Renting an airplane? Need Expert FARS Advice??

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
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.

I don't understand your comments. Ferrying an airplane back is definitely
something that professionals normally do for hire, and that's exactly what
NW_PILOT is proposing. As far as building time goes, how is flying an
airplane back across the country for someone else not just as much about
building time as flying a glide tow plane?

You seem to be saying that the FAA would violate a pilot doing this, but
also saying that the FAA would not violate a pilot doing this. It's clear
what you intend to say, but the truth is that your comments are
self-contradictory. You simply don't seem to recognize this as the
potential commercial operation that it is.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

You seem to be saying that the FAA would violate a pilot doing this, but
also saying that the FAA would not violate a pilot doing this. It's clear
what you intend to say, but the truth is that your comments are
self-contradictory. You simply don't seem to recognize this as the
potential commercial operation that it is.

"Potential commercial operation" is not the issue. There are two categories
of things that a private pilot can't do under 61.113:

---
(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;

nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an
aircraft.
---

The first prohibition relates to whether compensation is paid for the
carriage of passengers or property. It doesn't cover "potential commercial
operations", and it doesn't matter if the operation would normally be
carried out by professionals. All that matters is whether someone is paying
someone else for a person to occupy a seat or for freight to occupy a seat.

The second prohibition is quite separate. It says that the private pilot
cannot receive compensation for acting as pilot.

I have yet to see an account of a case cited where the FAA has busted a
private pilot for flying for free which didn't come under the *first*
prohibition. The issue is *not* that flying for free is compensation, but
rather that someone is paying someone else for carriage, even if neither of
those parties is the pilot.

Roger Long cited a case in a thread a while back:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...2-gui.ntli.net
in which an FAA counsel opinion was quoted in just such a situation.

That some pilots get paid for ferry flights doesn't make it illegal for a
private pilot to fill the role for free.

Finally the exceptions in paragraphs (b) to (g) have to be read as just
that, exceptions from paragraph (a). It makes no sense to read

---
(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.

---

in isolation. If you were to read it in isolation, the "provided" clause
would make no sense: the pilot *must* pay his share if he includes only
fuel, oil and airport expenditures, but he does *not* have to do so if he
adds in an allowance for maintenance and hangarage(?). That's clearly
nonsensical. What (c) is doing is allowing the second prohibition in (a) to
be violated in certain circumstances. If (a) is not violated, (c) is
irrelevant. And thus it makes no difference if a (non-fare-paying)
passenger is carried on the ferry flight.

Julian Scarfe

Peter Duniho wrote:

I don't understand your comments.

Ok, then I've not phrased things well. In the case I mentioned, the key argument the
FAA advanced was that the towplane pilot was time-building; that is, he intended to
use the time flying the towplane to fulfill part of the requirements for his next
certificate. As such, the time was valuable and he would have had to pay for it had
he not volunteered to fly the towplane. That made it compensation. The fact that he
was competing with professionals for the towplane job got him busted but did not
otherwise figure in the case.

So, the real question here is whether or not NW_PILOT is intending to pursue another
rating or certificate and intends to use this time as part of the time necessary to
fulfill the requirements for that rating. If so, he could be busted for violation of
this FAR, and there is precedence for a guilty verdict. If not, there is no
precedence for a bust or guilty verdict (though I suppose he could be the first).

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

Does this mean that if a private pilot has a friend who owns a 172, and the
friend allows the private pilot to fly the 172 whenever the private pilot
wants, and the friend does not charge the private pilot for the flight time,
then the private pilot is in violation?

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
"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)

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:09:33 -0400, "Michael Brown"
wrote:

Does this mean that if a private pilot has a friend who owns a 172, and the
friend allows the private pilot to fly the 172 whenever the private pilot
wants, and the friend does not charge the private pilot for the flight time,
then the private pilot is in violation?

If the person borrowing the aircraft doesn't pay for the gas and oil
they use, I would suspect that yes, it could be considered a
violation.

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
Does this mean that if a private pilot has a friend who owns a 172, and
the
friend allows the private pilot to fly the 172 whenever the private pilot
wants, and the friend does not charge the private pilot for the flight
time, then the private pilot is in violation?

If the person borrowing the aircraft doesn't pay for the gas and oil
they use, I would suspect that yes, it could be considered a
violation.

I believe that it would depend on whether the owner of the aircraft was
getting something in the deal. It's hard to claim that the pilot is
actually flying FOR compensation, if there was no need for the pilot to fly
the airplane. Just because the pilot could be considered compensated, that
doesn't mean that the pilot did the flying FOR the compensation.

Now, the FAA could (would?) equivocate on whether the owner of the aircraft
was getting something in return. For example, an airplane that sits idle is
worse off than an airplane that is regularly flown. The FAA might accuse
the pilot of providing a service to the owner, simply by keeping the
airplane flown.

But generally speaking, no I would not expect the FAA to have any problem at
all with a friend loaning a plane to another friend, as long as the other
friend was flying for themselves, and not for the owner.

Pete