PPL question payment for flight

Roger Tschanz wrote:

And who says the price for rental fees, how are they defined? And what
if you own an aircraft, then you are the one who defines the self-rental
fees!
It's a question of definition.

Yes, and the FAA has already done all the defining allowed. Argue this sort
of thing with them, and you won't be flying at all for a while.

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 say that I am playing stupid word games.
In fact have you read the following part?


FAR Part 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.

And whats written there?

....may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses...
e.g A one hour flight with 3 passengers costs 80$ rental fees.
so you have to pay a minimum of 20$. Thats the minimum!!!
Nothing is written about the maximum what a passenger has to pay!
For this case is paragraph (a)! Please read it!

(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

Is there something written about what is included or not? No.
The definition is: ... for compensation or hire.

You think this is a word game? Maybe that's the reason why in the USofA,
you can make money by going to the judge because in a Microwave
Usermanual was nothing written about, not to put a pet in it!

Roger



Mike Rapoport wrote:
Neither the FAA nor the judge is going to play stupid word games with you.

Mike
MU-2


"Roger Tschanz" wrote in message
...

And who says the price for rental fees, how are they defined? And what
if you own an aircraft, then you are the one who defines the self-rental
fees!
It's a question of definition.

$80 divided by 3 people is $26.67, not $20.

What the rule states (altho not clearly) is that the PIC may pay
exactly 1/3 of the cost OR upto and including the ENTIRE cost of
the flight.

Anything else is "compensation for hire".

The phrase "pro rata" translates to "fair share".

Not to nitpick, but Roger said 3 passengers, which would be then divided by
4, hence $20 minimum.

I pay for the entire flight myself and haven't had to divide my costs. If I
can't afford to fly someplace without passengers, I don't fly...

"blanche cohen" wrote in message
...
$80 divided by 3 people is $26.67, not $20.

What the rule states (altho not clearly) is that the PIC may pay
exactly 1/3 of the cost OR upto and including the ENTIRE cost of
the flight.

Anything else is "compensation for hire".

The phrase "pro rata" translates to "fair share".

OK, here's one. I have heard the FAA considers "time" to be compensation.
The following is hypothetical.

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?


"Greg Burkhart" wrote in message
news:hgyRa.81603$N7.9685@sccrnsc03...
Not to nitpick, but Roger said 3 passengers, which would be then divided
by
4, hence $20 minimum.

I pay for the entire flight myself and haven't had to divide my costs. If
I
can't afford to fly someplace without passengers, I don't fly...

"blanche cohen" wrote in message
...
$80 divided by 3 people is $26.67, not $20.

What the rule states (altho not clearly) is that the PIC may pay
exactly 1/3 of the cost OR upto and including the ENTIRE cost of
the flight.

Anything else is "compensation for hire".

The phrase "pro rata" translates to "fair share".

"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.

Hey, what a coincidence. I was planning to fly over there next Wednesday
anyway. Not bad.

--
Montblack

"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

"Roger Tschanz" wrote in message
...
You say that I am playing stupid word games.

Maybe it's because English isn't your first language. But yes, you are
playing stupid word games.

FAR Part 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.

And whats written there?

...may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses...
e.g A one hour flight with 3 passengers costs 80$ rental fees.
so you have to pay a minimum of 20$. Thats the minimum!!!

That's the minimum for the DIRECT OPERATING COSTS of the flight. Nothing in
that regulation is intended to mean that you can add OTHER costs of the
flight to the passenger's bill.

Nothing is written about the maximum what a passenger has to pay!

Yes, something IS written about "the maximum what a passenger has to pay".
Since the only costs that can be shared are the DIRECT OPERATING COSTS, and
since the pilot must pay at least his pro-rata share, that means the
passengers may not pay more than their pro-rata share in aggregate.

Now, *a* passenger can still pay more than his pro-rata share, as long as
another passenger pays less. But when all of the money is counted up, the
pilot must pay at LEAST his pro-rata share, which means all of the
passengers together may NOT pay more than their pro-rata share. There's
your maximum right there.

For this case is paragraph (a)! Please read it!

(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

Is there something written about what is included or not? No.
The definition is: ... for compensation or hire.

No, that's not the definition. That's the regulation. You need to look to
FAA interpretation to find the definition of "compensation", and that has
*consistently* been interpreted to be ANY benefit to the pilot. Permitted
benefits are described in paragraphs (b) through (g) (as paragraph (a)
specifically) says. Anything not described in those paragraphs would not be
a permitted benefit for a private pilot.

You think this is a word game? Maybe that's the reason why in the USofA,
you can make money by going to the judge because in a Microwave
Usermanual was nothing written about, not to put a pet in it!

Uh, right. Even if someone did win a judgment after they cooked their pet
(and they didn't), what does that have to do with the FAA's regulations?

Pete

"Montblack" wrote in message
.. .
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

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

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

So, in the eyes of the FAA, I would have to drive a car instead?

Hey, what a coincidence. I was planning to fly over there next Wednesday
anyway. Not bad.

How did you know that?

"Roger Tschanz" wrote in message
...
You say that I am playing stupid word games.
In fact have you read the following part?


FAR Part 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.

And whats written there?

...may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses...
e.g A one hour flight with 3 passengers costs 80$ rental fees.
so you have to pay a minimum of 20$. Thats the minimum!!!
Nothing is written about the maximum what a passenger has to pay!
For this case is paragraph (a)! Please read it!

This refers to the minimum the PILOT must pay, not the passenger.