Renting an airplane? Need Expert FARS Advice??

Ok, Fellow Pilots Here Is The Situation:

"A Private Pilot wants to rent an airplane and this person wants to fly it
from the west coast to the east coast but not back. This person would like
you to come along for the trip and dose not want to be reimbursed for any
part of the rental for time I act as PIC during the trip. This person also
is willing to pay for the aircraft rental for how ever many hours it takes
to get the airplane back home. This person would not be paying anyone for
acting as PIC just for the airplane rental! Would this be legal for a
private pilot to do? or would one have to pay your equal share on the way
there and all expenses on the way back home? or just pass on the trip"

This is the proposal that I have been offered from a good friend that lives
in Northern California that is moving even further away because of a Job on
the east coast. She thought since we hardly see each other anymore as it is
and she is moving even further away that this would be a trip that we both
would remember for lifetime. She has already discussed rental arrangements
of an aircraft with the FBO they said as long as they get a deposit for
estimated flight hours and I get a check out in the aircraft and listed as a
renter it would not be a problem. She even offered to pay for my check out
with the FBO and my renters insurance to meet fbo requirements. I will have
to pay for fuel on the way home but the FBO will reimburse me upon return.
Expense to her is not really no factor this would be a really fun trip see
spec's below.

Spec's:

Female
24 Years Old
5' 6"
115 to 120 lb's
Brown/Red Hair
A Strong 34 C
She is not current and taking her BFR next week

My little head is telling me to go for it, but my big head is saying stop
wait (must be my old age) get some advice from the people that know more
than the FBO on the FARS and legal aspects before making a decision. I
really would like to go the hotel stays would even be fun. What would you
do?


Ohhh.
No need for anyone to tell me that I have bad spelling and punctuation I
know I do!

"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...
Ok, Fellow Pilots Here Is The Situation:

"A Private Pilot wants to rent an airplane and this person wants to fly it

How about insuring her in your plane?

Paul

Recently, NW_PILOT posted:

Ok, Fellow Pilots Here Is The Situation:

"A Private Pilot wants to rent an airplane and this person wants to
fly it from the west coast to the east coast but not back."

Sounds to me that you're missing your best opportunity by not marrying the
girl! ;-)

It also doesn't sound like a violation of the FARs, unless you consider
the cost of the return trip as being paid to ferry the plane. But, that's
a stretch, IMO, because there isn't any rule saying that you *must* pay to
fly; just that you can't _get paid_ to fly as a private pilot. I wouldn't
expect that you'd hear a peep from the FSDO.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
ink.net...
Recently, NW_PILOT posted:

Ok, Fellow Pilots Here Is The Situation:

"A Private Pilot wants to rent an airplane and this person wants to
fly it from the west coast to the east coast but not back."

Sounds to me that you're missing your best opportunity by not marrying the
girl! ;-)


Sorry I cannot do that I am already married,

"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
ink.net...
Sounds to me that you're missing your best opportunity by not marrying
the
girl! ;-)

Sorry I cannot do that I am already married,

What?!

Then you should volunteer one of us for the job.

Paul

"Neil Gould" wrote in message link.net...
Recently, NW_PILOT posted:

Ok, Fellow Pilots Here Is The Situation:

"A Private Pilot wants to rent an airplane and this person wants to
fly it from the west coast to the east coast but not back."

Sounds to me that you're missing your best opportunity by not marrying the
girl! ;-)

It also doesn't sound like a violation of the FARs, unless you consider
the cost of the return trip as being paid to ferry the plane. But, that's
a stretch, IMO, because there isn't any rule saying that you *must* pay to
fly; just that you can't _get paid_ to fly as a private pilot. I wouldn't
expect that you'd hear a peep from the FSDO.

Well, I can't claim to have memorized the FARs, but I'm pretty sure
that marriage isn't a violation.

But, I'm also pretty sure that flying for free is considered
compensation:

61.117 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Second in command
of aircraft requiring more than one pilot.

Except as provided in §61.113 of this part, no private pilot may, for
compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is
type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as
second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
property for compensation or hire.

and:

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.

Seems that flying back to the west coast would be compensation and
less than your pro-rata share of the flight. Since you're flying
alone then, your pro-rate share is 100%.

-Malcolm Teas

On 23 Sep 2004 13:13:51 -0700, (Malcolm Teas) wrote:


61.117 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Second in command
of aircraft requiring more than one pilot.

Except as provided in §61.113 of this part, no private pilot may, for
compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is
type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as
second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
property for compensation or hire.

Not that I disagree with the position that he'd be in violation of the
FAR's by flying the aircraft back alone without paying for it, might I
ask what the bit about second in command of a type-certified for
multi-pilot aircraft has to do with the OP's question?

Malcolm Teas wrote:

61.117 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Second in command
of aircraft requiring more than one pilot.

Except as provided in §61.113 of this part, no private pilot may, for
compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is
type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as
second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
property for compensation or hire.

Few small planes are type certified to require more than one pilot, so it's highly
unlikely that he would be serving as second in command of such a plane. As described,
the flight is not carrying anything for hire, so he wouldn't be doing that either.
This FAR is not applicable to the flight.

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.

Seems that flying back to the west coast would be compensation and
less than your pro-rata share of the flight. Since you're flying
alone then, your pro-rate share is 100%.

Since he's flying alone, there are no passengers, so this FAR doesn't apply either.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
Malcolm Teas wrote:

61.117 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Second in command
of aircraft requiring more than one pilot.

Except as provided in §61.113 of this part, no private pilot may, for
compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is
type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as
second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
property for compensation or hire.

Few small planes are type certified to require more than one pilot, so it's highly
unlikely that he would be serving as second in command of such a plane. As described,
the flight is not carrying anything for hire, so he wouldn't be doing that either.
This FAR is not applicable to the flight.

Yup! Absolutely right. I cut-and-pasted the wrong thing clearly.
Mea culpa. I saw the "Private pilot privileges and limitations" part
and started selecting text.


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.

Seems that flying back to the west coast would be compensation and
less than your pro-rata share of the flight. Since you're flying
alone then, your pro-rate share is 100%.

Since he's flying alone, there are no passengers, so this FAR doesn't apply either.

I understand your comment and might agree but for the "may not pay
less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight"
aspect. It's clear that the return trip will have operating expenses.
It's also clear that he won't be paying them.

I think the flight - as stated - violates the intent of the FARs. I'd
love to be asked to fly for free across the country, but am convinced
the FAA would take a dim view. But, I'm not PIC for this flight and
given my cut-and-paste error above, I doubt I'll claim to be a FAR
expert either. grin

-Malcolm Teas

Malcolm Teas wrote:

I understand your comment and might agree but for the "may not pay
less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight"
aspect. It's clear that the return trip will have operating expenses.
It's also clear that he won't be paying them.

Then you really don't understand my comment. The FAR clearly states that it ONLY
applies to flights WITH passengers, and there are none.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.