Waivers of Private Pilot "no reimbursement" rule

[denverpilot]

Saw this buried in my e-mail news from EAA today.

FREE FUEL FOR CHARITY FLIGHTS
Patient Airlift Services, a volunteer medical services flight charity, has received FAA approval allowing it to pay for the fuel for pilots who transport patients for medical treatment. The group, which calls itself PALS, received an exemption from the FAA rules that restrict reimbursement that pilots may receive when flying under the not-for-hire requirements of FAR Part 91.
http://www.eaaonline.org/link.cfm?t....org/news/2011/2011-09-26_FreeFuelCharity.asp

I also know CAP has some waivers for Private Pilot's written into the regulations.

That's two groups that I know of, there may be others.

You folks that fly for other charitable organizations, it sure looks like there's becoming a significant precedent to get more of these waivers if your organization has the ability to pay for fuel, etc... via donations.

Time to talk to your leadership about getting the waiver request going... however that process works.

 

[Henning]

Saw this buried in my e-mail news from EAA today.

FREE FUEL FOR CHARITY FLIGHTS
Patient Airlift Services, a volunteer medical services flight charity, has received FAA approval allowing it to pay for the fuel for pilots who transport patients for medical treatment. The group, which calls itself PALS, received an exemption from the FAA rules that restrict reimbursement that pilots may receive when flying under the not-for-hire requirements of FAR Part 91.
http://www.eaaonline.org/link.cfm?t....org/news/2011/2011-09-26_FreeFuelCharity.asp

I also know CAP has some waivers for Private Pilot's written into the regulations.

That's two groups that I know of, there may be others.

You folks that fly for other charitable organizations, it sure looks like there's becoming a significant precedent to get more of these waivers if your organization has the ability to pay for fuel, etc... via donations.

Time to talk to your leadership about getting the waiver request going... however that process works.

I remember reading about that waiver policy and there were some stipulations on it the the FAA had that people were whining about.

 

[murphey]

Stipulations such as

500 hours, IFR & 2nd class medical
All maintenance performed by A&P, no owner-assisted. Question here becomes those activities allowed under Part 43 App A such as oil changes.
Nothing past TBO.
As one pundit commented, looks like Part 135-lite.

AngelFlight looked into the policy and decided against pursuing it at this time. It feels that too many of the pilots would not continue as AFW pilots.

For me, and far too many like me, if the weather is IMC, we shouldn't be flying. The new group is primarily East Coast where IFR makes excellent sense.

 

[denverpilot]

Why wouldn't Angel Flight pursue it for their pilots who could use it, and keep a list of both?

 

[Rndmtrvlr]

Why wouldn't Angel Flight pursue it for their pilots who could use it, and keep a list of both?

I think there's some question as to whether it's "all or nothing" for the organization to qualify. In addition, there are questions about the organization's responsibility to certify each flight's compliance (few of the Volunteer Pilot Organizations can afford the administrative overhead of checking each aircraft/pilot for each flight). That makes it more like a Part 135 "dispatch" than simply a volunteer pilot helping someone out.

In addition, at least in the organization I'm closest to, there is some question about whether or not the subsidizing of a portion of the fuel costs really drives additional volunteerism on a scale to make it worth the administration and incremental fundraising effort. While it seems intuitive to think that reducing the cost for volunteers would increase their willingness, some organizations have found that's not necessarily a major factor in increasing volunteerism . . . at least not as effective as some other factors which might be less costly and intrusive.

I'm curious to see where this goes in the future, though.

 

[poadeleted20]

I remember reading about that waiver policy and there were some stipulations on it the the FAA had that people were whining about.

...starting with that "maintained by a certified mechanic" part. I do my own oil changes, so I'd be out. As written, it appears you'd have to get an A&P or avionics shop to do your GPS database updates.

...the pilot must be IFR rated, have logged at least 500 hours of total time with 400 hours at PIC, and must maintain a second class medical certificate. Participating pilots must also receive PALS specific training. Pilots must complete two PALS flights to qualify for the fuel reimbursement program, which will begin with the third flight. There is no maximum number of PALS flights a pilot can fly.
There are also requirement for the airplane including that it must have a standard airworthiness certificate, must be maintained by a certified mechanic, and all components on the airplane must be within any overall recommendation by the manufacturer. The overhaul and maintenance requirement times include any component for which there is a TBO recommendation, not just the engine.

Seems to me the stipulations the FAA put in place tell you they're not eager to allow it.

 

[Rndmtrvlr]

Seems to me the stipulations the FAA put in place tell you they're not eager to allow it.

In addition, it kind of muddles the HUGE statement that Volunteer GA makes to the rest of the world . . . that pilots serve others using their own resources and without any reimbursement or other consideration.

The PALS website still says that. I suppose they'll have to change that statement.

 

[silver-eagle]

Young Eagles say that as well. Note that if you charge your fuel via a Philips CC at a Philips Fuel FBO and submit the receipt, you get a $1 a gallon back.
It's still a significant volunteer contribution since fuel is about 1/3 the cost of the flight.

 

[Rndmtrvlr]

Young Eagles say that as well. Note that if you charge your fuel via a Philips CC at a Philips Fuel FBO and submit the receipt, you get a $1 a gallon back.
It's still a significant volunteer contribution since fuel is about 1/3 the cost of the flight.

True. The Phillips rebate, then, amounts to about 6% of the cost, while a full fuel reimbursement (as available in the waiver) would amount to 33% of the cost. In addition, the Phillips rebate is a discount between the pilot and Phillips instead of a fuel reimbursement or subsidy by the organization.

Probably just my old marketing habits (so forgive me), but that statement that says "Our pilots not only volunteer their aircraft and their time, but they also pay all out-of-pocket costs, including but not limited to fuel, oil, landing fees and the like-- without reimbursement" is a lot more compelling than saying, "Our pilots not only volunteer their aircraft and their time, but they also pay some out-of-pocket costs, including but not limited to oil, landing fees and the like-- we only reimburse them for their fuel, which amounts to about 1/3 the cost of the flight."

 

[denverpilot]

Seems like the Phillips thing is an indirect payment for a particular service, and an accountant could make that stick...

 

[weilke]

Why wouldn't Angel Flight pursue it for their pilots who could use it, and keep a list of both?

Because then they would have to share their contribution revenue with the pilots. At this point, they can use it for other 'organization related expenses', like hiring the presidents daugther as 'outreach coordinator' at a 80k p.a. salary

 

[denverpilot]

Because then they would have to share their contribution revenue with the pilots. At this point, they can use it for other 'organization related expenses', like hiring the presidents daugther as 'outreach coordinator' at a 80k p.a. salary

Oooh, snap.

 

[gismo]

Why wouldn't Angel Flight pursue it for their pilots who could use it, and keep a list of both?

I'd be happy if I could just write off a reasonable amount for the use of the airplane in addition to fuel. It just seems illogical that if I rented the plane used I could deduct the entire expense but since I own it about the only thing I can deduct is fuel cost.

 

[Tom-D]

...starting with that "maintained by a certified mechanic" part. I do my own oil changes, so I'd be out. As written, it appears you'd have to get an A&P or avionics shop to do your GPS database updates.

Seems to me the stipulations the FAA put in place tell you they're not eager to allow it.

This seems yet another example of the FAA not allowing compliance with their own rules.

are you certified under 43-A (c) to do preventive maintenance ? aren't oil changes on that list? as well as entering your data base updates?

really stupid idea by the feds, sounds like they are yielding to the 135 operator pressure.

 

[murphey]

Young Eagles say that as well. Note that if you charge your fuel via a Philips CC at a Philips Fuel FBO and submit the receipt, you get a $1 a gallon back.
It's still a significant volunteer contribution since fuel is about 1/3 the cost of the flight.

I think that's really a "contribution to a 501(c)3 organization" from Philips rather than a rebate or reimbursement.

Picky detail, I know.

 

[denverpilot]

I think that's really a "contribution to a 501(c)3 organization" from Philips rather than a rebate or reimbursement.

Picky detail, I know.

Eh?

Phillips gives the pilot money back on their personal credit card and calls it a donation to EAA's 501(c)3?

I must be missing something here.

I would think the FAA only cares about who's pocket the dollars ultimately end up in. If Phillips gives me a rebate, I'm being paid.

Touchy. Think I'll avoid it. (Which ought to be easy since I'm not doing any Young Eagles stuff.)

Related but not the same topic: Has Phillips announced if they'll support the "Grey Eagles" program with the same deal? Somehow I'm doubting it...

 

[Skylane81E]

I'd be happy if I could just write off a reasonable amount for the use of the airplane in addition to fuel. It just seems illogical that if I rented the plane used I could deduct the entire expense but since I own it about the only thing I can deduct is fuel cost.

What about renting the plane from an LLC you own?

I should look into this because if it's the case can save me some money on my Pilots n Paws flights

 

[denverpilot]

Heh heh... starting to sound like testimony in a money-laundering case in here now.

 

[spinfire]

At least the IRS has long considered things like rebates and credit card rewards to be akin to a discount on purchased goods/services rather than income. The Phillips thing is basically the same thing. Other FBOs discount fuel or parking and handling fees for charity flights on the spot. While the net effect is the same no sane person would consider that income instead of a discount or rebate.

Of course it is not necessarily true that the IRS and FAA have come to the same conclusion.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'd be happy if I could just write off a reasonable amount for the use of the airplane in addition to fuel. It just seems illogical that if I rented the plane used I could deduct the entire expense but since I own it about the only thing I can deduct is fuel cost.

You can -- it just takes more accounting and record keeping. Ask your CPA how to do it.

 

[Henning]

...starting with that "maintained by a certified mechanic" part. I do my own oil changes, so I'd be out. As written, it appears you'd have to get an A&P or avionics shop to do your GPS database updates.

Seems to me the stipulations the FAA put in place tell you they're not eager to allow it.

Perhaps they can streamline the single pilot operator certificate a bit more and make it more reasonable to have one. Your DoM can approve you to do the work. Basically it makes sure that a qualified aircraft mechanic is supervising the maintenance. Nothing says they have to do the work, they just have to take responsibility for it.

Really you can do the same thing under the current rules. What gets a lot of people is TBO stuff. I would think though they should be able to compensate for those who qualify to ask.

 

[poadeleted20]

Perhaps they can streamline the single pilot operator certificate a bit more and make it more reasonable to have one. Your DoM can approve you to do the work.

You're thinking Part 135. This is Part 91. Folks doing charity rides like this generally don't have an operating certificate or an FAA-official Director of Maintenance.