PPL question payment for flight

You say that I am playing stupid word games.
In fact have you read the following part?


FAR Part 61.113
(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the
operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses
involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

And whats written there?

....may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses...
e.g A one hour flight with 3 passengers costs 80$ rental fees.
so you have to pay a minimum of 20$. Thats the minimum!!!
Nothing is written about the maximum what a passenger has to pay!
For this case is paragraph (a)! Please read it!

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no
person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command
of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation
or hire

Is there something written about what is included or not? No.
The definition is: ... for compensation or hire.

You think this is a word game? Maybe that's the reason why in the USofA,
you can make money by going to the judge because in a Microwave
Usermanual was nothing written about, not to put a pet in it!

Roger



Mike Rapoport wrote:
Neither the FAA nor the judge is going to play stupid word games with you.

Mike
MU-2


"Roger Tschanz" wrote in message
...

And who says the price for rental fees, how are they defined? And what
if you own an aircraft, then you are the one who defines the self-rental
fees!
It's a question of definition.

$80 divided by 3 people is $26.67, not $20.

What the rule states (altho not clearly) is that the PIC may pay
exactly 1/3 of the cost OR upto and including the ENTIRE cost of
the flight.

Anything else is "compensation for hire".

The phrase "pro rata" translates to "fair share".

Not to nitpick, but Roger said 3 passengers, which would be then divided by
4, hence $20 minimum.

I pay for the entire flight myself and haven't had to divide my costs. If I
can't afford to fly someplace without passengers, I don't fly...

"blanche cohen" wrote in message
...
$80 divided by 3 people is $26.67, not $20.

What the rule states (altho not clearly) is that the PIC may pay
exactly 1/3 of the cost OR upto and including the ENTIRE cost of
the flight.

Anything else is "compensation for hire".

The phrase "pro rata" translates to "fair share".

OK, here's one. I have heard the FAA considers "time" to be compensation.
The following is hypothetical.

Let's say I have a wife who thinks flying is a waste of my time. So she
always gives me a hard time when I want to use the plane. Now, she has a
friend who needs to get somewhere, a small airport that no commercial planes
go, and she asks me to fly her there. No monetary compensation is involved
(nor other "favors" from her friend, for those of you with dirty minds).
All I get out of it is time flying, and I bear all the costs. I would have
no other reason to fly to that particular field (although no reason not to
either).

Is this legal in the FAAs eyes?


"Greg Burkhart" wrote in message
news:hgyRa.81603$N7.9685@sccrnsc03...
Not to nitpick, but Roger said 3 passengers, which would be then divided
by
4, hence $20 minimum.

I pay for the entire flight myself and haven't had to divide my costs. If
I
can't afford to fly someplace without passengers, I don't fly...

"blanche cohen" wrote in message
...
$80 divided by 3 people is $26.67, not $20.

What the rule states (altho not clearly) is that the PIC may pay
exactly 1/3 of the cost OR upto and including the ENTIRE cost of
the flight.

Anything else is "compensation for hire".

The phrase "pro rata" translates to "fair share".

"Peter Gottlieb"
snip
No monetary compensation is involved
(nor other "favors" from her friend, for those of you with dirty minds).
All I get out of it is time flying, and I bear all the costs. I would
have
no other reason to fly to that particular field (although no reason not to
either).

No dirty minds here. We believe you, nothing happened with "the friend."

....so, why do you think your wife (and her friend) wanted you out of town
for the afternoon?? g

Answer to your FAA question: You are acting as a (money losing) air taxi
service. Bad.

Hey, what a coincidence. I was planning to fly over there next Wednesday
anyway. Not bad.

--
Montblack

"Montblack" wrote in message
.. .
No dirty minds here. We believe you, nothing happened with "the friend."

...so, why do you think your wife (and her friend) wanted you out of town
for the afternoon?? g

Maybe I should have done something with the friend... I never thought of
that angle!

Answer to your FAA question: You are acting as a (money losing) air taxi
service. Bad.

So, in the eyes of the FAA, I would have to drive a car instead?

Hey, what a coincidence. I was planning to fly over there next Wednesday
anyway. Not bad.

How did you know that?

"Montblack" wrote in message ...
"Peter Gottlieb"
snip
No monetary compensation is involved
(nor other "favors" from her friend, for those of you with dirty minds).
All I get out of it is time flying, and I bear all the costs. I would
have
no other reason to fly to that particular field (although no reason not to
either).

No dirty minds here. We believe you, nothing happened with "the friend."

...so, why do you think your wife (and her friend) wanted you out of town
for the afternoon?? g

Answer to your FAA question: You are acting as a (money losing) air taxi
service. Bad.

Gotta disagree with this one Montblack. If there was no
compensation involved, Peter is not acting as an air taxi. As far as
the FAA is concerned, you can fly anyone, anywhere, anytime as long as
you (the pilot) are paying for all costs associated with the flight.

The "commonality of purpose" and "pro rata share" tests only come
into play when money or other compensation is exchanged. Basically,
the rule exists to keep private pilots from making commercial flights.
The absence of any sort of compensation makes Peter's flight legit.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
...
OK, here's one. I have heard the FAA considers "time" to be compensation.

Only if someone else is providing the time.

[ferrying a wife's friend]
Is this legal in the FAAs eyes?

As far as I know, yes. I'm not aware of any enforcement action where, with
the pilot paying the entire cost of the flight, a pilot was found guilty of
operating for compensation or hire.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
...
OK, here's one. I have heard the FAA considers "time" to be compensation.

Only if someone else is providing the time.

[ferrying a wife's friend]
Is this legal in the FAAs eyes?

As far as I know, yes. I'm not aware of any enforcement action where, with
the pilot paying the entire cost of the flight, a pilot was found guilty of
operating for compensation or hire.

Pete

There is something close. In NTSB order (EA-4791), a private pilot transported
a mechanic for a medical air transportation service to repair one of their
stranded helicopters. The owner of the company initially tried to find a 135
carrier, but was unable to find anyone available for the flight. He was
eventually refered to a private pilot by an acquaintance who operated one of
the charter services. The private pilot who offered to do the flight and pay
all costs personally. He also advised the owner and mechanic that he was not
an air charter operator. On that flight, and two other related flights, the
owner of the medical transport co. offered to reimburse him for fuel, and the
private pilot refused to accept payment.

The FAA went after him and gave him a 365 day suspension, which was then
reduced to 180 days on appeal to the law judge. Fortunately, on appeal to
the NTSB, the charges were ultimately dismissed, but obviously not without a
great deal of hardship and expense.

Jeff H., CFI-A

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message t...
OK, here's one. I have heard the FAA considers "time" to be compensation.
The following is hypothetical.

What you have heard is "kind of" correct. It came from a ruling
against a pilot who was not being compensated monetarily, but was
getting free use of an airplane. The logged flight time was
considered to be compensation, as the pilot would have otherwise had
to pay for the flight time. The specific case involved a
time-building pilot that was flying skydivers for a skydiving
operation for free. The FAA ruled that the pilot was being
compensated with free flight time. Flight time that you pay for
yourself is not considered compensation. If it was, you wouldn't be
able to fly yourself anywhere.


Let's say I have a wife who thinks flying is a waste of my time. So she
always gives me a hard time when I want to use the plane. Now, she has a
friend who needs to get somewhere, a small airport that no commercial planes
go, and she asks me to fly her there. No monetary compensation is involved
(nor other "favors" from her friend, for those of you with dirty minds).
All I get out of it is time flying, and I bear all the costs. I would have
no other reason to fly to that particular field (although no reason not to
either).

Is this legal in the FAAs eyes?

Yes, this is legal. If your wife's friend contributed nothing to
the flight, there was no compensation. You payed for the flight, so
there is no way it could be considered a commercial operation.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)