Cost of operating a Skyhawk

Jim Carter wrote:
wrote in message
...
Jim Carter wrote:
...
If the friend is a US pilot, there are the restrictions of 14 CFR 61.113
about reimbursement.


The restrictions prohibit the pilot (friend) from making a profit, they do
not restrict the owner from recovering a pro-rata percentage of the
operating cost of the aircraft. I believe the total costs would be
considered operating costs because if the owner didn't invest in the
aircraft to start with how could it be operated at all?

And you would be wrong.

From 14 CFR 61.113 (c)

....provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expeditures, or
rental fees.

As a US private pilot, you can't "share" the cost of such things as engine
overhauls, home based tie down fees, insurance, normal maintenance, etc.


If you want to concider it a rental, then all the requirements like 100hr
inspections apply.


Right. That's part of my point when I mentioned renting costing more than
just direct costs, however I suppose a 100 hour would be an additional
direct cost with which the private owner wouldn't have to deal.

As a US operation, you can't charge for anything other than a prorated
share of the expenses noted above and be operating under 14 CFR 61.


In any case, if I were to share an auto trip with someone, I wouldn't
expect them to pay a share of my annual insurance or prorated cost of
new tires.

--
Jim Pennino


Why not Jim? How is it fair that the owner pay for items from which the
passenger benefits? I have to admit that I don't charge passengers to ride
with me in the car as long as I have to go anyway, but that's my choice. The
fair thing is to split all costs evenly and that should be assumed by any
passenger in any vehicle. If the owner/operator wants to be more gratious
then that's their choice, not the passengers.

Mr. Norris was the passenger on this trip, and it was he who had written
that he wouldn't pay anything except direct costs. I think that is the
morally wrong position for him to take.

The bottom line is under US regs you can't legally do this under 14 CFR 61.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Jim Carter
wrote in message
...
...
And you would be wrong.

From 14 CFR 61.113 (c)

...provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expeditures, or
rental fees.

As a US private pilot, you can't "share" the cost of such things as engine
overhauls, home based tie down fees, insurance, normal maintenance, etc.

...
--
Jim Pennino


And "airport expenditures" would be? I interpret that to mean any
expenditure I make to maintain the aircraft at the airport in an airworthy
condition. Admittedly, "airport expenditures" is rather abstract and might
go either way, but until it is more properly defined mighten it also cover
maintenance, hanger or tie down, and any other expense at the airport for
the aircraft? The CFR doesn't specifically say landing fee, or parking fee,
but it could have.

Please understand, I'm not advocating any fees or charges here. What I am
saying is that it should be up to the owner to decide what the hourly rate
is that the passenger would be splitting, not the passenger. That was the
whole point of my post and I believe I even said so in a previous note.

Jim Carter wrote:
Jim Carter
wrote in message
...
...
And you would be wrong.

From 14 CFR 61.113 (c)

...provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expeditures, or
rental fees.

As a US private pilot, you can't "share" the cost of such things as engine
overhauls, home based tie down fees, insurance, normal maintenance, etc.

...
--
Jim Pennino


And "airport expenditures" would be? I interpret that to mean any
expenditure I make to maintain the aircraft at the airport in an airworthy
condition. Admittedly, "airport expenditures" is rather abstract and might
go either way, but until it is more properly defined mighten it also cover
maintenance, hanger or tie down, and any other expense at the airport for
the aircraft? The CFR doesn't specifically say landing fee, or parking fee,
but it could have.

Please understand, I'm not advocating any fees or charges here. What I am
saying is that it should be up to the owner to decide what the hourly rate
is that the passenger would be splitting, not the passenger. That was the
whole point of my post and I believe I even said so in a previous note.

AOPA has numerous articles on the subject at
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/to...1-part135.html

From one of them:

Passengers on a flight with a pilot who was already planning to take the
trip for his own purposes can contribute equally with the pilot to the
direct operating costs of the flight. This includes the gas and oil used,
the landing fee, and the rental cost if the pilot does not own the aircraft.
Passengers may not contribute to the pilot's indirect expenses incurred
because of the flight, such as the airplane's annual inspection, oil changes,
or hangar rental. "These are rules that are broken daily by pilots and
passengers who do not realize that they are in violation," said Kathy Minner,
an AOPA aviation technical specialist. "Some pilots go their whole lives not
knowing, or call us after someone ? perhaps an FAA official ? raises the
question to them."

Sounds like they are describing you.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Jim Carter wrote:

And "airport expenditures" would be?

The ramp fees and landing fees associated with that flight.

I interpret that to mean any
expenditure I make to maintain the aircraft at the airport in an airworthy
condition.

And you would lose your certificate at the first hearing if violated.

Admittedly, "airport expenditures" is rather abstract and might
go either way, but until it is more properly defined mighten it also cover
maintenance, hanger or tie down, and any other expense at the airport for
the aircraft? The CFR doesn't specifically say landing fee, or parking fee,
but it could have.

The CFR says "operating expenses of a flight". That is not abstract and cannot "go
either way", especially in an FAA hearing.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Mr. Norris was the passenger on this trip, and it was he who had written
that he wouldn't pay anything except direct costs.

That's your (mis)interpretation. The fact is, my friend asked me to
fly with him instead of taking my own airplane because his intended
fellow-pilot can't go. I was the one who said I would go but with the
understanding I would pay half the full operating costs. On a previous
long cross country when I flew my own airplane, he asked his passenger
to pay only half of the gas. I wouldhn't have felt right paying only
that much.

The bottom line is under US regs you can't legally do this under 14 CFR 61.

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
Mr. Norris was the passenger on this trip, and it was he who had
written
that he wouldn't pay anything except direct costs.

That's your (mis)interpretation. The fact is, my friend asked me to
fly with him instead of taking my own airplane because his intended
fellow-pilot can't go. I was the one who said I would go but with the
understanding I would pay half the full operating costs. On a previous
long cross country when I flew my own airplane, he asked his passenger
to pay only half of the gas. I wouldhn't have felt right paying only
that much.

The bottom line is under US regs you can't legally do this under 14 CFR
61.

vince norris

Well, sir, if it's appreciating like a Skylane you will only need to buy in
on the avgas.