Hi, all,
It's time for another "compensation" scenario.
The scenario:
Pilot A is a private pilot, who rents from an FBO which has a "daily minimum" as many FBO's do. (Mine, for instance, will charge 3 hours minimum Hobbs time if you rent a plane for more than 4 hours of a day.) B is a passenger.
A: "Hey, I'm going to East Podunk this Saturday for breakfast, wanna come along and share the cost?"
B: "Sure!"
They fly to East Podunk (which is only a half-hour away) and enjoy a lovely breakfast. As they're paying up, B says:
B: "This place is awesome! Let's stay here all day and see the town."
A: "No, if we want to do that, I have to extend the reservation on the plane, and that'll put me over the 4-hour limit. They'll charge me a three hour minimum even though we'll only have flown for one hour. I don't want to pay for hours I don't fly!"
B: "That's okay, I'll pay for the extra charges."
Is this...... a) legal, or b) illegal?
Line from the FAR's....
(2) Not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with a passenger, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenses, or aircraft rental fees.
It seems that the pilot could reason thusly: the "daily minimum" is not an "operating expense" for the airplane, it's just a stupid FBO policy. Nor does the pilot gain any free logable flying time, since he only gets to log the one hour (regardless of how many hours the FBO charges him for). The pilot is paying his pro-rata share for the one hour which he actually flies.
On the other side of the argument, the stupid FBO policy is still a form of "aircraft rental fee" and therefore the passenger can't just pay up the difference. The logging issue is irrelevant; the pilot doesn't "log" the landing fee at East Podunk either, but that is part of the expense.
My vote is b). illegal.
Thoughts?
--Kath
It's time for another "compensation" scenario.
The scenario:
Pilot A is a private pilot, who rents from an FBO which has a "daily minimum" as many FBO's do. (Mine, for instance, will charge 3 hours minimum Hobbs time if you rent a plane for more than 4 hours of a day.) B is a passenger.
A: "Hey, I'm going to East Podunk this Saturday for breakfast, wanna come along and share the cost?"
B: "Sure!"
They fly to East Podunk (which is only a half-hour away) and enjoy a lovely breakfast. As they're paying up, B says:
B: "This place is awesome! Let's stay here all day and see the town."
A: "No, if we want to do that, I have to extend the reservation on the plane, and that'll put me over the 4-hour limit. They'll charge me a three hour minimum even though we'll only have flown for one hour. I don't want to pay for hours I don't fly!"
B: "That's okay, I'll pay for the extra charges."
Is this...... a) legal, or b) illegal?
Line from the FAR's....
(2) Not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with a passenger, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenses, or aircraft rental fees.
It seems that the pilot could reason thusly: the "daily minimum" is not an "operating expense" for the airplane, it's just a stupid FBO policy. Nor does the pilot gain any free logable flying time, since he only gets to log the one hour (regardless of how many hours the FBO charges him for). The pilot is paying his pro-rata share for the one hour which he actually flies.
On the other side of the argument, the stupid FBO policy is still a form of "aircraft rental fee" and therefore the passenger can't just pay up the difference. The logging issue is irrelevant; the pilot doesn't "log" the landing fee at East Podunk either, but that is part of the expense.
My vote is b). illegal.
Thoughts?
--Kath