Ferry flight a commercial op?

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were flying
it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the buyer. A CFI in
the club said I can't, because it's a commercial operation, even though
I'm not getting paid. Is he right?

It seems to me that he's only right to the extent that if the transaction
was reversed, ie, you were buying the plane rather than selling it, it would
be a commercial transaction.

That suggests that you also can't buy an airplane and fly it away because
it's a "commercial operation." Personally, I think you'd have to screw up
in a lot of ways before the FAA started looking with that much scrutiny.
Why should a private club have to hire a commercial pilot to sell an
airplane? Do people actually do that?

Has anybody here -ever- seen any legal trouble over something like this?

-c
commercial and still confused.

"Gatt" wrote in
:


"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
Our flying club sold our PA32R Lance because very few people were
flying it. As one of that few, I offered to ferry it out to the
buyer. A CFI in the club said I can't, because it's a commercial
operation, even though I'm not getting paid. Is he right?

It seems to me that he's only right to the extent that if the
transaction was reversed, ie, you were buying the plane rather than
selling it, it would be a commercial transaction.

That suggests that you also can't buy an airplane and fly it away
because it's a "commercial operation." Personally, I think you'd
have to screw up in a lot of ways before the FAA started looking with
that much scrutiny. Why should a private club have to hire a
commercial pilot to sell an airplane? Do people actually do that?


Only for convienience.


Has anybody here -ever- seen any legal trouble over something like
this?


Doubt it. I used to ferry commercially, but I was paid. The CFI that said
that is talking out of his ass.


Bertie

"Gatt" wrote in message
...

It seems to me that he's only right to the extent that if the transaction
was reversed, ie, you were buying the plane rather than selling it, it
would be a commercial transaction.

That suggests that you also can't buy an airplane and fly it away because
it's a "commercial operation." Personally, I think you'd have to screw
up in a lot of ways before the FAA started looking with that much
scrutiny. Why should a private club have to hire a commercial pilot to
sell an airplane? Do people actually do that?

Has anybody here -ever- seen any legal trouble over something like this?


Something like ten years ago, maybe more, there was a case that involved a
skydiving club. One of the members was also a private pilot and volunteered
to fly the jump plane. He thought it a great way to build free time towards
his commercial. Since he was using the time towards another rating it was
deemed to be compensation since he'd otherwise have to pay for it and the
flights were a commercial operation.

On Nov 13, 5:53 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
Something like ten years ago, maybe more, there was a case that involved a
skydiving club. One of the members was also a private pilot and volunteered
to fly the jump plane. He thought it a great way to build free time towards
his commercial. Since he was using the time towards another rating it was
deemed to be compensation since he'd otherwise have to pay for it and the
flights were a commercial operation.


http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf

this case?

If so, in that case, the pilot was in the wrong because he was flying
passengers who had paid to be there. Therefore, even though he wasn't
getting paid, a company (or in this case a skydiving club) was being
compensated for his piloting services. The fact that he was trying to
build time is irrelevant.

In the case of an already-sold plane being delivered to the buyer, the
way I see it, No one is being compensated (the pilot nor the seller)
for the flight.

"buttman" wrote in message
ps.com...

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf

this case?


Could be.



If so, in that case, the pilot was in the wrong because he was flying
passengers who had paid to be there. Therefore, even though he wasn't
getting paid, a company (or in this case a skydiving club) was being
compensated for his piloting services. The fact that he was trying to
build time is irrelevant.


The club was compensated for skydiving instruction, not for the services of
the pilot.

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll posted:

"buttman" wrote in message
ps.com...

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf

this case?


Could be.



If so, in that case, the pilot was in the wrong because he was flying
passengers who had paid to be there. Therefore, even though he wasn't
getting paid, a company (or in this case a skydiving club) was being
compensated for his piloting services. The fact that he was trying to
build time is irrelevant.


The club was compensated for skydiving instruction, not for the
services of the pilot.

If the club didn't have to pay for a pilot for services rendered that they
received payment, then the club had a net profit from the pilot's
contribution. The only question is whether someone else's benefit (the
club's) makes an operation commercial for all involved. If so, then a
situation where a club (or flying school) profits from the rental of an
aircraft by a student could get fuzzy real fast. Since that doesn't seem
to be an issue, I'd think that the ferrying of the sold aircraft would
also not be an issue *as long as the pilot paid the expense of the trip*.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...

If the club didn't have to pay for a pilot for services rendered that they
received payment, then the club had a net profit from the pilot's
contribution.


Not necessarily. They could also have a net loss or they could break even.

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...

If the club didn't have to pay for a pilot for services rendered
that they received payment, then the club had a net profit from the
pilot's contribution.


Not necessarily. They could also have a net loss or they could break
even.

I wasn't referring to their year-end financial report.

At any rate, I suspect that most laws and rules are written at a certain
level of naiveté and it is the unintended consequences that lead to such
ambiguities as those we're discussing. A service that you get for free
that you would otherwise have to pay for is recorded in the credits
column, and just that could qualify the service as a commercial
transaction. If that service is of sufficient value, it *will* be of
interest to the IRS and thus the FAA and so forth, regardless of the
year-end financial picture.

Bottom line as I see it is that unless someone has a bug up their
posterior, this ferry flight is unlikely to become an issue for anyone
unless the club picks up the cost of the trip.

Neil

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
:


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...

If the club didn't have to pay for a pilot for services rendered that
they received payment, then the club had a net profit from the pilot's
contribution.


Not necessarily. They could also have a net loss or they could break
even.



IMHO, it's not about the profit.

I would compare the cases to similar situations on the ground. For example,
the case you brought up would compare to an employee of a Limo company who
is not yet commercially rated (have his "hack license) taking the wheel of
a party Limo to build time torward his rating. The riders didn't pay for
the driver, they just payed for a party in a limo. But I think it's pretty
clear that he needs to have his hack license to do this.

The case that the OP brought up is more like if a Limo company sold one of
the town cars to an individual. I don't think I would need a hack license
to drive the town car to the buyer. At that point, I'm just an ordinary
citizen driving a town car.

Maybe I'm full of s%^&* but that's typically how I try to draw the line.
Of course common sense doesn't always apply when it comes to the FAA...

buttman wrote in
ps.com:

On Nov 13, 5:53 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
Something like ten years ago, maybe more, there was a case that
involved a skydiving club. One of the members was also a private
pilot and volunteered to fly the jump plane. He thought it a great
way to build free time towards his commercial. Since he was using
the time towards another rating it was deemed to be compensation
since he'd otherwise have to pay for it and the flights were a
commercial operation.


http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4583.pdf

this case?

If so, in that case, the pilot was in the wrong because he was flying
passengers who had paid to be there. Therefore, even though he wasn't
getting paid, a company (or in this case a skydiving club) was being
compensated for his piloting services. The fact that he was trying to
build time is irrelevant.

In the case of an already-sold plane being delivered to the buyer, the
way I see it, No one is being compensated (the pilot nor the seller)
for the flight.



Desperate to build a little time are we?

I wouldn't bother if I was you.


Bertie