PPL question payment for flight

"Montblack" wrote in message ...
"Peter Gottlieb"
snip
No monetary compensation is involved
(nor other "favors" from her friend, for those of you with dirty minds).
All I get out of it is time flying, and I bear all the costs. I would
have
no other reason to fly to that particular field (although no reason not to
either).

No dirty minds here. We believe you, nothing happened with "the friend."

...so, why do you think your wife (and her friend) wanted you out of town
for the afternoon?? g

Answer to your FAA question: You are acting as a (money losing) air taxi
service. Bad.

Gotta disagree with this one Montblack. If there was no
compensation involved, Peter is not acting as an air taxi. As far as
the FAA is concerned, you can fly anyone, anywhere, anytime as long as
you (the pilot) are paying for all costs associated with the flight.

The "commonality of purpose" and "pro rata share" tests only come
into play when money or other compensation is exchanged. Basically,
the rule exists to keep private pilots from making commercial flights.
The absence of any sort of compensation makes Peter's flight legit.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message t...
OK, here's one. I have heard the FAA considers "time" to be compensation.
The following is hypothetical.

What you have heard is "kind of" correct. It came from a ruling
against a pilot who was not being compensated monetarily, but was
getting free use of an airplane. The logged flight time was
considered to be compensation, as the pilot would have otherwise had
to pay for the flight time. The specific case involved a
time-building pilot that was flying skydivers for a skydiving
operation for free. The FAA ruled that the pilot was being
compensated with free flight time. Flight time that you pay for
yourself is not considered compensation. If it was, you wouldn't be
able to fly yourself anywhere.


Let's say I have a wife who thinks flying is a waste of my time. So she
always gives me a hard time when I want to use the plane. Now, she has a
friend who needs to get somewhere, a small airport that no commercial planes
go, and she asks me to fly her there. No monetary compensation is involved
(nor other "favors" from her friend, for those of you with dirty minds).
All I get out of it is time flying, and I bear all the costs. I would have
no other reason to fly to that particular field (although no reason not to
either).

Is this legal in the FAAs eyes?

Yes, this is legal. If your wife's friend contributed nothing to
the flight, there was no compensation. You payed for the flight, so
there is no way it could be considered a commercial operation.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

Maybe I should have done something with the friend... I never thought of
that angle!

Well, the mother of a pair of Young Eagles wanted to fly along last Saturday.
I can testify that you can't accomplish much along those lines in a Maule
with no auto-pilot. :-)

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

You'll have to borrow a Cherokee 6 at least. With a pilot who won't look
back...


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


Peter Gottlieb wrote:

Maybe I should have done something with the friend... I never thought
of
that angle!

Well, the mother of a pair of Young Eagles wanted to fly along last
Saturday.
I can testify that you can't accomplish much along those lines in a Maule
with no auto-pilot. :-)

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
...
OK, here's one. I have heard the FAA considers "time" to be compensation.

Only if someone else is providing the time.

[ferrying a wife's friend]
Is this legal in the FAAs eyes?

As far as I know, yes. I'm not aware of any enforcement action where, with
the pilot paying the entire cost of the flight, a pilot was found guilty of
operating for compensation or hire.

Pete

There is something close. In NTSB order (EA-4791), a private pilot transported
a mechanic for a medical air transportation service to repair one of their
stranded helicopters. The owner of the company initially tried to find a 135
carrier, but was unable to find anyone available for the flight. He was
eventually refered to a private pilot by an acquaintance who operated one of
the charter services. The private pilot who offered to do the flight and pay
all costs personally. He also advised the owner and mechanic that he was not
an air charter operator. On that flight, and two other related flights, the
owner of the medical transport co. offered to reimburse him for fuel, and the
private pilot refused to accept payment.

The FAA went after him and gave him a 365 day suspension, which was then
reduced to 180 days on appeal to the law judge. Fortunately, on appeal to
the NTSB, the charges were ultimately dismissed, but obviously not without a
great deal of hardship and expense.

Jeff H., CFI-A

"J. Hansen" wrote in message
om...
There is something close. In NTSB order (EA-4791), a private pilot
transported
a mechanic for a medical air transportation service to repair one of their
stranded helicopters.

Yes, I read about that in AOPA Pilot (if it's the same one I recall). It's
not a relevant example though, because what tripped the pilot up was the
"for hire" clause, not the "for compensation" clause.

Also, you do note that in the end, the pilot was absolved, in a rare NTSB
reversal. So the case is more an example of how the FAA can make your life
miserable, and less an example of what the rules actually mean.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Yes, I read about that in AOPA Pilot (if it's the same one I recall). It's
not a relevant example though, because what tripped the pilot up was the
"for hire" clause, not the "for compensation" clause.

Also, you do note that in the end, the pilot was absolved, in a rare NTSB
reversal. So the case is more an example of how the FAA can make your life
miserable, and less an example of what the rules actually mean.

The NTSB was at pains to establish that the pilot did not
“hold himself out for compensation or hire.� IIRC, the
original question was whether it would be OK to fly two
people to city A, split the cost 3 ways and then fly back
alone, paying all the cost of the return. It would probably
depend on whether the pilot was found to “hold himself out
for compensation or hire.� If you post a notice on a board
that you will transport people under the arrangement above,
there would be no common purpose for the flight and the
NTSB/FAA would probably find that you were holding yourself
out "for compensation or hire." It's not relevant whether
you make or lose money on the operation, only that you say
you will provide transportation for the specified amount -
namely 2/3 of the outbound flight cost.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

One problem is that if you strictly follow all the rules you cannot seem to
fly anybody anywhere. Let's say my wife wants to go visit a friend of hers
300 miles away. If I fly her there the FAA could turn around and say I had
no reason to go there and by telling my wife I would fly her on such trips
during my training I was "putting myself out for compensation" (namely,
being allowed to train).

So, it's not a matter of breaking rules, it's a matter of which ones and how
severely. We're always breaking some rule.


"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Yes, I read about that in AOPA Pilot (if it's the same one I recall).
It's
not a relevant example though, because what tripped the pilot up was the
"for hire" clause, not the "for compensation" clause.

Also, you do note that in the end, the pilot was absolved, in a rare NTSB
reversal. So the case is more an example of how the FAA can make your
life
miserable, and less an example of what the rules actually mean.

The NTSB was at pains to establish that the pilot did not
"hold himself out for compensation or hire." IIRC, the
original question was whether it would be OK to fly two
people to city A, split the cost 3 ways and then fly back
alone, paying all the cost of the return. It would probably
depend on whether the pilot was found to "hold himself out
for compensation or hire." If you post a notice on a board
that you will transport people under the arrangement above,
there would be no common purpose for the flight and the
NTSB/FAA would probably find that you were holding yourself
out "for compensation or hire." It's not relevant whether
you make or lose money on the operation, only that you say
you will provide transportation for the specified amount -
namely 2/3 of the outbound flight cost.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...
[...] If I fly her there the FAA could turn around and say I had
no reason to go there and by telling my wife I would fly her on such trips
during my training I was "putting myself out for compensation" (namely,
being allowed to train).

I think it's a stretch to think that the FAA would find you to be "holding
out" to your own wife.

Generally, the standard requires holding out to the *public*.

IMHO, the only reason you think there's no way to strictly follow the rules
is that you're misinterpreting the rules.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

IMHO, the only reason you think there's no way to strictly follow the
rules
is that you're misinterpreting the rules.


A logical supposition, but easy to get into when the rules are complex and
the real rules are a mix of regulatory law, case law, and the sometimes
confused interpretation of different officials.

Notwithstanding the mental masturbation that occurs in these forums at times
(and I am as guilty as anyone), I use common sense to guide my actions and
generally will make any flight that I can.

Peter