If I am incorrect, a PP with his plane registered in an LLC also is in violation of 61.113 when he ferrys the LLCs plane.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Edit: Where there is a not-for-profit club/partnership and the member has an ownership interest, I do not believe a PP violates 61.113 for accepting the free flight. If I am incorrect, a PP with his plane registered in an LLC also is in violation of 61.113 when he ferrys the LLCs plane.
Click to expand...

One thing: At law, if the plane is in a corporation or an LLC, you are not the owner, even in part, of the aircraft. The LLC/corp is a legally separate entity from the members/shareholders.

Now, you may have rights of use associated with membership/shareholding in the LLC/corp, but you are not legally an owner of the aircraft.

So, yes, if you have the plane in an LLC, then you need to hire a CP to ferry your plane to MX, according to this interpretation.
 
JeffDG said:
One thing: At law, if the plane is in a corporation or an LLC, you are not the owner, even in part, of the aircraft. The LLC/corp is a legally separate entity from the members/shareholders.

Now, you may have rights of use associated with membership/shareholding in the LLC/corp, but you are not legally an owner of the aircraft.

So, yes, if you have the plane in an LLC, then you need to hire a CP to ferry your plane to MX, according to this interpretation.
Click to expand...


So pay the LLC for the use of the plane
 
Everyone seems to be ignoring the option presented in the Harrington interpretation, which is to not log the free flight time.
 
Graueradler said:
But if I wanted to let a student pilot use my plane under the conditions stated by the OP, that should be perfectly legal!
Click to expand...
Correct. And let's remember what those conditions were:
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.
Click to expand...
A Student Pilot is covered by a different Subpart of Part 61 than the Subpart in which 61.113 is included. So, 61.113 is irrelevant to the question of allowing a Student Pilot to "fly it and tell them to just 'fill it back up when you're done'". The limitations which apply to a Student Pilot are contained in 61.89:
Sec. 61.89

General limitations.

(a) A student pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:
(1) That is carrying a passenger;
(2) That is carrying property for compensation or hire;
(3) For compensation or hire;
(4) In furtherance of a business;
(5) On an international flight, except that a student pilot may make solo training flights from Haines, Gustavus, or Juneau, Alaska, to White Horse, Yukon, Canada, and return over the province of British Columbia;
(6) With a flight or surface visibility of less than 3 statute miles during daylight hours or 5 statute miles at night;
(7) When the flight cannot be made with visual reference to the surface; or
(8) In a manner contrary to any limitations placed in the pilot's logbook by an authorized instructor.
Click to expand...
Assuming the flight does not violate any other of the rules governing Student Pilots, there is nothing wrong with allowing a Student Pilot to borrow a plane where the Student Pilot pays only for the gas used. In fact, there is no regulation requiring the Student Pilot to do even that as long as the Student Pilot is free (within the operational limitations on that Student Pilot) to fly it where and when desired, and there is no quid pro quo in return for the use of the plane.
 
steingar said:
Right or wrong I have to agree with the FAA vis a vis the letter of the law. That said, if some idiot wants to donate airplane time to someone else they are free to do it. All they have to do is not tell the FAA.
Click to expand...
No, all they have to do is not be receiving any air transportation of people, cargo, or the airplane in return without "common purpose" for the flight.
 
Palmpilot said:
Everyone seems to be ignoring the option presented in the Harrington interpretation, which is to not log the free flight time.
Click to expand...
Dig further. Just because you don't log it doesn't mean it isn't loggable at some future date. If you read Bobertz and the rest, you'll see that simply promising not to log it doesn't fix the problem. IOW, it's "loggable," not "logged", which is considered compensation.
 
Ron Levy said:
Dig further. Just because you don't log it doesn't mean it isn't loggable at some future date. If you read Bobertz and the rest, you'll see that simply promising not to log it doesn't fix the problem. IOW, it's "loggable," not "logged", which is considered compensation.
Click to expand...

The Bobertz letter does not address the issue of not logging the time.
 
Last edited:
I solved the problem by putting the pilot on my insurance policy and made her a co-owner for a nominal amount. She sold her C172 and was waiting to go into the Peace Corps in a few months. Commercial and ATP, so I figured she was a safe bet (and a whole lot better pilot than me!).
 
denverpilot said:
And keep voting and lobbying to pay for it.
Click to expand...

AOPA has lobbied for FAA funding, but as for the voting part, I haven't heard of any candidates promising to de-fund the FAA.
 
Palmpilot said:
AOPA has lobbied for FAA funding, but as for the voting part, I haven't heard of any candidates promising to de-fund the FAA.
Click to expand...

There had to be at least one Libertarian running somewhere. I didn't vote for 'em and you probably didn't either. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
There had to be at least one Libertarian running somewhere. I didn't vote for 'em and you probably didn't either. ;)
Click to expand...

Is de-funding the FAA part of the Libertarian Party platform?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top