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

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

On 2007-11-13 19:25:30 -0800, buttman said:

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.

He was, but (just to be clear about this) it is not because he was
violating the rules for common carriage. See part 119.1:

§Â*119.1Â*Â*Â*Applicability.
...
(e) Except for operations when common carriage is not involved
conducted with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20
seats or more, excluding any required crewmember seat, or a payload
capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, this part does not apply to—
...
(6) Nonstop flights conducted within a 25-statute-mile radius of the
airport of takeoff carrying persons or objects for the purpose of
conducting intentional parachute operations.
So, it is not a question of whether he was carrying passengers as a
common carrier. It is a question of whether he was piloting an aircraft
and carrying passengers for compensation in violation of the privileges
and limitations of a private pilot certificate. The FAA said being
allowed to fly an aircraft for free was a form of compensation. The
problem I really have with this ruling (and the reason I brought this
subject up in the first place) was the Administrator's insistence that
a private pilot sharing expenses with his passengers must have a
'common purpose' with them for the flight. This is clearly wrong. You
almost get the impression that if the pilot had jumped out of the plane
along with the skydivers that the FAA would have been okay with that,
because then he would have shared enough 'common purpose' with the
skydivers to meet the 'shared expenses' rule (provided he had paid his
share of the expenses). Because he did not jump out of the plane, there
was no 'common purpose' with the skydivers. This is bogus, as the FARs
make no mention at all of the need for a 'common purpose' when sharing
expenses. See part 61.113 -- no mention of 'common purpose' at all:

§Â*61.113Â*Â*Â*Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
(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.
(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in
command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and
(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation
or hire.
(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.

I think it is clear that this was an obvious example of someone
attempting to circumvent the FARs governing commercial flight.
Unfortunately, this forced the FAA to adopt a position that adversely
affects private pilots engaged in ordinary activity. All it takes is
one guy to try to find a loophole, and the FAA will have to plug up the
loophole with a plug that blocks hundreds or even thousands of pilots
who are engaging in an activity that was formerly considered
legitimate. The 'common purpose' test is clearly out of bounds and
should only be used in cases of questions of common carriage. In this
case, the skydiving operation was clearly 'holding out' without having
to resort to any sort of 'common purpose' test. They were advertising
in the Yellow Pages, after all, which is how the pilot found them. But,
even though they were 'holding out,' they were still within the
exception of part 119.1(e)(3), so the issue of 'common purpose' should
never have come up at all.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

The FAA can interpret you logging the flight time as compensation and as
such the CFI is correct. I've actually had a long chat with AOPA on
this subject. I manage a light sport flight school and most of my staff
are age 60+ and don't carry medicals. They'd need a second class one to
ferry a plane if we paid them for their time. If they volunteer their
time though, it gets gray. AOPA is pretty certain though we're OK
letting them ferry planes as volunteers though just for the simple fact
that the FAA would have a hard time making a case that a 68 year old
40,000 hour pilot, really considered the .5 of hobbs time as
compensation he could use for his up and coming career.

Assuming you aren't age 68 with 40,000 hours, you should probably avoid
the ferry duty.

Helen


Paul Tomblin wrote:
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?

Helen wrote in
news:5zs_i.5854$VB6.2737@trnddc06:

The FAA can interpret you logging the flight time as compensation and
as such the CFI is correct. I've actually had a long chat with AOPA
on this subject. I manage a light sport flight school and most of my
staff are age 60+ and don't carry medicals. They'd need a second
class one to ferry a plane if we paid them for their time. If they
volunteer their time though, it gets gray. AOPA is pretty certain
though we're OK letting them ferry planes as volunteers though just
for the simple fact that the FAA would have a hard time making a case
that a 68 year old 40,000 hour pilot, really considered the .5 of
hobbs time as compensation he could use for his up and coming career.

Assuming you aren't age 68 with 40,000 hours, you should probably
avoid the ferry duty.


I disagree. There's nothing in the FARs that says that flying time has a
value.
If you go pich up your friend's car somewhere for him it doesn't make you a
taxi driver.

Bertie