Renting an airplane? Need Expert FARS Advice??

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

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

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 it's not a violation of 61.113 (I presume you're talking about it *this*
time, Peter) to provide a service to someone. It's a violation to be
*compensated* for providing that service. If the owner says "make this
flight for me and I'll lend you the aircraft for a few hours for free next
week" then that could be construed as compensation. If he just says "please
make this flight for me", I don't think it can.

Julian

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:42:20 GMT, "Julian Scarfe"
wrote:

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

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 it's not a violation of 61.113 (I presume you're talking about it *this*
time, Peter) to provide a service to someone. It's a violation to be
*compensated* for providing that service. If the owner says "make this
flight for me and I'll lend you the aircraft for a few hours for free next
week" then that could be construed as compensation. If he just says "please
make this flight for me", I don't think it can.

However, the FAA includes intangibles such as good will to be part of
what they weigh when considering whether compensation was garnered or
not. I don't believe they'd go out of their way to violate someone
just for using a friend's aircraft for free, but IMO a strict reading
of the "no compensation" rule would preclude it from being acceptable.
What is the pilot giving the owner in return for their paying for the
fuel, oil, and airport expenditures the pilot is accruing yet not
paying for? The pilot is getting free flight time, the owner is
getting a bill...

It seems to me that the underlying implication of the rule is that in
the eyes of the FAA the pilot is supposed to be paying for the flight
expenses in all cases. In this light, everything else is either an
exception, or needs to be Part 121 or 135. 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" is in the exception list -
and even it implies the baseline understanding that the pilot is
paying - all the pilot can do is carve up the authorized items in the
bill with the passengers, and even then the pilot can only reduce his
cost by his share of the seats used - and then there has to be common
purpose and all that. March 04 AOPA Pilot has an article "Commercial
operations and the private pilot". In this article the story is about
how pilot's friend was throwing a Super Bowl party at his restaurant
and some of the guests were being flown in, but the charter
arrangements fell through. Restaurant owner asked pilot friend for a
favor, can you go pick these people up. Pilot said sure, no
compensation here, just doing a favor for a friend. Pilot took no
money from restaurant owner, and paid for the flights. However, 4
flights later, FAA violated the pilot and pulled his certificate for
270 days. Appeal to NTSB was denied, and in their ruling they held
in part that "compensation need not be direct nor in the form of
money. Goodwill is a form of prohibited compensation." Of course
there were other parts of the ruling and circumstances were different
here (there were passengers involved), but they've established (or
continued? I didn't go that far back) the precedent that goodwill and
other indirect compensation should be examined when determining
whether the flight is prohibited or not.

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
[...] If the owner says "make this
flight for me and I'll lend you the aircraft for a few hours for free next
week" then that could be construed as compensation. If he just says
"please
make this flight for me", I don't think it can.

This has been covered so often in this newsgroup, it's hard to give you the
benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just trolling, but...

The flight itself is what the FAA would consider compensation. Even just
the one. In this particular scenario, the Private Pilot would be required
to pay his own way while operating the airplane. Otherwise, he is being
compensated (by the free use of the airplane).

Pete

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
[...] If the owner says "make this
flight for me and I'll lend you the aircraft for a few hours for free
next
week" then that could be construed as compensation. If he just says
"please
make this flight for me", I don't think it can.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

This has been covered so often in this newsgroup, it's hard to give you
the
benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just trolling, but...

The flight itself is what the FAA would consider compensation. Even just
the one. In this particular scenario, the Private Pilot would be required
to pay his own way while operating the airplane. Otherwise, he is being
compensated (by the free use of the airplane).

I'm certainly not trolling. Can you cite a single case in which the FAA has
deemed this the case?I've not seen one that didn't turn out to rely on a
different interpretation on closer inspection.

Julian

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
I'm certainly not trolling. Can you cite a single case in which the FAA
has
deemed this the case?I've not seen one that didn't turn out to rely on a
different interpretation on closer inspection.

I trust AOPA's experts to review the cases for me, as well as other
resources. I don't have the specific examples in front of me, but it's
simply not in question that the FAA has considered flight time to be
"compensation". This is well-understood, and frequently reported.

For example, from http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...97/pc9710.html :

"The FAA interprets the term compensation in its broadest sense.
Compensation is not only the payment of money, but it is the receipt of
anything of value, and even the mere expectation of some benefit. To show
you how broad the FAA interpretation is, the agency, on several occasions,
has said that just building up flight time is compensation to the pilot
where the pilot does not pay the cost of operating the aircraft"

Like I said, this has been discussed so many times right here in this
newsgroup, it's hard to see how you can claim it's not the case unless
you're trolling. I know you're not (unless you've gone through some radical
personality change), but even so...it's still hard to believe.

Pete

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...

March 04 AOPA Pilot has an article "Commercial
operations and the private pilot". In this article the story is about
how pilot's friend was throwing a Super Bowl party at his restaurant
and some of the guests were being flown in, but the charter
arrangements fell through. Restaurant owner asked pilot friend for a
favor, can you go pick these people up. Pilot said sure, no
compensation here, just doing a favor for a friend. Pilot took no
money from restaurant owner, and paid for the flights. However, 4
flights later, FAA violated the pilot and pulled his certificate for
270 days. Appeal to NTSB was denied, and in their ruling they held
in part that "compensation need not be direct nor in the form of
money. Goodwill is a form of prohibited compensation." Of course
there were other parts of the ruling and circumstances were different
here (there were passengers involved), but they've established (or
continued? I didn't go that far back) the precedent that goodwill and
other indirect compensation should be examined when determining
whether the flight is prohibited or not.

This looks like precisely the misinterpretation that I've been talking about
in the other parts of this thread.

Read the ruling:
http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/5061.PDF

The passengers on the flight were restaurant guests -- *they* were paying
for their seats on the flight:

"There were people who had paid to be flown to Put-In-
Bay for whom there was no transportation available and,
apparently, respondent came to the rescue."

That in itself violates the *first* prohibition in 61.113. Whether the
pilot is compensated or not is irrelevant. He's busted.

Moreover, at *no* point is it suggested that the flights themselves were the
compensation. They *were* paid for by the pilot in command. But the court
refused to believe that there would be no compensation paid to the pilot at
all:

"Interpreting the facts in a way most favorable to
respondent and assuming that he really had no expectation of any
kind of benefit, strains credulity. Respondent testified that
these flights cost him about $1100. The law judge, who had the
opportunity to witness respondent's demeanor, judged his
credibility and rejected his Good Samaritan argument."

This case has nothing to do with pilots not paying the direct costs of their
flights!

Julian

"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

This has been covered so often in this newsgroup, it's hard to give you
the
benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just trolling, but...

The flight itself is what the FAA would consider compensation. Even just
the one. In this particular scenario, the Private Pilot would be
required
to pay his own way while operating the airplane. Otherwise, he is being
compensated (by the free use of the airplane).

I'm certainly not trolling. Can you cite a single case in which the FAA
has
deemed this the case? I've not seen one that didn't turn out to rely on a
different interpretation on closer inspection.

The misconception that's I've seen debunked in previous threads is the
notion that merely being able to log flight time constitutes compensation
(even if the pilot pays for the flight herself). But I don't recall any
evidence disputing the notion that providing free flight time to a pilot
constitutes compensation.

--Gary

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

I trust AOPA's experts to review the cases for me, as well as other
resources. I don't have the specific examples in front of me, but it's
simply not in question that the FAA has considered flight time to be
"compensation". This is well-understood, and frequently reported.

For example, from http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...97/pc9710.html
:

If the different AOPA article quoted by Peter Clark in this thread really
interprets the case, for which the ruling is available for all to read, as
supporting this view, then I'm not convinced they're doing you a favour.

"The FAA interprets the term compensation in its broadest sense.
Compensation is not only the payment of money, but it is the receipt of
anything of value, and even the mere expectation of some benefit. To show
you how broad the FAA interpretation is, the agency, on several occasions,
has said that just building up flight time is compensation to the pilot
where the pilot does not pay the cost of operating the aircraft"

I'm not really going to be convinced except by docket numbers! This seems
to be an area where rumours reinforce themselves.

Like I said, this has been discussed so many times right here in this
newsgroup, it's hard to see how you can claim it's not the case unless
you're trolling. I know you're not (unless you've gone through some
radical
personality change), but even so...it's still hard to believe.

I don't read every thread, Peter, and while I've seen some assertions on the
subject, I've never seen anything that changed my opinion. I've now seen
two cases (the other was the letter posted by Roger Long with FAA counsel's
opinion) cited in support of the concept that flying for free is illegal.
Both arguments have rested on a lazy reading of what was actually written.

Julian