Ferry flight a commercial op?

"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

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
t...
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.


I don't think so. As a PPL, your analysis could apply to any of my
passengers. They are getting a flight for free that otherwise they would
have to pay for.

"...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 part seems to refer to the aircraft. i.e. it is the aircraft that
is carrying passengers or property for hire and a PPL is prohibited from
acting as PIC of such an aircraft. If that's not the case, then a PPL could
volunteer to take paying passengers (or cargo). The second part seems to
apply to the pilot and we know that required flight experience is considered
compensation.

So a PPL could volunteer to deliver a plane for a ferry service. The ferry
service is being paid. The PPL is not being compensated (not even logging
the time) or hired. The plane isn't carrying any passengers or property for
hire. That sounds like a doable mission according to the letter of the FARs.
I suspect that the FAA could make the arguement that the nature of the
flight is beyond the trained judgement of the PPL.

What about this one...
Could I advertise a no-cost ferry business? Not much different than
borrowing a friends plane except that I'm advertising. I'm not being
compensated. I won't log the hours. The plane is not carrying anything and
isn't for hire. In this case, there isn't a ferry service that is getting
paid either. Again, I think the FAA could make an argument, since I am
entering into a contract with the general public, that the flights warrant a
commercial license.

The wording has probably lasted this long because there are not that many
people with the time and net-worth to be flying around not making any money.
Doing it for the logged flight hours has been held up as compensation so it
must be un-logged, volunteer flying.

How about a teenage PPL who just wants to go flying (and log it). His
parents are so desperate to get him off the couch that they pay for all his
flight time. Sounds like compensated flying.
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in
. net:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
t...
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.


I don't think so. As a PPL, your analysis could apply to any of my
passengers. They are getting a flight for free that otherwise they
would have to pay for.

"...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 part seems to refer to the aircraft. i.e. it is the aircraft
that is carrying passengers or property for hire and a PPL is
prohibited from acting as PIC of such an aircraft. If that's not the
case, then a PPL could volunteer to take paying passengers (or cargo).
The second part seems to apply to the pilot and we know that required
flight experience is considered compensation.

So a PPL could volunteer to deliver a plane for a ferry service. The
ferry service is being paid. The PPL is not being compensated (not
even logging the time) or hired. The plane isn't carrying any
passengers or property for hire. That sounds like a doable mission
according to the letter of the FARs. I suspect that the FAA could make
the arguement that the nature of the flight is beyond the trained
judgement of the PPL.



Nope.

They'd do him for that.

Mone's changing hands for moving the airplane, it's a commercial
operation.


What about this one...
Could I advertise a no-cost ferry business? Not much different than
borrowing a friends plane except that I'm advertising. I'm not being
compensated. I won't log the hours. The plane is not carrying anything
and isn't for hire. In this case, there isn't a ferry service that is
getting paid either. Again, I think the FAA could make an argument,
since I am entering into a contract with the general public, that the
flights warrant a commercial license.

The wording has probably lasted this long because there are not that
many people with the time and net-worth to be flying around not making
any money. Doing it for the logged flight hours has been held up as
compensation so it must be un-logged, volunteer flying.

How about a teenage PPL who just wants to go flying (and log it). His
parents are so desperate to get him off the couch that they pay for
all his flight time. Sounds like compensated flying.
-----------------------------

Please tell me you don;'t work for the FAA. Last thing needed there is
an imaginative policeman.


Bertie

Recently, Travis Marlatte posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
t...
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.

I don't think so. As a PPL, your analysis could apply to any of my
passengers. They are getting a flight for free that otherwise they
would have to pay for.

Taking passengers to locations for their purposes and that you would not
otherwise be going is specifically disallowed in the FARs, regardless of
whether you charge for the "service". OTOH, such activities as taking
co-workers to a work site or taking friends somewhere (or nowhere) that
you are going is specifically allowed.

"...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 part seems to refer to the aircraft. i.e. it is the
aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for hire and a PPL
is prohibited from acting as PIC of such an aircraft.

The first part refers to "...no person who holds a private pilot
certificate...", and the rest spells out what that person cannot do.

If that's not
the case, then a PPL could volunteer to take paying passengers (or
cargo). The second part seems to apply to the pilot and we know that
required flight experience is considered compensation.

See above.

So a PPL could volunteer to deliver a plane for a ferry service. The
ferry service is being paid. The PPL is not being compensated (not
even logging the time) or hired. The plane isn't carrying any
passengers or property for hire. That sounds like a doable mission
according to the letter of the FARs. I suspect that the FAA could
make the arguement that the nature of the flight is beyond the
trained judgement of the PPL.

That can get you into hot water for reasons in my previous post.

What about this one...
Could I advertise a no-cost ferry business?

No.

This really is a question of elementary accounting and both the letter and
intent of the FARs. I think it would help you to actually read the FARs to
get a better handle on this as it really is not all that murky an issue.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Recently, Travis Marlatte posted:


Taking passengers to locations for their purposes and that you would not
otherwise be going is specifically disallowed in the FARs, regardless of
whether you charge for the "service". OTOH, such activities as taking
co-workers to a work site or taking friends somewhere (or nowhere) that
you are going is specifically allowed.


Could I advertise a no-cost ferry business?

No.


Why not?

"Travis Marlatte" wrote in message
. net...

volunteer to take paying passengers (or cargo). The second part seems to
apply to the pilot and we know that required flight experience is
considered compensation.


How do we know this? Is there are ruling somewhere?

"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...