Flying passengers and a commercial Pilot with my own mooney

[201er]

6 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

Im going to do thread creep.  So the definition is hire or reward, (well as i understand it) so hypothetically, if i fly right seat in a missionary cessna caravan, but i dont get paid, but they do feed me and give me a roof over my head because they are kind caring people, (a bit like the medican san frontiers charities) is this in breach of the hire and reward section of the ppl?  

Any legal chaps got any ideas?

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as  pilot in commandof an  aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that  person, for compensation or hire, act as  pilot in command of an aircraft. 

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as  pilot in command of an  aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: 

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and 

(2) The  aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. 

(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil,  airport expenditures, or rental fees. 

(d) A private pilot may act as  pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event flight described in  § 91.146, if the  sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of  § 91.146.

 

The missionaries would have to get an FAA waiver. 

Also, seems the FAA's biggest issue with a pilot joining the mile high club is the compensation for the flight that he is receiving.

[201er]

2 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

Be very careful.  The FAA measures "commercial" with a micrometer.

My brother, as a favor, flew a stranded airplane back to a local flight school. Enroute the engine failed.  He successfully landed in a farmer's field. When the FAA found out about it, they charged him with flying a commercial operation. My brother pointed out that he received no compensation and it was done as a favor. The FAA said BS.  It maintained that the flight time was compensation and proceeded to make his life miserable for about 6 months.

I'm curious, if someone already has 1500+ hours and all levels of currency, would flight time no longer be considered compensation since it isn't needed for anything?

[midlifeflyer]

35 minutes ago, 201er said:

I'm curious, if someone already has 1500+ hours and all levels of currency, would flight time no longer be considered compensation since it isn't needed for anything?

Who knows? There have been some indications that you can get past the flight time as compensation by not logging the time. But that doesn't necessarily solve the problem. In the case of a free ferry, I can see the FAA considering the fact that you got flight time you would otherwise have to pay for as compensation whether you log it or not.

The more global paradigm is, anything of value you receive in exchange for providing a flight service is compensation. That "in exchange for" is an important limitation.

The FAA has included even more nebulous things than "flight time" in its definition of compensation including "good will." IOW, you take a potential business client on a in the hopes of generating future business and you have compensation. There's actually a reg that discuses this for Part 91F operations (91.501(b)(4)) and the NBAA has an exemption for its members in light aircraft.

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by midlifeflyer

[mike_elliott]

7 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

and the NBAA has an exemption for its members in light aircraft.

so if your not a NBAA member,  the FAA considers it compensation, but if you are a member you get a pass? Something doesn't pass the FAA smell test here..

[yankele]

Be very careful.  The FAA measures "commercial" with a micrometer.
My brother, as a favor, flew a stranded airplane back to a local flight school. Enroute the engine failed.  He successfully landed in a farmer's field. When the FAA found out about it, they charged him with flying a commercial operation. My brother pointed out that he received no compensation and it was done as a favor. The FAA said BS.  It maintained that the flight time was compensation and proceeded to make his life miserable for about 6 months.

That's crazy.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[PTK]

On 4/17/2018 at 1:04 AM, yankele said:

...If part 135 would not exist, life would be awesome!

I would just offer friends great prices to Florida (from new york) on a private plane. But 135 exists and It seems pretty complicated to open my own 135 operations...

Part 135 has strict operational requirements with a much higher standard of safety and legalities all designed to protect paying pax. It is there to prohibit you from doing exactly what you want to do. 

The proper approach would be to apply for a part 135 certificate and do it the right way.

You can get a commercial certificate but still need a part 135 flight operation license to do what you propose. Otherwise you're still part 91.

 

[yankele]

Part 135 has strict operational requirements with a much higher standard of safety and legalities all designed to protect paying pax. It is there to prohibit you from doing exactly what you want to do. 
The proper approach would be to apply for a part 135 certificate and do it the right way.
You can get a commercial certificate but still need a part 135 flight operation license to do what you propose. Otherwise you're still part 91.

 

I'm learning so much from this thread.

Thanks folks.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[PaulM]

3 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

so if your not a NBAA member, 

The NBAA exception is very specific... you have to be a member, maintain the plane to Part 135 standards, get approval from the FSDO, all to get access to the  part of 91.501 which are turbine only exceptions in the far's..   basically to allow you bring clients on flights where you were going to be flying there anyway for business..   ie a consultant flying to a site visit & bringing the paying client along in a way that is operationally useful to the consultant.

https://www.nbaa.org/admin/options/exemption/

The FAA considers compensation extremely broadly, (more than the IRS)  There were cases where "dinner" was compensation.     Flight time above 1500 is still put on your resume, and a benefit for insurance etc..   it basically boils down to the control of the flight.   If the pilot doesn't decide the destination.. then it will be assumed to be commercial, since you didn't do the flight for your own personal reasons. A qid pro quo is assumed. 

So, your friend can borrow your plane, and fly it for free... to locations they want to go to... as soon as they move your plane where "you" want it to be.. then it is a ferry flight and they need a commercial.  

These same things crop up in the shared expenses.... If you were flying to catch a ball game and bring other people along, you can share expenses.   If your friends need to go to a wedding, you can't say, well, I can go to a ball game, so we can share expenses.   

 

[mike_elliott]

5 minutes ago, PaulM said:

The NBAA exception is very specific... you have to be a member, maintain the plane to Part 135 standards, get approval from the FSDO, all to get access to the  part of 91.501 which are turbine only exceptions in the far's..   basically to allow you bring clients on flights where you were going to be flying there anyway for business..   ie a consultant flying to a site visit & bringing the paying client along in a way that is operationally useful to the consultant.

https://www.nbaa.org/admin/options/exemption/

The FAA considers compensation extremely broadly, (more than the IRS)  There were cases where "dinner" was compensation.     Flight time above 1500 is still put on your resume, and a benefit for insurance etc..   it basically boils down to the control of the flight.   If the pilot doesn't decide the destination.. then it will be assumed to be commercial, since you didn't do the flight for your own personal reasons. A qid pro quo is assumed. 

So, your friend can borrow your plane, and fly it for free... to locations they want to go to... as soon as they move your plane where "you" want it to be.. then it is a ferry flight and they need a commercial.  

These same things crop up in the shared expenses.... If you were flying to catch a ball game and bring other people along, you can share expenses.   If your friends need to go to a wedding, you can't say, well, I can go to a ball game, so we can share expenses.   

 

Ok, we have 2 sets of regulations, one for members of the NBAA and one set for those that are not.

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

You really need to read about Flytenow to see how shitty the FAA is.  Something you can do via paper or phone, cannot be legally done via computer, according to the FAA and the courts.

http://blog.flytenow.com/

Many years ago, the company I worked for and had a small share in, bought a C-310.  I flew it to various jobs, (we were ISO-9000 consultants), taking 1-3 other employees along.  We also had a lease-back agreement with a local Part 135 operation.  That cost us more than we would have had to pay for maintenance, etc., (being Part 135), and I do not remember them using our aircraft for a single charter.  Apparently the cost savings of a C-310 versus a B-200 was not enough to entice charter traffic.

[midlifeflyer]

37 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

so if your not a NBAA member,  the FAA considers it compensation, but if you are a member you get a pass? Something doesn't pass the FAA smell test here..

It's common. And it's the FAA itself.

As you might know, there is a process within the FAA for obtaining exemptions from certain regulations. The ones most hear most about these days is drones, but there are plenty of others. Some charitable flight groups have used the process to permit reimbursement of such things as fuel expenses. The EAA has gone back and forth about it for Young Eagles flights. Instructors have received it for providing paid instruction in experimental aircraft.

If you look at the reg I mentioned, 91.501(b)(4), it allows flights of business guests for "large" airplanes, turbojet multi airplanes and 91K fractional aircraft,  so long as there is no charge for the flight (the compensation there is business good will). The NBAA petitioned the FAA for an exemption which would permit 91.501(b)(4) coverage for its membership. I've attached a copy. Note it is not free of conditions and limitations.

2017 NbaaExemptionExtension.pdf

Edited April 18, 2018 by midlifeflyer

[midlifeflyer]

10 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Ok, we have 2 sets of regulations, one for members of the NBAA and one set for those that are not.

It's more like, "we can grant you an exemption from the rule if you follow alternate conditions of safety and reliability."  You can probably get the exemption all by yourself under those same conditions and maybe a few extra. The only thing the NBAA is really doing is avoiding the need for its members to petition separately. 

Edited April 18, 2018 by midlifeflyer

[mike_elliott]

2 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

It's more like, "we can grant you an exemption for the rule if you follow alternate conditions of safety and reliability."  You can probably get the exemption all by yourself under those same conditions and maybe a few extra. The only thing the NBAA is really doing is avoiding the need for its members to petition separately. 

Its good there exists an exemption, its not so good the FAA requires you to belong and pay dues to still yet another organization to get it. Perhaps the FAA could make this exemption available without cash changing hands to the NBAA, 

[midlifeflyer]

BTW, for anyone interested in the exemption process, start on this FAA page.  You can look them up at http://aes.faa.gov/AES.asp and, for a wider more browsable discussion, there's www.regulations.gov

[midlifeflyer]

5 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Its good there exists an exemption, its not so good the FAA requires you to belong and pay dues to still yet another organization to get it. Perhaps the FAA could make this exemption available without cash changing hands to the NBAA, 

It likely is available. You just have to go through the petition process like everyone else who is not part of an organization which takes care of it for you. That's kind of what organizations are for - to do things for their members which would be more costly or time-consuming for someone to do for themselves. Whether that's a bad thing is a YMMV kind of question. 

[midlifeflyer]

... for another exemption example here's one of the Angel Flight ones permitting fuel reimbursement. Note again that it is not a blanket free ride without conditions.

AngelFlightSampleExemption.pdf

[PaulM]

1 hour ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

You really need to read about Flytenow to see how shitty the FAA is.  Something you can do via paper or phone, cannot be legally done via computer, according to the FAA and the courts.

http://blog.flytenow.com/

The Flytenow decision was about holding out.  there are multiple prongs on the part 135 rules, and holding out to any and all comers is one of them.

If they had a section in the NY times, that said "I am flying to Miami on the 25th, I will accept ride/expense sharing from anyone that calls 1-201-555-1212 it would also have  not passed that test.   The decision didn't draw a line but said that attempting to provide services to a wide enough groups of people who have no other link to you will be considered holding out.   The web application for that, and nothing else just made the scope obvious. The decision said it didn't need a specific app, and that a large facebook group would qualify...  broadcast to your FB knitting group about sharing a ride to the Wisconsin convention... allowed... saying on the east coast travelers board "I'm going to Miami".. probably not.  A community like ours would probably be allowed, only because we are pilots..  like we ask for "who is going to Dmax"..   we have that limited nexus that keeps it from being holding out. 

This is echoed in the part91 dry leases vs part 135 charter... you can be 91 and have a number of limited contracts for flying, but as soon as you imply that you will contract with anyone who calls your phone#, then it isn't limited and is considered holding out. 

 

[chrisk]

2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

It's common. And it's the FAA itself.

As you might know, there is a process within the FAA for obtaining exemptions from certain regulations. The ones most hear most about these days is drones, but there are plenty of others. Some charitable flight groups have used the process to permit reimbursement of such things as fuel expenses. The EAA has gone back and forth about it for Young Eagles flights. Instructors have received it for providing paid instruction in experimental aircraft.

If you look at the reg I mentioned, 91.501(b)(4), it allows flights of business guests for "large" airplanes, turbojet multi airplanes and 91K fractional aircraft,  so long as there is no charge for the flight (the compensation there is business good will). The NBAA petitioned the FAA for an exemption which would permit 91.501(b)(4) coverage for its membership. I've attached a copy. Note it is not free of conditions and limitations.

2017 NbaaExemptionExtension.pdf

As an example I have a LODA to instruct and receive compensation in an experimental aircraft.  The process is not straightforward. And it comes with its own set of rules. Associations can be a great help in these matters.  --You can go it alone, but it will take a lot more effort.

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, PaulM said:

This is echoed in the part91 dry leases vs part 135 charter... you can be 91 and have a number of limited contracts for flying, but as soon as you imply that you will contract with anyone who calls your phone#, then it isn't limited and is considered holding out. 

 

Correct in concept but not nomenclature. A "dry lease" comes without a pilot and has nothing to do with the numbers of contacts. The lessee in a dry lease has operational control of the aircraft and may choose whatever pilots it wants to hire.

I think you are thinking of "public carriage" (holding out to the public) vs "private carriage" (only limited contracts), a distinction which may have had some meaning at one time, but not much practical significance now (private carriage is also regulated).

[aviatoreb]

On 4/18/2018 at 9:03 AM, Mooneymite said:

Be very careful.  The FAA measures "commercial" with a micrometer.

My brother, as a favor, flew a stranded airplane back to a local flight school. Enroute the engine failed.  He successfully landed in a farmer's field. When the FAA found out about it, they charged him with flying a commercial operation. My brother pointed out that he received no compensation and it was done as a favor. The FAA said BS.  It maintained that the flight time was compensation and proceeded to make his life miserable for about 6 months.

Ugh - that comes under that category of "no good deed goes unpunished".

[aviatoreb]

5 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

Wow i go offline for a few days and this happens. So regarding the lying for a missionary outfit as P2, note the 2 so not pilot in command, is it legal if they just supply a roof and food?

Actually - I don't think so.  I pay for the fuel and airplane and you pay for the lovely vacation house in the Bahamas....doesn't work. 

[N201MKTurbo]

Don't ask don't tell cash only.

[midlifeflyer]

6 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Don't ask don't tell cash only.

I think we already covered not getting caught as a sole strategy.

[N201MKTurbo]

2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

I think we already covered not getting caught as a sole strategy.

I was being lazy and didn't read them all.

[MBDiagMan]

There is a very easy way to end up with a million dollars in your pocket from General Aviation.  Simply begin with two or three million and given some time you will end up with a million dollars.