Sharing costs.

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Tom-D
the owner of a 172 has friend that he takes flying, both are pilots, the owner does three touch and goes, they swap seats and the friend does three touch and goes.

when the flight ends they split the cost of the fuel. Legal?
 
Eh legal not legal. Who cares. I'm not one to just flaunt the regs but if someone wants to pay half not gonna stop them. Whos gonna find out? Rumors on the airfield gonna bring the mighty FAA down to bust someone cause they didn't share a common purpose and someone chipped in 40 bucks? I'm not gonna run a underground charter but also not gonna freak out if I slip outside the exact letter of the law.
 
nothing_to_see_here.jpg
 
FastEddieB said:
I'm betting it can go on for at least 20 pages.
Click to expand...

Reckon we have a slow start huh? :D

(Copperhill beautiful country, lived in Blue Ridge for awhile) :yes:
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
the owner of a 172 has friend that he takes flying, both are pilots, the owner does three touch and goes, they swap seats and the friend does three touch and goes.

when the flight ends they split the cost of the fuel. Legal?
Click to expand...

Is Tom-D just a MC controlled bot that posts random questions designed to increase site clicks?

To answer your original question, if you don't know the answer to the question you should voluntarily surrender your pilot certificate.
 
Brad Z said:
Is Tom-D just a MC controlled bot that posts random questions designed to increase site clicks?

To answer your original question, if you don't know the answer to the question you should voluntarily surrender your pilot certificate.
Click to expand...

They both had common purpose, no trip was made, the friend paid for his portion of the flight.

why can't they share expenses?
 
Tom-D said:
They both had common purpose, no trip was made, the friend paid for his portion of the flight.

why can't they share expenses?
Click to expand...

Of course it's legal. PIC just can't pay less than pro-rata share, right? Both flew half, both can pay pro-rata of half, (0.5*0.5)+(0.5*0.5)=0.5. It'd be the same whether or not they swapped seats.
 
mkosmo said:
Of course it's legal. PIC just can't pay less than pro-rata share, right? Both flew half, both can pay pro-rata of half, (0.5*0.5)+(0.5*0.5)=0.5. It'd be the same whether or not they swapped seats.
Click to expand...

Funny how many interpret that differently.
 
I'll wager that this subject is the tastiest piece of trol bate on this page, :)
 
Like what happens between consenting adults in the bedroom, no one needs to know what happens between pilots in the cockpit.
 
Tom-D said:
Funny how many interpret that differently.
Click to expand...

Now, to avoid having the owner pay anything out of pocket, had you asked, "Can the friend pick up the tab for all the gas or would the friend have to rent an airplane from somewhere else to please the feds?" This could be more interesting. Or sad. :dunno:

dtuuri
 
Friend is PP/ASEL
He is building his own acft
Has 1/2 dozen friends, also PP/ASEL, helping do the build
At noon, acft owner buys everyone lunch
Legal? Not Legal?
:)
 
Did they split the cost of the oil too, or just the fuel? Because, if the non-owner didn't chip in for oil usage he didn't pay half, and therefore is in violation.
 
Tom-D said:
the owner of a 172 has friend that he takes flying, both are pilots, the owner does three touch and goes, they swap seats and the friend does three touch and goes.

when the flight ends they split the cost of the fuel. Legal?
Click to expand...
Much more interesting questions (assuming both are private pilots):

1. They each fly three patterns, as above. The friend pays for 3/4 of the fuel. Legal?

2. The friend flies the whole time and pays nothing. Legal?

3. The friend flies the whole time and pays 100% for the fuel. Legal?

Show your work.
 
When I was studying for my certificates, I would have been all over this like a fly on sh*t. Now, I just don't give a ****.
 
EdFred said:
Did they split the cost of the oil too, or just the fuel? Because, if the non-owner didn't chip in for oil usage he didn't pay half, and therefore is in violation.
Click to expand...

That is only an issue if you are flying a certain Cessna 195 with a worn out engine. :rofl: Otherwise it is statistically insignificant.

But technically you are correct.

But where is it stated that the non owner is REQUIRED to pay half the cost?

If you want to turn it around, would it then be illegal if the owner did NOT charge the pro rata share of the flight?
 
Lindberg said:
Much more interesting questions (assuming both are private pilots):

1. They each fly three patterns, as above. The friend pays for 3/4 of the fuel. Legal?

2. The friend flies the whole time and pays nothing. Legal?

3. The friend flies the whole time and pays 100% for the fuel. Legal?

Show your work.
Click to expand...

1. Technically, No.
2. Yes
3. Technically, No.
 
Tom-D said:
the owner of a 172 has friend that he takes flying, both are pilots, the owner does three touch and goes, they swap seats and the friend does three touch and goes.

when the flight ends they split the cost of the fuel. Legal?
Click to expand...

Of course.
 
I don't think the FAA cares how pilots divide flying expenses among themselves. It's when there are non-pilots involved that they become concerned.
 
falconkidding said:
...I'm not gonna run a underground charter but also not gonna freak out if I slip outside the exact letter of the law.
Click to expand...

Besides, judging by the interpretations they have written, the FAA doesn't care about the exact letter of the law.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
That is only an issue if you are flying a certain Cessna 195 with a worn out engine. :rofl: Otherwise it is statistically insignificant.

But technically you are correct.

But where is it stated that the non owner is REQUIRED to pay half the cost?

If you want to turn it around, would it then be illegal if the owner did NOT charge the pro rata share of the flight?
Click to expand...

Flight time is compensation according to the CC. So, the owner wouldn't be breaking regs for charging less that the pro rata, but the other pilot would be for accepting.
 
Last edited:
oldShar said:
Friend is PP/ASEL
He is building his own acft
Has 1/2 dozen friends, also PP/ASEL, helping do the build
At noon, acft owner buys everyone lunch
Legal? Not Legal?
:)
Click to expand...

Get your own thread, and troll on your own name. :) This fishing hole is mine :)
 
Two flights.

Flight 1 - Owner Pilot only pays for 50% of flight one
-- Seat Change --
Flight 2 - Non Owner Pilot pays for 100% of flight two

Non Owner Pilot legally paid 75% of the total, provided both flights cost the same.
 
ChrisK said:
Two flights.

Flight 1 - Owner Pilot only pays for 50% of flight one
-- Seat Change --
Flight 2 - Non Owner Pilot pays for 100% of flight two

Non Owner Pilot legally paid 75% of the total, provided both flights cost the same.
Click to expand...

That's not what happened, re-read the first post.
 
Tom-D said:
the owner of a 172 has friend that he takes flying, both are pilots, the owner does three touch and goes, they swap seats and the friend does three touch and goes.

when the flight ends they split the cost of the fuel. Legal?
Click to expand...

ChrisK said:
Two flights.

Flight 1 - Owner Pilot only pays for 50% of flight one
-- Seat Change --
Flight 2 - Non Owner Pilot pays for 100% of flight two

Non Owner Pilot legally paid 75% of the total, provided both flights cost the same.
Click to expand...

Tom-D said:
That's not what happened, re-read the first post.
Click to expand...
Right. Someone else said that but this case is even worse :)
 
EdFred said:
Flight time is compensation according to the CC. So, the owner wouldn't be breaking regs for charging less that the pro rata, but the other pilot would be for accepting.
Click to expand...

The CC has opined that flight time has value, but something of value is not compensation unless it is provided to the recipient in exchange for some service that the "payer" wanted performed. In the scenario Tom described, no mention was made of the owner needing someone else to fly the plane for him, so the flight time is not compensation, it's a gift.
 
Palmpilot said:
The CC has opined that flight time has value, but something of value is not compensation unless it is provided to the recipient in exchange for some service that the "payer" wanted performed. In the scenario Tom described, no mention was made of the owner needing someone else to fly the plane for him, so the flight time is not compensation, it's a gift.
Click to expand...

Don't make more of this than it is. these are simply two good-ol boys sharing the afternoon flying and sharing the costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top