Private Pilot Moving an Airplane?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ron Levy said:
If you read that answer in context, you'll see that the question it answers references an existing business relationship.
Click to expand...

You're bobbin' and weavin', Ron. There is no business relationship. It's simply a deal between two friends and that's what the letter addresses. The "no ferry pilot" provision of the letter is in response to this specific statement:

Does loaning an airplane to a private pilot amount to compensation<snip>?"
Click to expand...

Nothing referencing a business relationship there.

And also note that this letter is less than a year old.

You lose.

BTW...I'm too lazy to look up your letters just like you were too lazy to look up Ed's. Goodbye now.
 
timwinters said:
BTW...I'm too lazy to look up your letters just like you were too lazy to look up Ed's. Goodbye now.
Click to expand...
Too bad. If you did, you'd see you're taking it all out of context and ignoring the case law on point. Clearly, you do not wish even to be led to water, no less to drink, so "goodbye" is fine with me.
 
Whatever Ron. There is no out of context. This is just another case of Rons always Right, and injecting your own opinion because you have such a complex about being wrong and having to show everyone how much you know. Had you let someone else answer a question, correctly mind you, without having to inject all your overly verbose "who gives a ****" commentary in order to show how awesome you think you are, you wouldn't be doing a Sugar Ray Leonard impression.

Fact is, the Hancock letter is about as black and white as you can get. But since you weren't the one to post it, it's suddenly "out of context.". Quit acting like a 12 year old, man up and say, "I Ron, was wrong." instead of being a laughing stock.
 
How the real world works: Dude offers me to fly his airplane (for which I'm appropriately rated, and current in) I'm gonna go fly it, and log the time. Even if he says "yer only allowed to fly it from here to there, gotta find yer own way back."
And then later (weeks or so) he hands me an envelope containing cash "'cause yer such a swell guy" who am I to make him mad by not accepting it?

CIP, Dad sez "let's go flying" I jump at the chance to fly his immaculate 182A.
He's let his medical lapse, so I'm PIC. We fly around the hills for about an hour, and I log the time. We get back and top it off, Dad paid for the gas. (he allways pays for the gas, and won't take no for an answer) We just broke the rules, I guess. I logged the time as PIC, and he bought the gas. So mabe I should just hand in my cert. for accepting compensation?
 
Me: Ron, can I borrow your plane?
Ron: Sure (ETA as long as you have insurance :yes:)
Me: Where is it parked?
Ron: Airport A, but when you return it can you park it at Airport B?
Me: Sure, Thanks for letting me borrow the plane.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Is your question whether or not it's legal, or whether or not you'll get in trouble? There is absolutely no question that it's not legal for you to make this flight if you receive any compensation whatsoever, or if you do not pay the direct cost of the flight entirely by yourself. OTOH, if you're asking whether you can get away with it, I suppose that depends on whether someone who cares about it finds out -- and that's beyond your control.

You have a clear choice here. You can decide that you'll play by the rules of aviation, or you can decide that you're only going to obey those rules when you think you'd get in trouble if you didn't. The operative word is "integrity" -- do you have it, or not?
Click to expand...

Ron,

You are correct that there's no question that it would be illegal. It's academic and a no brainier. However, I believe the operative word here is "academic".

I think what's really being asked here is, "Would anyone in the FAA *really* care about this one time operation?" I'd say absolutely not. I'd say the FAA couldn't give a Rat's Patootie that this took place as a one time encounter.

The next question is what are the chances that either pilot would be caught? If there are only generic logbook entries for the flight, nobody documented any compensation and all transactions were by cash...the answer is zero.


The only way the FAA would care or do anything about it is if some jealous local pilot at the airport heard about the arrangement, rubbed it in the face of the FAA and one of the pilots confessed.

Now, if such an arrangement were taking place every week or the pilot had a website advertising such a service, NOW in this violates the spirit of the regulation.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Good so far.

The duck's quacking will be heard all the way to 800 Independence Avenue if you get caught pulling that stunt.
Click to expand...

It may be a "stunt" but it is legal. Anyone can gift anyone up to $10,000 per year tax-free. Last I looked it's the law. But the operative quote is "last I looked".
 
drgwentzel said:
The only way the FAA would care or do anything about it is if some jealous local pilot at the airport heard about the arrangement, rubbed it in the face of the FAA and one of the pilots confessed.

Now, if such an arrangement were taking place every week or the pilot had a website advertising such a service, NOW in this violates the spirit of the regulation.
Click to expand...

They go out looking for who paid what if there is a vanilla folder on their desk that needs to be closed out. I dont think that in the history of the FAA they have ever subpoenaed someones bank or ATM withdrawal records without an accident to push their nose into the pile.
 
drgwentzel said:
Ron,

You are correct that there's no question that it would be illegal. It's academic and a no brainier. However, I believe the operative word here is "academic".

I think what's really being asked here is, "Would anyone in the FAA *really* care about this one time operation?" I'd say absolutely not. I'd say the FAA couldn't give a Rat's Patootie that this took place as a one time encounter.

The next question is what are the chances that either pilot would be caught? If there are only generic logbook entries for the flight, nobody documented any compensation and all transactions were by cash...the answer is zero.


The only way the FAA would care or do anything about it is if some jealous local pilot at the airport heard about the arrangement, rubbed it in the face of the FAA and one of the pilots confessed.
Click to expand...

Even so, even if someone complained, and even if the pilot came into the FSDO and "confessed", the most that would happen would be a good laugh by the Inspector.

No ASI is going to waste his time on something so trivial.
 
weilke said:
They go out looking for who paid what if there is a vanilla folder on their desk that needs to be closed out. I dont think that in the history of the FAA they have ever subpoenaed someones bank or ATM withdrawal records without an accident to push their nose into the pile.
Click to expand...

It gets closed out by PTRS after a phone call. Reminds me of some of the whacky complaints I had to "investigate" when the file was put on my desk. You have more important work pressing in the "In Box" then you get one of these turds dropped on your desk. Make it disappear in 5 minutes and move on.
 
Ron Levy said:
Fine advice as long as you pay the cost of the flight. Bad advice if you accept any compensation unless that word "integrity" has no meaning to you.
Click to expand...

What do stupid rules and integrity have in common? There is no integrity in government, there is no loss of integrity ignoring government.
 
EdFred said:
Whatever Ron. There is no out of context. This is just another case of Rons always Right, and injecting your own opinion because you have such a complex about being wrong and having to show everyone how much you know. Had you let someone else answer a question, correctly mind you, without having to inject all your overly verbose "who gives a ****" commentary in order to show how awesome you think you are, you wouldn't be doing a Sugar Ray Leonard impression.

Fact is, the Hancock letter is about as black and white as you can get. But since you weren't the one to post it, it's suddenly "out of context.". Quit acting like a 12 year old, man up and say, "I Ron, was wrong." instead of being a laughing stock.
Click to expand...

You forgot that it might be a side effect of small man's syndrome, Ed.

Ron, in case you don't realize it. Many of us make a sport of pulling your chain when you're so obviously wrong (like in this case) because you can NEVER admit to it.

A severe character flaw it is.

We've all been wrong here, many of us admit it, eat crow, go down the road, and live another day.

You should learn to do that one of these days. As Ed said, that might help to keep you from being a laughing stock.

But we do enjoy it! The laughing is good for the rest of us.
 
drgwentzel said:
It may be a "stunt" but it is legal. Anyone can gift anyone up to $10,000 per year tax-free. Last I looked it's the law. But the operative quote is "last I looked".
Click to expand...
Gifts like that are legal only as long as there is no quid pro quo. My point is that the quid pro quo in this hypothetical situation is would be as obvious to the FAA if they knew about it as the quacking of the ducks who wake me so many mornings.
 
Ron Levy said:
Only if you completely ignore the full question actually asked and the case law on point.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Read the letter. The letter specifically is between two friends, not a business relationship.

So either you are stupid, didn't read the letter, or refuse to admit you are wrong.

From the Hancock letter which asked about letting his friend use his plane, and I'll post in in large letters so your old eyes can read it. Since you obviously had trouble reading my flow chart.

An item of value is not compensation under the regulations, however, unless the pilot's receipt of it is contingent upon the pilot acting as pilot in command of an aircraft.
Click to expand...
If you loan your aircraft to a private pilot who pays the expenses associated with the operation of the flight (e.g. fuel) and you are placing no obligation on the pilot (e.g. ferrying your aircraft to a specific location), then it is unlikely that the private pilot would be considered to be acting as pilot in command of an aircraft for compensation or hire.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You and Tim keep focusing on the answer while ignoring the question:

Does loaning an airplane to a private pilot amount to compensation in violation of​
​
​
​
§61.113? Other than a cash payment from one person to another, what constitutes compensation under §61.113? If your friend flies passengers with whom he does business without charge, would his desire to obtain future economic benefit from his passengers in the form of future business constitute "compensation?"​
Click to expand...
​
But even the part of the answer you are quoting also discusses that issue:​
Rather, compensation is the receipt of anything of value. The FAA has previously found that reimbursement of expenses (fuel, oil, transportation, lodging, meals, etc.), accumulation of flight time, and goodwill in the form of expected future economic benefit could be considered compensation.
Click to expand...
...which also quotes the case of Administrator V. Murray, which is on point regarding the creation of goodwill being compensation where a business relationship exists. However, the case law of Administrator v. Derkazarian established that without a business relationship, when the pilot pays the cost of the flight, there is no creation of goodwill as compensation, and thus no violation.​
 
Last edited:
Those are three separate questions Ron, not one long question. A business relationship does not have to exist but rather that's simply just one of the possible scenarios.

Try again.

Why don't you ask your best friend, the chief counsel, for an interpretation of the interpretation if you seriously can't understand it.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
Those are three separate questions Ron, not one long question. A business relationship does not have to exist but rather that's simply just one of the possible scenarios.
Click to expand...
But it's one long answer which presupposes the various elements of the question in toto. In any event, why don't you read the case law on point? Granted, in Derkazarian, the FAA took the position that what the did wasn't legal, but the FAA's position was overturned by the NTSB, and that case law sets the precedent which the Chief Counsel cannot overturn merely by writing a new legal interpretation without changing the regulations.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
But it's one long answer which presupposes the various elements of the question in toto. In any event, why don't you read the case law on point?
Click to expand...

Because it's not on point. This isn't about whether it's legal for me to loan my plane to a buddy for their personal use and he only pays direct costs.

This is about ferry flights, and the Hancock letter strongly suggest that ferry flights are a commercial operation and that a private pilot can't fly them, period. I really don't know how you could conclude otherwise except that you keep ignoring it.

And actually, it had nothing to do with the question. The FAA threw it in as an "oh, by the way, everything is cool as long as your buddy doesn't ferry the aircraft."
 
Last edited:
You keep adding to the question asked, because you got caught with your pants down. If you didn't always have to try and one up someone, by showing to everyone that you know it all, you wouldn't be caught showing everyone you don't know it all.

So keep on digging, Ron. Keep on digging. It's been your m.o. since the Red Board was yellow. On the plus side, the ends you go to to show everyone how awesome you think you are provides a good laugh for about 50 of us on here.

We even place bets on how long it is before you come blasting into a thread to Romit (Ron vomit) a 400 word response when 4 words would suffice.

Charge on Ron Quixote, Internet greatness awaits you!
 
Last edited:
In researching some more FAA docs and interpretations, it appears that a ferry flight violates the "common purpose" requirement. That's why it requires a commercial ticket regardless of compensation.
 
:
timwinters said:
In researching some more FAA docs and interpretations, it appears that a ferry flight violates the "common purpose" requirement. That's why it requires a commercial ticket regardless of compensation.
Click to expand...

:yes:
 
Tim,

I think it may be time for another one of my videos.


Whattya think?

:D
 
Of course, all this being said, if someone I've known for a while asked me to fly their plane for them from A to B, I wouldn't even think twice about it and do it. Granted I have my commercial, but I'm in year four of my medical, so I'm downgraded to private privileges.
 
This is kinda fun!



hDB907247
 
Last edited:
:rofl: I could watch that gif for hours.
 
Busflyer said:
Just fly the plane.
Click to expand...

100% correct. :yes:

This is a one time event. Fly the plane have your buddy write you a check for expenses. I don't give a crap what the regs say, they are wrong. Fly it, have fun, don't talk about it.
 
timwinters said:
In researching some more FAA docs and interpretations, it appears that a ferry flight violates the "common purpose" requirement. That's why it requires a commercial ticket regardless of compensation.
Click to expand...

My recollection is that the common purpose doctrine only comes into play when there is compensation in some form, but if the above really is the FAA's position, it would prove that they have no sense of perspective.
 
Palmpilot said:
My recollection is that the common purpose doctrine only comes into play when there is compensation in some form, but if the above really is the FAA's position, it would prove that they have no sense of perspective.
Click to expand...

Well, they sort of have to take that stance, because if they don't it would allow a private pilot to advertise that he could do ferry flights for 'free.' That's the problem with regulations vs guidelines.
 
EdFred said:
Well, they sort of have to take that stance, because if they don't it would allow a private pilot to advertise that he could do ferry flights for 'free.' That's the problem with regulations vs guidelines.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would necessarily allow that, because advertising brings in the element of holding out.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't think it would necessarily allow that, because advertising brings in the element of holding out.
Click to expand...

Well, when it comes to regulations, the lines have to be drawn somewhere. Sort of like the whole .08BAC for impaired driving. There's people who are impaired well before .08, and there's people who are fine well beyond it. So where would it fall for the FAA. "Well, you've known this person for 6 years, you can ferry his plane, but only known this one 6 minutes, you can't ferry his." Easier to just make a blanket statement of no ferrying planes by private pilot, regardless of the relationship.

But like R&W said, even though the regs say one thing, no one is going to waste their time pursuing it. Well, if certain members here were FAA Inspectors they might.
 
Lot of ads selling planes say; "Will deliver plane for expenses." Is that illegal also?

:mad2:
 
EdFred said:
Well, when it comes to regulations, the lines have to be drawn somewhere....
Click to expand...

I don't think it's possible to come up with an exact formula that will be appropriate for every situation. I think the FAA recognizes this at least part of the time, because I am pretty sure I have seen at least one Chief Counsel opinion that said it's necessary to look at all the facts and circumstances of a case before deciding whether it constitutes flying for hire.

But like R&W said, even though the regs say one thing, no one is going to waste their time pursuing it. Well, if certain members here were FAA Inspectors they might.
Click to expand...

And if anyone's conscience is bothering them about relying on that, then I presume they will also scrupulously avoid driving 56 mph in a 55 zone. (But I hope they will stay in the slow lane while doing so.)

And by the way, unlike speed limit laws, which are clear cut, we're talking about the opinions of government attorneys, not what the regs say.
 
Last edited:
True, but the legal opinions can be used to help fry someone. So they may as well be law.
 
Is it legal for one private pilot owner, to rent his aircraft to another private pilot?
 
EdFred said:
True, but the legal opinions can be used to help fry someone.
Click to expand...

I've always thought that the term "fry" was unnecessarily emotional in this context. Maybe "sanction," or something like that, would be better.

So they may as well be law.
Click to expand...

That depends on the individual's tolerance for legal risk. I don't think regulations and interpretations are equivalent from an ethical point of view.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top