The cost sharing - reimbursment - flight for hire mess

I have to admit, I tend to agree with Don's comments that duplicating
regulations seems just to be asking for trouble. Why not just say
something
like "all operation of club aircraft is limited to those allowed for the
holder of a Private Pilot certificate, unless otherwise authorized"?
That said, in the spirit of your question...

See reply to Don above.

In #24, no allowance is made for fuel. Does the club always reimburse
fuel
expenses completely?

Yes, rates are wet and club pays for all fuel and oil. If not, fuel and oil
would be included.

Also in #24, no allowance is made for ATC service charges, as one would
incur flying in Canada. Does the club automatically pay those? If they
are
billed to the pilot, that should allowed.

That's never come up for us. Everyone who's ever gone to Canada just paid
it.

I may have missed other direct operating expenses that ought to be
allowed,
given the spirit of the rules you've posted, but which are not. This is
one
of the problems with writing a new version of existing rules...it's easy
to
miss something or to create inconsistencies.


I don't see any compelling reason why the club has to insure that a cost
sharing member get every possible penny. These cover the major expenses,
any others are going to be just spare change and open us up to a long
onerous process of having to justify them. The intent of having flight
rules like this is to give us a little margin so we are clearly on the right
side of the line.

In #24(b), what happens if the cost is not divisible by the number of
passengers? Is the pilot permitted to pay the extra penny or pennies?
May
seem like a silly question, but again, when you write language like you've
written, you open the door for this kind of issue.

Even the FAA is not that silly. Common law and accounting practice
recongnize that the penny is not divisible.

I find 24(c) to be both vague and potentially overly restrictive. It
appears to allow local flights in which "common purpose" may be defined
however the pilot likes, and yet require 100% synchrony at the destination
for a non-local flight (which would preclude one couple antique shopping
and
the other sitting on the beach, even though all are friends and are
otherwise having a nice weekend together, for example).

This has been interpreted both ways by different FSDO's and in different
cases. If I was a single owner planning to got to Podunk for a meeting and
a friend wanted to hitch along and go to a museum, I would let him share the
expenses. I think that, in a club, where we are all effected if someone
else screws up, we need to stay a little clearer. This is an area where
someone could easily get in a jamb. If a member went off the runway, the
passenger might innocently say to an FAA inspector that the pilot "Brought
me down to go to...." Until I know that our FSDO and insurance company
considers going the same place for different reasons to be "commanality of
purpose", I'd think we should stick with this.

As for 24(d), a strict interpretation would prohibit pretty much all
rentals
by cash-strapped members. When I was first starting out flying, I pretty
much could afford no flying unless I brought a friend or two. I couldn't
d enough time in the plane to make it worth the drive to the airport.

I doubt this will crimp anyone's style in our club. If someone decides not
to go flying because they can't find a companion, fine. This is just a
warning not to leave a paper trail or have discussions that might be
repeated in an investigation. There's a good AOPA article on this as well.


I agree with Larry that #25 is just plain silly. It's true that the FAA
says a Private Pilot is not allowed to receive free use of an aircraft for
services rendered, since that amounts to compensation. But a) I see no
reason to disallow Commercial pilots from receiving such compensation
(ferry, repositioning, etc. are all legal under Part 91) and b) the club
should not be asking non-commercial pilots to be doing such tasks anyway.

Yup, it's silly. See reply to Larry above.

Our insurance does not permit uses of the plane that would require a
commercial license. I don't want to split this hair with them.

Speaking of silly, I don't see any reason why a PP member should not make a
flight they would otherwise consider routine just because the oil is going
to be changed at the destination. It's good experience for members to have
exposure to the shop and see under the cowl. We are all owners of the plane
and owners are permitted to move their aircraft around. Since we have an
hourly rate however, we have to insure that no member gains an economic
benefit by flying the plane. FAA, silly or not, says, "no logging, no
compensation". Easier to do it their way than get the rules changed.

Anyway, I'll reiterate my feeling that your club is going a little
overboard
with all these rules. But assuming you want to stick to that plan, the
rules you've posted need some work, I think.

Thanks. This is very helpful preparation for dodging the eggs and tomatoes
tonight.

--
Roger Long