Legal Flights or Not?

[stuckingfk]

Joe Pilot, a private pilot, has his own 172 and his friend George wants to fly from OMA to MSP. George offers Joe to pay him $200 for the flight plus the cost of gas. Is this legal?



Pedro, a commercial pilot who owns his own 182 (pt. 91), is approached by John who wants to go to DFW for a meeting. John offers to split the cost of fuel, oil and landing fees with Pedro. Pedro says I can do that, cause he could go shopping while John is at the meeting. Is this flight legal?

[PhilosopherPilot]

[ QUOTE ]
Joe Pilot, a private pilot, has his own 172 and his friend George wants to fly from OMA to MSP. George offers Joe to pay him $200 for the flight plus the cost of gas. Is this legal?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not legal. Joe is holding out. Now, if George rented a plane, or owned a plane and hired Joe to fly it, that is legal.


[ QUOTE ]

Pedro, a commercial pilot who owns his own 182 (pt. 91), is approached by John who wants to go to DFW for a meeting. John offers to split the cost of fuel, oil and landing fees with Pedro. Pedro says I can do that, cause he could go shopping while John is at the meeting. Is this flight legal?

[/ QUOTE ]

This one is legal because he is paying his "pro rata share" of the expenses, and is not holding out.

G

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
. Pedro says I can do that, cause he could go shopping while John is at the meeting. Is this flight legal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I see......the minority always the bad guy, huh.....

[/shameless humor]

[SteveC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Joe Pilot, a private pilot, has his own 172 and his friend George wants to fly from OMA to MSP. George offers Joe to pay him $200 for the flight plus the cost of gas. Is this legal?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not legal. Joe is holding out. Now, if George rented a plane, or owned a plane and hired Joe to fly it, that is legal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't Joe have to be a Commercial pilot to do this, not just a Private, even if it was George's plane?

[PaulThomas]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Joe Pilot, a private pilot, has his own 172 and his friend George wants to fly from OMA to MSP. George offers Joe to pay him $200 for the flight plus the cost of gas. Is this legal?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not legal. Joe is holding out. Now, if George rented a plane, or owned a plane and hired Joe to fly it, that is legal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't Joe have to be a Commercial pilot to do this, not just a Private, even if it was George's plane?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the way I thought about it too. Private Pilot can only be paid for expenses of the flight under certain conditions, they can also be paid for the flight if the flight is incidental to business and something else (but I'm too lazy to get my FAR out)

[GaTechKid]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe Pilot, a private pilot, has his own 172 and his friend George wants to fly from OMA to MSP. George offers Joe to pay him $200 for the flight plus the cost of gas. Is this legal?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is not legal. Joe is holding out. Now, if George rented a plane, or owned a plane and hired Joe to fly it, that is legal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is it holding out if Joe determines that $200 is half the cost of flying the plane to MSP and he then charges George 1/2 the cost of fuel?

[MidlifeFlyer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Pedro, a commercial pilot who owns his own 182 (pt. 91), is approached by John who wants to go to DFW for a meeting. John offers to split the cost of fuel, oil and landing fees with Pedro. Pedro says I can do that, cause he could go shopping while John is at the meeting. Is this flight legal?

[/ QUOTE ]

This one is legal because he is paying his "pro rata share" of the expenses, and is not holding out.

[/ QUOTE ]Not necessarily good enough. Sharing expenses isn't enough. There also has to be a shared purpose for the trip. As written, Pedro isn't going to John's meeting, and the shopping trip is simply something to do while waiting for his paying passenger.

Since Pedro is a commercial pilot, someone might be able to squeeze this one into the very narrow "private carriage" crevice, but in that direction lies confusion and damnation.

[mtsu_av8er]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Joe Pilot, a private pilot, has his own 172 and his friend George wants to fly from OMA to MSP. George offers Joe to pay him $200 for the flight plus the cost of gas. Is this legal?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not legal. Joe is holding out. Now, if George rented a plane, or owned a plane and hired Joe to fly it, that is legal.
[ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

So, what if it costs Joe $400 in operating costs for the trip - is it legal then??

[stuckingfk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Joe Pilot, a private pilot, has his own 172 and his friend George wants to fly from OMA to MSP. George offers Joe to pay him $200 for the flight plus the cost of gas. Is this legal?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not legal. Joe is holding out. Now, if George rented a plane, or owned a plane and hired Joe to fly it, that is legal.
[ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

So, what if it costs Joe $400 in operating costs for the trip - is it legal then??

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, Midlife had it right. There has to be a common purpose for the trip. So both aren't legal.

And about this holding out, according an aviation lawyer, it is a mute point. I can't remember his exact words, but said everyone gets caught up in the term holding out, but they bust many on situations like these.

[av8rmsu]

[ QUOTE ]
There also has to be a shared purpose for the trip.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not starting a flame war...

I was wondering if you had a reference or Advisory Circular where I could read about this "rule".

[stuckingfk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There also has to be a shared purpose for the trip.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not starting a flame war...

I was wondering if you had a reference or Advisory Circular where I could read about this "rule".

[/ QUOTE ]

This came from a former FAA prosecutor and current attorney specializing in aviation, and they didn't quote a certain reg or AC, but I believe them.

I'll look or ask around to find you it though.

[MidlifeFlyer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There also has to be a shared purpose for the trip.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not starting a flame war...

I was wondering if you had a reference or Advisory Circular where I could read about this "rule".

[/ QUOTE ]Asking a legitimate question shouldn't start a flame war. It's not a regulation. It's a rule that was developed in NTSB case law. If you want to do some research, you'll find a bunch of NTSB decisions that use it (my favorite is the one where a pilot gets nailed for taking a "friend's" sick father for medical treatment) . But here are two FAA Legal opinions that discuss it: in two completely different contexts.

==============================
December 26, 1985

Thomas H. Chero
Vice President - Legal
AVEMCO Insurance Company
Frederick Municipal Airport
411 Aviation Way
Frederick, MD 21701

Dear Mr. Chero:

Thank you for your letters to this office, dated September 9, 1985, and October 23, 1985, respectively, concerning the actions of the Pilots and Passengers Association (PPA).

You are correct in stating that Section 61.118 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) prohibits private pilots from participating in PPA's operations. Section 61.118 provides that a private pilot cannot act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers for compensation or hire unless the flight falls within one of the four listed exceptions in 61.118(a) - (d).

Section 61.118(b) allows a private pilot to share the operating expenses of a flight with his or her passengers. Additionally, the FAA has interpreted 61.118(b) so that the only allowable share-the-costs operations are those which are bona fide, that is, joint ventures for a common purpose with the expenses being defrayed by all passengers and the pilot. Nor does Section 61.118 permit pilots who want to build up time toward their commercial pilot certificates to carry expense sharing passengers to a destination at which they have no particular business. (emphasis added)

PPA pilots apparently would not share in the expenses of the flights they would undertake. It also appears that PPA pilots could be flying to destinations at which they had no particular business. The PPA system is not a casual one of an individual pilot wishing to take some friends or acquaintances with him on a trip. The PPA system would violate the letter, as well as the spirit, of Section 61.118.

Even if the pilot bears an equal share of the expenses with his or her passengers and indeed has his or her own need to fly to a particular destination, yet another problem arises. Since PPA's passengers would be solicited for flights by PPA from a broad segment of the general public, we conclude that each pilot carrying paying passengers from PPA would probably be engaged in common carriage. This means that each pilot would become an air carrier subject to the certification and operating rules of Part 135 of the FAR.

We appreciate your calling our attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/

John H. Cassady
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
==============================

==============================
December 19, 1977

Mr. Bob Von Seggern

Dear Mr. Von Seggern:

This is in response to your undated letter received in this office on December 14, 1977, wherein you advise that as the holder of private pilot certificate you contributed to a political campaign by flying a candidate to two meetings in your own airplane. The political candidate reimbursed you for your time off from work (nonaeronautical job), your time as pilot and for the use of your airplane. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 61.118 provides in part that, except as set forth in subparagraphs (a) through (d), a private pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire, nor may he, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. Subparagraph (b) provides that a private pilot may share the operating expenses of a flight with his passengers. The two flights you described were not "share the cost" situations, that is, a joint venture for a common purpose with the operating expenses being defrayed equally by the passenger and yourself. Rather, you were simply providing transportation from one point to another and your passenger paid all the operating expenses, as well as your time off from work and your pilot time. Accordingly, on the two flights in question, you acted as pilot in command for compensation or hire in violation of FAR 61.118.

You now ask whether in the future you could contribute to such a political campaign as a private pilot as long as there is no regular schedule involved and it is done for gasoline expenses only. Again, in answer thereto, to come within the exception to FAR 61.118(b), the flight must constitute a joint venture and there must be an equal sharing of the operating expenses of each flight between the pilot and all the passengers involved. Since the candidate would be paying for the total gasoline cost and it is not a joint venture (you are not running for office), this operation would also be in violation of FAR 61.118.

As to your other inquiry, the fact that you are close to getting a commercial pilot certificate would not alter the situation since you are still the holder of a private pilot certificate and therefore bound by the limitations of FAR 61.118. Even should you obtain a commercial pilot certificate, you may also require ATCO certification under Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations for the contemplated operation.

We hope this satisfactorily answers your inquiry. If there are any questions, please advise us.

Very truly yours,
JOSEPH T. BRENNAN
Regional Counsel

==============================

[av8rmsu]

thanks for the reply

these letters are a big help

[aviategw]

I think that it would be fair to say that the rules regarding the rules for commercial flight are a bit ambiguous, at best.

I'm a commercial multi-engine pilot, but I don't really know what I can and can not be reimbursed or outright paid for. I got the rating for the purpose of being a CFII and MEI, and because it was a requirement to move on to eventually getting a 121 or 135 job. I think that many pilots fall in the same category.

[MidlifeFlyer]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that it would be fair to say that the rules regarding the rules for commercial flight are a bit ambiguous, at best.



[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed they are. There are some clear cut "yes you can" and "no you can't" areas, but the boundary areas are kinda murky. Of course, if you think about all the ways that "clever" people try to get around the regulations, they pretty much have to be written in a way that leaves them open to case-by-case interpretation.