The cost sharing - reimbursment - flight for hire mess

There have been some disjointed threads on the topic, the most recent of
which I started.

I got interested in this because my flying club board felt that our flight
rules should cover the basics of this issue. A couple days ago, AOPA sent me
a great book which is a compilation of articles by their chief counsel and
others on the topic. Talking to their hot line people has been less than
satisfactory but it's a complex topic and I can't fault them. It probably
had as much to do with my fuzzy questions and explanations as them. I give
them the highest marks generally and am proud to be a member.

Having gone through the book and some other material, I've drafted a
proposed rules addition for the club. It should make a great target for
this forum and, who knows, I might even learn something more. These are
rules for a club, an individual owner might skate closer to the line but I
think these are good guidelines for staying legal.

Anyway, here it is. Potshots welcome. I'll be glad to explain my reasoning
in response to any inquiries not preceded by flames.

----------------------------------

23. Members, including those with commercial ratings, shall not accept
direct or
indirect compensation or expense reimbursement for operation of club
aircraft or
participate in flights where they have knowledge or expectation of
payments being
made by third parties for the flight. The specific and only
exceptions to this rule a

a) Member CFI's providing dual instruction, BFR's, or checkout
flights to other
members.

b) Charitable flights approved in advance by the board and
conducted in
accordance with FAA regulations covering these events.

c) Members using the aircraft for transportation incidental to
business in
accordance with FAA regulations may accept reimbursement
from their
employer. Employer reimbursement must be limited to hourly
rate, landing,
and tie down fees and may not exceed the pilot's share if
expenses are shared.


24: Members may share the costs of a flight with passengers only when all
of the
following conditions are met:

a) Shared costs are limited to hourly club rate, landing and tie down fees.

b) All persons on the flight, including the pilot, pay an equal
share.

c) All persons on the flight, including the pilot, have a
common purpose in
making the flight. If the flight is to another airport,
the common purpose must
include the activities at the destination.

d) The member's undertaking of the flight must not be, or be
represented to be,
contingent on the participation or cost sharing of the
other passengers.

25. Members who reposition the aircraft for club purposes such as
maintenance or to
transport persons who will perform maintenance may record the time as
"Club
Time" on the time sheets with the advance approval of the Maintenance
Officer and
will not be charged for the flight time. Members who accept Club
Time do so with
the understanding that this time will not be entered in their
logbooks.

Club time is only to be approved for maintenance related flights or
for delivery of the
aircraft back to PWM after stranding due to weather or mechanical
problems.

26. Any flight which involves charitable donations, even if the pilot
receives no
reimbursement, shall be reviewed with the board prior to being
undertaken.

--
Roger Long

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:55:47 GMT, "Roger Long"
om wrote:

.. . .
Having gone through the book and some other material, I've drafted a
proposed rules addition for the club. It should make a great target for
this forum and, who knows, I might even learn something more. These are
rules for a club, an individual owner might skate closer to the line but I
think these are good guidelines for staying legal.

Anyway, here it is. Potshots welcome. I'll be glad to explain my reasoning
in response to any inquiries not preceded by flames.


I think that having a club rule that attempts to duplicate a
regulation in some other language just opens the door for grief. Ask
a lawyer.

You can make the club rule more stringent, of course, but the members
are not going to be happy with that.

You might have a test for new members that requires them to state what
they think the regs mean, and you could have standards for passing the
test. Then you could keep the test on file to show the feds when it
becomes necessary. Another one to ask a lawyer about.

Or you might insist that BFRs be given only by certain CFIs, who will
make sure that "for hire" questions are part of the oral.

Don

I think that having a club rule that attempts to duplicate a
regulation in some other language just opens the door for grief. Ask
a lawyer.

Generally, I agree with that. The compensation issue is such a mess however
because it has been so modified by opinions and case law scattered all over
the place that you just can't look at the FAR's and know what to do. You
will also find differing interpretations everywhere, even from FSDO to FSDO.

You can make the club rule more stringent, of course, but the members
are not going to be happy with that.


We are not just trying to insure that members are legal when they fly, we
are trying to avoid a possible long and expensive process of proving to the
FAA or our insurance company that we were right. Cost sharing at the edges
of the envelope isn't critical to any of our members. These rules are
intended to keep members clearly on the right side of the line.

You might have a test for new members that requires them to state what
they think the regs mean, and you could have standards for passing the
test. Then you could keep the test on file to show the feds when it
becomes necessary. Another one to ask a lawyer about.


I can tell you, they would be a lot less happy about that!

--
Roger Long

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
| I think that having a club rule that attempts to duplicate a
| regulation in some other language just opens the door for grief. Ask
| a lawyer.
|
| Generally, I agree with that. The compensation issue is such a mess
however
| because it has been so modified by opinions and case law scattered all
over
| the place that you just can't look at the FAR's and know what to do. You
| will also find differing interpretations everywhere, even from FSDO to
FSDO.
|

So what? How does this affect the club in any way, shape or form? The rules
affect only individual pilots, not clubs.

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
We are not just trying to insure that members are legal when they fly, we
are trying to avoid a possible long and expensive process of proving to
the
FAA or our insurance company that we were right.

IMHO, you are worse off in that respect if you attempt to codify in the club
rules the issue. Your insurance policy should cover you regardless of any
cost-sharing or other legalities. The only thing that should be open to
question is whether the *pilot* is covered, as long as you clearly require
the pilot to obey all applicable FARs. However, if you start writing new
rules in an attempt to mirror existing FAA rules, then you've opened the
door for the insurance company to come along and tell you that you did it
wrong, and in doing so, encouraged an illegal flight by a member.

Less is more here. Just as in a checkride oral exam, one shouldn't
volunteer more information than was asked for, you shouldn't volunteer more
rulemaking than is minimally required by your insurance policy and common
sense. Otherwise, you could be held to a higher standard, and found in
violation of that standard.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

IMHO, you are worse off in that respect if you attempt to codify in the club
rules the issue.

I agree.

if you start writing new
rules in an attempt to mirror existing FAA rules, then you've opened the
door for the insurance company to come along and tell you that you did it
wrong, and in doing so, encouraged an illegal flight by a member.

Or the insurance company will point to a clause in your club
policy that says members must comply with club rules, then
use that as a loophole. Check your club policy. Ours
required compliance by members with club rules/bylaws for
coverage. Every rule you add is another possible gotcha, so
make sure you need any rules you add.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

Pete, CJ, et. al,

In light of my talk with the FSDO (see above), I would say you are all
completely vindicated.

Thanks for taking the time. It's been very instructive.

--
Roger Long

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
Pete, CJ, et. al,

In light of my talk with the FSDO (see above), I would say you are all
completely vindicated.


Above what?

On 2003-10-19 17:55:47 -0700, (null) said:

25. Members who reposition the aircraft for club purposes such as
maintenance or to
transport persons who will perform maintenance may record the time as
"Club
Time" on the time sheets with the advance approval of the Maintenance
Officer and
will not be charged for the flight time. Members who accept Club
Time do so with
the understanding that this time will not be entered in their
logbooks.

That's a bit much, don't you think? Flight time is flight time, and logging that time is what logbooks are for. Yes, I know one kook once upon a time said, "Ooh, he's logging that flight time towing gliders - he's being compensated!" Whatever. That's one of the screwiest things anyone has ever come up with and should be completely disregarded, especially in this case. I can't imagine anyone getting bent because a private pilot ferried a flying club aircraft somewhere for some reason and then logged that time in order to show recency of experience.

But that's just me.

--
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA

I agree 100%! It is absolutely the screwiest thing I ever heard of, too.
However, I have in my hand a discussion of the FAA counsel's opinion and an
article by AOPA's chief counsel about it. If you are provided with free
flight time, say moving a plane, the FAA considers that you gain an economic
advantage, which is therefore compensation, by logging the time. You may be
able to use the hours to lower your insurance rate, get an advanced rating,
better job, etc. They do not consider the experience, joy, etc. to be
compensation as long as it is not logged, because those things do not convey
an economic advantage. Screwey?, Very. Complain to your congressman.

--
Roger Long

Larry Fransson wrote in message
t...


That's a bit much, don't you think? Flight time is flight time, and
logging that time is what logbooks are for. Yes, I know one kook once upon
a time said, "Ooh, he's logging that flight time towing gliders - he's being
compensated!" Whatever. That's one of the screwiest things anyone has ever
come up with and should be completely disregarded, especially in this case.
I can't imagine anyone getting bent because a private pilot ferried a flying
club aircraft somewhere for some reason and then logged that time in order
to show recency of experience.

But that's just me.

--
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA