Commercial pilot regulations

[Jim Peace]

So if you do an angel flight and are not compensated but the CEO and admin people of the organization are paid a salary then how is that not a commercial operation?  That organization would not exist nor would that CEO get paid if you did not fly a person from A to B.....someone is getting paid along the way for something by you flying your airplane.

Donations are made to Angel flight, they go to admin costs to run the endeavor.  It would not exist if the pilots did not fly.  Those pilots are flying passengers and someone somehow is getting paid for that from the donations.

I stopped doing Angle flights a while back.  After a few passengers who are very much capable of walking, and getting in and out of the back seat of a C model  going form A to B where airline serve exists made me sour on it....I am sure there are legit examples but there are also people who scam the system.

[midlifeflyer]

5 minutes ago, Jim Peace said:

So if you do an angel flight and are not compensated but the CEO and admin people of the organization are paid a salary then how is that not a commercial operation?  That organization would not exist nor would that CEO get paid if you did not fly a person from A to B.....someone is getting paid along the way for something by you flying your airplane.

Donations are made to Angel flight, they go to admin costs to run the endeavor.  It would not exist if the pilots did not fly.  Those pilots are flying passengers and someone somehow is getting paid for that from the donations.

I stopped doing Angle flights a while back.  After more than a few passengers who are very much capable of walking, and getting in and out of the back seat of a C model  going form A to B where airline serve exists made me sour on it....I am sure there are legit examples but there are also people who scam the system.

Rather fly animals around.

Actually, the original  FAA Chief Counsel opinion letter said  Angel Flight was a 135 operation. Fortunately the question was asked by US Senator Phil Gramm. He didn't like the answer. the current policy allowing tax deductions for direct expenses was the result. 

You  are welcome to look at some of the well-known Angel Flight abuses as a reason for not flying a cancer patient who knows participating in a  study  will never help them live,  but they are the reason you can deduct anything on those animal missions carrying cargo for compensation. (If you don't take the deduction you are permitted, bravo!) 

[jlunseth]

I have done quite a few Angel Flights. I did 16 missions this year and I think I am up around 40 something in total since I started several years ago. In my experience most of the patients are difficult cases. Cancer patients are the most common, and AF passengers often live in rural areas where there is no immediate access to commercial flights. An unsung saga at Angel Flight Central is that they arrange quite a few donated flights with Southwest Airlines. Out of the forty missions I can only think of one where I felt that the passenger probably did not need the help. Most of the patients we fly do not have the means. 

Honestly, Angel Flight flying can be a little difficult. I don’t mean the flying, or the passengers, or any of that. Many of the cancer patients are flying every week or every other week for chemo. After you flown someone to their chemo several times, and coordinated with other pilots who are doing the same thing, or have found flights for them when you cannot take the flight, and then you see the progression of their disease and the toll it takes on them and their families, well, you have to put your big boy pants on and be professional. Our job is to help and get them to the doctor. We can’t do our jobs if we get too tied up in the emotional part of it. The kids with glioblastoma are the hardest part.

All of the patients I have flown have been profusely grateful. 

[gsxrpilot]

I fly as many Angel Flights as I can each year. It's my favorite tax deduction every year no matter what the number is.

To second what @jlunseth said, most just can't afford the fortnightly, (or how ever often) flights for regular treatment. An an hour or two in my Mooney is much easier on the patient than 5 or 10 hours in a car.

 

[DJE22]

On 12/29/2020 at 10:00 PM, N201MKTurbo said:

If you haul 3 dogs somewhere, can the dogs cover 3/4 of the fuel?

Does each dog require a seat? Or a seat belt?

You make a good point...isn’t it legally acceptable to accept maintenance costs, upkeep and fuel cost at 50% for such a flight?

[carusoam]

Just now, DJE22 said:

You make a good point...isn’t it legally acceptable to accept maintenance costs, upkeep and fuel cost at 50% for such a flight?

Looks like the reference was to split it up evenly amongst all souls on board...

PP thoughts only, not a CP...

Best regards,

-a-

[Hank]

8 hours ago, DJE22 said:

You make a good point...isn’t it legally acceptable to accept maintenance costs, upkeep and fuel cost at 50% for such a flight?

I think you can only recover expenses directly related tomthe shared flight, not insurance premium, hangar, avioics upgrades, annual inspection, prorated engine / airframe depreciation, etc.

[jlunseth]

Well, wait, we are a couple of weeks from the original question, but if I understand it correctly, can I haul three dogs for my friend and split the expenses, that answer is no, you can’t. There must be a common purpose, for example you and your friend are going fishing together. If the “common purpose” is that he wants you to haul his dogs and you want to haul his dogs for him, that is private freight and requires a commercial operator’s certificate for private carriage. Either that, or you pay all the expenses as a favor to your friend. But the expenses can’t be split for a private flight unless there is a common purpose. 

If its a flight for a charitable organization like Pilots n Paws the answer might be different because they typically get exemption letters.

[neilpilot]

9 hours ago, jlunseth said:

If its a flight for a charitable organization like Pilots n Paws the answer might be different because

Are you implying that Pilots N Paws flights might involve shared expenses?  Before I stopped flying, I flew scores of PnPaws and Angel flights, and my only "compensation" was in the form of charitable deductions. 

Except for one post-Katrina PnPaws flyout at KNEW co-organized by Subaru, when I did receive overnight accommodations and a meal.  So maybe I was acting as a Commercial operation in that case?

[jlunseth]

50 minutes ago, neilpilot said:

Are you implying that Pilots N Paws flights might involve shared expenses?  Before I stopped flying, I flew scores of PnPaws and Angel flights, and my only "compensation" was in the form of charitable deductions. 

Except for one post-Katrina PnPaws flyout at KNEW co-organized by Subaru, when I did receive overnight accommodations and a meal.  So maybe I was acting as a Commercial operation in that case?

I know that some organizations have exemption letters that allow reimbursement of flight expenses because I have seen at least one of them. Since that letter, which was older and was for an Angel Flight organization, the FAA may have changed its stance and may no longer issue them, I do not know, I only know it has been done. I stated it the way I did in my post because I know that has happened, but I do not know if Pilots N Paws has such an exemption letter. You would have to ask them.

The organizations may no longer do it that way because I could see insurance and liability complications. I only know it has happened.

In the absence of an exemption letter your statement is correct, the pilot can only "receive" a charitable contribution deduction for the flight.

[midlifeflyer]

On 1/8/2021 at 11:42 PM, jlunseth said:

If its a flight for a charitable organization like Pilots n Paws the answer might be different because they typically get exemption letters.

It depends. There are two separate policies on this. PnP operates under the general policy. It does not have an exemption letter. 

General Policy: Pilots are permitted to take applicable charitable deductions for the flights. Interesting history on that going back to 1993 when the Chief Counsel said taking the deduction was "compensation" and Angel Flight was a Part 135 operation. The Chief Counsel reversed course a month later, presumably due to political pressure from Senator Phil Gramm  The current policy permitting the deductions is in FSIMS 4-921 (you'll need to scroll down). No exemption letters required. Most PnP, Angel Flight, etc flights are under that policy.

Exemption Letters. In addition to the general policy permitting charitable deductions, a number of organizations have petitioned the FAA for exemptions permitting reimbursement of expenses. Those exemptions are sometimes referred to a "Part 135 Light" because of the requirements and limitations.  Here's an example of one - the exemption for Angel Flight Southeast. Scroll through the "Conditions and Limitations" beginning on page 2 and you'll see why PnP doesn't have one and why most pilots don't take advantage of it. 

(BTW, when you see the COVID extension of flight reviews for charitable flights under an exemption, it's referring to "Part 135 Light.")

[jlunseth]

Thanks. Good to have that specific information. I scrolled through the exemption letter. My organization already does most of what is in the letter, but I can see a few things most organizations would not want to undertake, such as a specific training program. Probably I have flirted with the duty time maximum a couple of times, but who wants to fly more than 8 hours in a day. It was an AF Southeast letter than I had seen at some point. I think the biggest sticking point for most organizations would be the need to raise funds to reimburse pilots. Not really necessary anyway, we fly for the good it does, not for money.