Renting an airplane? Need Expert FARS Advice??

Recently, NW_PILOT posted:

Ok, Fellow Pilots Here Is The Situation:

"A Private Pilot wants to rent an airplane and this person wants to
fly it from the west coast to the east coast but not back."

Sounds to me that you're missing your best opportunity by not marrying the
girl! ;-)

It also doesn't sound like a violation of the FARs, unless you consider
the cost of the return trip as being paid to ferry the plane. But, that's
a stretch, IMO, because there isn't any rule saying that you *must* pay to
fly; just that you can't _get paid_ to fly as a private pilot. I wouldn't
expect that you'd hear a peep from the FSDO.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
ink.net...
Recently, NW_PILOT posted:

Ok, Fellow Pilots Here Is The Situation:

"A Private Pilot wants to rent an airplane and this person wants to
fly it from the west coast to the east coast but not back."

Sounds to me that you're missing your best opportunity by not marrying the
girl! ;-)


Sorry I cannot do that I am already married,

"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
ink.net...
Sounds to me that you're missing your best opportunity by not marrying
the
girl! ;-)

Sorry I cannot do that I am already married,

What?!

Then you should volunteer one of us for the job.

Paul

"Neil Gould" wrote in message link.net...
Recently, NW_PILOT posted:

Ok, Fellow Pilots Here Is The Situation:

"A Private Pilot wants to rent an airplane and this person wants to
fly it from the west coast to the east coast but not back."

Sounds to me that you're missing your best opportunity by not marrying the
girl! ;-)

It also doesn't sound like a violation of the FARs, unless you consider
the cost of the return trip as being paid to ferry the plane. But, that's
a stretch, IMO, because there isn't any rule saying that you *must* pay to
fly; just that you can't _get paid_ to fly as a private pilot. I wouldn't
expect that you'd hear a peep from the FSDO.

Well, I can't claim to have memorized the FARs, but I'm pretty sure
that marriage isn't a violation.

But, I'm also pretty sure that flying for free is considered
compensation:

61.117 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Second in command
of aircraft requiring more than one pilot.

Except as provided in §61.113 of this part, no private pilot may, for
compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is
type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as
second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
property for compensation or hire.

and:

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.

Seems that flying back to the west coast would be compensation and
less than your pro-rata share of the flight. Since you're flying
alone then, your pro-rate share is 100%.

-Malcolm Teas

On 23 Sep 2004 13:13:51 -0700, (Malcolm Teas) wrote:


61.117 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Second in command
of aircraft requiring more than one pilot.

Except as provided in §61.113 of this part, no private pilot may, for
compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is
type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as
second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
property for compensation or hire.

Not that I disagree with the position that he'd be in violation of the
FAR's by flying the aircraft back alone without paying for it, might I
ask what the bit about second in command of a type-certified for
multi-pilot aircraft has to do with the OP's question?

Malcolm Teas wrote:

61.117 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Second in command
of aircraft requiring more than one pilot.

Except as provided in §61.113 of this part, no private pilot may, for
compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is
type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as
second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
property for compensation or hire.

Few small planes are type certified to require more than one pilot, so it's highly
unlikely that he would be serving as second in command of such a plane. As described,
the flight is not carrying anything for hire, so he wouldn't be doing that either.
This FAR is not applicable to the flight.

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.

Seems that flying back to the west coast would be compensation and
less than your pro-rata share of the flight. Since you're flying
alone then, your pro-rate share is 100%.

Since he's flying alone, there are no passengers, so this FAR doesn't apply either.

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

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
Malcolm Teas wrote:

61.117 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Second in command
of aircraft requiring more than one pilot.

Except as provided in §61.113 of this part, no private pilot may, for
compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is
type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as
second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
property for compensation or hire.

Few small planes are type certified to require more than one pilot, so it's highly
unlikely that he would be serving as second in command of such a plane. As described,
the flight is not carrying anything for hire, so he wouldn't be doing that either.
This FAR is not applicable to the flight.

Yup! Absolutely right. I cut-and-pasted the wrong thing clearly.
Mea culpa. I saw the "Private pilot privileges and limitations" part
and started selecting text.


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.

Seems that flying back to the west coast would be compensation and
less than your pro-rata share of the flight. Since you're flying
alone then, your pro-rate share is 100%.

Since he's flying alone, there are no passengers, so this FAR doesn't apply either.

I understand your comment and might agree but for the "may not pay
less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight"
aspect. It's clear that the return trip will have operating expenses.
It's also clear that he won't be paying them.

I think the flight - as stated - violates the intent of the FARs. I'd
love to be asked to fly for free across the country, but am convinced
the FAA would take a dim view. But, I'm not PIC for this flight and
given my cut-and-paste error above, I doubt I'll claim to be a FAR
expert either. grin

-Malcolm Teas

Malcolm Teas wrote:

I understand your comment and might agree but for the "may not pay
less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight"
aspect. It's clear that the return trip will have operating expenses.
It's also clear that he won't be paying them.

Then you really don't understand my comment. The FAR clearly states that it ONLY
applies to flights WITH passengers, and there are none.

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

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
Malcolm Teas wrote:

61.117 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Second in command
of aircraft requiring more than one pilot.

Except as provided in §61.113 of this part, no private pilot may, for
compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is
type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as
second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
property for compensation or hire.

Few small planes are type certified to require more than one pilot, so it's highly
unlikely that he would be serving as second in command of such a plane. As described,
the flight is not carrying anything for hire, so he wouldn't be doing that either.
This FAR is not applicable to the flight.

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.

Seems that flying back to the west coast would be compensation and
less than your pro-rata share of the flight. Since you're flying
alone then, your pro-rate share is 100%.

Since he's flying alone, there are no passengers, so this FAR doesn't apply either.

Sec. 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in
command.^M
^M
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section,
no^M
person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in
command of^M
an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation
or hire;^M
nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command
of an^M
aircraft.^M

If he flys back on his own, it would be hard for him to not be PIC.
The FAA has busted people for being able to fly without paying before
(. They consider that compensation. Example.. if the FBO asks you to
fly a plane down to another airport for annual, that is always
considered commercial. That's a good reason for CFIs to keep their 2nd
class medical current.

-Roebrt (with current 2nd class medical)

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

If he flys back on his own, it would be hard for him to not be PIC.
The FAA has busted people for being able to fly without paying before
(. They consider that compensation.

As I said before, the FAA has regarded flight time as compensation, but, so far, they
have only done so in cases in which the pilot was competing with professionals at a
job normally done for hire. The infamous case was a pilot who was flying a glider tow
plane to build time. So far, the FAA has never violated a pilot for the sort of
flight which NW_PILOT is considering.

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