Dual received count towards TT?

[tonyw]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

"The FAA has historically taken the position that building-up flight time is a form of receiving compensation when the pilot does not have to pay the cost, or pays a reduced cost, of operation" (1992 FAA Chief Counsel opinion). The principle has been applied by the FAA in quite a few situations.

The FAA's definition for the "compensation" that moves one from private to commercial or Part 91 to Part 135 is a lot broader that the narrow definition of transferable and taxable that you are using. Flight time is only one example of that.

Of course, whether the FAA gives a hoot about a pilot ferrying one of the flight school's airplanes on a one-time basis, is a completely different question.

Say a person in a flying club flies an airplane to an airport so that he can give a ride back to another member of that flying club who is dropping an airplane off for repair. And he doesn't pay the normal rental fees because he writes in the aircraft log book "ferry flight."

Is he in trouble?

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by tonyw

Say a person in a flying club flies an airplane to an airport so that he can give a ride back to another member of that flying club who is dropping an airplane off for repair. And he doesn't pay the normal rental fees because he writes in the aircraft log book "ferry flight."

Is he in trouble?

I don't know.

Assuming you're talking about a member-owned flying club, I've heard people claim that even a part owner of an airplane who owns it through a corporation or LLC is also in trouble because, legally speaking, the LLC is a separate entity from it's members. Technically true, but...

I have never seen a case in which the compensation rule was applied in that strict a manner and have a hard time imagining the FAA doing so, unless there was something else going on. Mos of the cases in which the issue has come up have been of the "it looks like a duck (commercial activity)" variety. Your scenario doesn't smell.

But heck, neither did Angel Flight pilots taking a tax deduction and FAA Legal's first take was that the deduction made them flights for compensation implicating Part 135 (this was reversed by the FAA on "policy" rather than "legal" grounds).

[Matt13C]

So, if I am just a student at a flight school and they decide to only charge me for fuel used that is ok. I am providing them no services. However, if I am on the pay roll or I am taking the plane to a different airport at their request I must pay full price, or it is considered compensation.

[mojo6911]

Originally Posted by Matt13C

So, if I am just a student at a flight school and they decide to only charge me for fuel used that is ok. I am providing them no services. However, if I am on the pay roll or I am taking the plane to a different airport at their request I must pay full price, or it is considered compensation.

Getting an employee discount is different than being compensated for your services as a pilot with a discount. Can you not see the difference?

[Matt13C]

Originally Posted by mojo6911

Getting an employee discount is different than being compensated for your services as a pilot with a discount. Can you not see the difference?

Yes, I see the difference, I just do not think it makes sense.

[ILS37R]

Originally Posted by Matt13C

So, if I am just a student at a flight school and they decide to only charge me for fuel used that is ok. I am providing them no services. However, if I am on the pay roll or I am taking the plane to a different airport at their request I must pay full price, or it is considered compensation.

Whether or not you are providing a service is irrelevant. As previously noted, the FAA's definition of "compensation" can include time-building activities. Free time = compensation. "Free" being anything less than the full operating cost of the flight (or pro-rated share thereof if passengers are present).

There are certainly some scenarios by which you could get around this or find yourself in a grey area (maintenance flights, for example), but this isn't something to mess around with. Flying for compensation without a commercial certificate can get you in serious trouble--up to suspension or revocation-level trouble.

(Tens of) Thousands of dollars of training aren't worth that risk, even if the chances of it being noticed and people caring are slim.

If you're looking for legit ways to save some money building hours, once you have your Private you do have some real options. Safety pilot, Angel Flight, Civil Air Patrol and other Search and Location/Rescue operations immediately come to mind. Towing gliders (though potentially a grey area) may also be an option if you have the right qualifications.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by ILS37R

Whether or not you are providing a service is irrelevant. As previously noted, the FAA's definition of "compensation" can include time-building activities. Free time = compensation. "Free" being anything less than the full operating cost of the flight (or pro-rated share thereof if passengers are present).

I don't think that's right. I think matt has it right - if he provides no services, no problem.

Whether money, flight time, meals, whatever, "compensation" itself means that it's something of value received in exchange for doing something. What runs afoul of the FAR isn't receiving something - it's receiving something in exchange for doing something for which that the FAA requires that certain requirements have been met (that you haven't met).

If matt's flight school has "pay for fuel only" day that isn't tied to matt doing something in exchange for, I don't see any problem with him logging the time, any more than it would be illegal to log the time if you take a ride with a friend and do some of the flying, or take a demo ride in an airplane you are thinking of buying.

Whether you are providing a service or not, is IMO, very relevant. As relevant as what you receive for it.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by Matt13C

Yes, I see the difference, I just do not think it makes sense.

The sense is in three pieces:

1. The FAA has decided that when someone provided piloting or carrier services, they need to meet a higher qualification standard. That applies whether the services involve carrying passengers, carrying cargo, or just plain receiving compensation of some kind for acting as a pilot.

2. The FAA has decided that people who have jumped through the hoops and paid the bucks to meet the qualifications in #1 should be protected from the people who didn't.

3. Some of the more, let's just say, interesting, rules in this area, is because clever people are always trying to find clever ways to get around #1.

An unfortunate result of #3, is that the principles that have developed end up seeming to be a bit of a stretch, especially when they are applied to people who are not trying to be clever, but really just doing someone a favor.

[ILS37R]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

Whether you are providing a service or not, is IMO, very relevant. As relevant as what you receive for it.

Fair points and you're probably correct. My primary concern is that it's a slippery slope and the FAA that makes, interprets and enforces the rules, so one should be very careful.

The one thing I'm curious about is the OP's ferry/fuel flight proposal. Was this something he came up with or something that came from the school? I can't, off-hand, think of any school or FBO that uses students/customers for ferry flights with any regularity; usually there are flight instructors (or other employees) sitting around who are perfectly happy to pick up a quick flight. There may be insurance implications, as well. I'd be very cautious about a school that was offering no-charge time-building flights.

[Matt13C]

Originally Posted by ILS37R

Fair points and you're probably correct. My primary concern is that it's a slippery slope and the FAA that makes, interprets and enforces the rules, so one should be very careful.

The one thing I'm curious about is the OP's ferry/fuel flight proposal. Was this something he came up with or something that came from the school? I can't, off-hand, think of any school or FBO that uses students/customers for ferry flights with any regularity; usually there are flight instructors (or other employees) sitting around who are perfectly happy to pick up a quick flight. There may be insurance implications, as well. I'd be very cautious about a school that was offering no-charge time-building flights.

It was my idea. I was getting checked out for cross country solo flights and the last stop was a small airport. We only have two instructors so while I was out flying with my instructor the second one took a plane over to the airport we were landing at. While he was there he noticed the fuel was cheaper so we gassed up and flew back to our FBO. I was still paying for my flight time, I just wanted to see how differently the plane handled with more weight.

I never mentioned anything to them about flying the planes to the other airport for fuel. That was something I thought about later when having this conversation. I knew the FAA was strict about receiving compensation but was not sure how far reaching that restriction was. I know some schools offer discounted rates to employees who work the line. So I thought maybe it would work. It is not worth it though if it will get my ticket pulled. I want to do this for a living so I don't want to be throwing any red flags up.

[Matt13C]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

The sense is in three pieces:

1. The FAA has decided that when someone provided piloting or carrier services, they need to meet a higher qualification standard. That applies whether the services involve carrying passengers, carrying cargo, or just plain receiving compensation of some kind for acting as a pilot.

2. The FAA has decided that people who have jumped through the hoops and paid the bucks to meet the qualifications in #1 should be protected from the people who didn't.

3. Some of the more, let's just say, interesting, rules in this area, is because clever people are always trying to find clever ways to get around #1.

An unfortunate result of #3, is that the principles that have developed end up seeming to be a bit of a stretch, especially when they are applied to people who are not trying to be clever, but really just doing someone a favor.

Thanks for the clarification.