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

Under the (pilot must pay) rules, is it legal for a pilot's father to pay for
his training? (i.e. instrument rating, including solo flights)?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On 25 Sep 2004 14:24:14 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

Under the (pilot must pay) rules, is it legal for a pilot's father to pay for
his training? (i.e. instrument rating, including solo flights)?

I believe that is a different scenario. Father didn't fly a plane
across the county and pay for his son fly it back for him. Father
isn't in the aircraft, nor has father benefited from son's flying. It
would be illegal for father to pay 100% of the rental for an aircraft
that non-pilot father gets transported in with son at controls after
training.

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
"Potential commercial operation" is not the issue.

It is with respect to George's comments.

There are two categories of things that a private pilot
can't do under 61.113:

If you want to talk about 61.113, I think it would make more sense to reply
to a post written by someone who also is talking about 61.113.

Pete

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
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.
:
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.
:
That some pilots get paid for ferry flights doesn't make it illegal for a
private pilot to fill the role for free.

So. Someone else could pay all the costs of a flight as long as you
were solo. If they wanted to come along, it would then be against
the rules.

Glad I don't make or enforce the rules...

Is the load you're prohibed to carry restricted to passengers, freight,
gliders, parachutists, etc, or can it relate to the plane itself?

Paul

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.

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

Hmmm...well, I see what you mean. But I'm not sure the FAA bothers to make
that distinction. That is, I believe that they say that logged time is
compensation, whether or not you ever intend to use it for another rating.

If you don't even log the time, then yes...I'd agree that even the FAA would
be hard-pressed to find a "compensation" facet to the operation.

Pete