Again, you guys are awesome. I’ll just have to wing it once we return. (See what I did there?)

BTW, the wife is staying home so she can enjoy the life insurance money. I told her she must buy a white with tan 911. I don’t care if it’s an automatic.

If I'm reading the posts of the FAA gurus correctly & the OP.

Seems OP could pay for 75% of the fuel, if it's him & his 2 kids; then pilot is responsible for 'his equal share' per seat?

These posts make me miss flying...

Edit: Just saw V-Tail's post above mine which pretty much says the same as my understanding.

quote:

I told her she must buy a white with tan 911. I don’t care if it’s an automatic.

I'm sure her new "friend" will gladly help her with that purchase!

The FAA takes the compensation issue very seriously for private pilots; chief legal counsel interpretations have repeatedly affirmed that even the logging of flight time is considered compensation. The only option that the private pilot has to ensure not running afoul, is to pay the pro-rata share of the flight operating costs, as v-tail has outlined.

Regarding etiquette, it's polite to offer, but unnecessary. The pilot may suggest a pro rata share (meaning equal share), but that's it. Any other form of compensation is strictly illegal and can impact the pilot's certificate (license).

It's sometimes asked how anyone might know if the pilot and passenger make a private arrangement, or who might care. The short answer is the FAA cares, and charter operators care...and many of them will report any hint of impropriety; they're paying big bucks for insurance and certification to do charters, and any suggestion of private pilots doing it will often as not be reported by the charter operators. Aviation is a small world, and it gets around.

I was in a flight standards district office some years ago conducting business, when one of the inspectors got a call regarding a private pilot alleged to have taken compensation for flying a friend from A to B. Remember that compensation is anything more than the pro-rata share of the operating cost. The inspector's comments were over the top, but not unfamiliar, as he talked about making an example of the pilot and going after him with a zeal that rivals a fox in a henhouse.

Offer to pay for fuel; the pilot will likely refuse it, but may accept up to the pro-rata share of operating expenses, and no more. It's polite, but the pilot will almost certainly gently refuse. Agree before the flight, and not after.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

The FAA takes the compensation issue very seriously for private pilots

Everything that you said in your post, just above, is true, but let's take it a step further: the restriction is not limited to private pilots, it is equally applicable to commercial pilots and ATP (Airline Transport Pilots) in many cases. Certainly, an airplane owner, no matter what grade of pilot certificate s/he holds, is subject to the same restrictions re compensation when flying the owned airplane under Part 91.

Commercial or ATP may fly for compensation, but not in the type of flight that the Russ asked about in the original post in this thread. Other types of flight for compensation may be legal. Example, there are a couple of local companies that own airplanes but do not use them enough to warrant employing a pilot. These companies each have a list of pilots, commercial or ATP, who are qualified in the company airplanes and are approved by the insurance carriers. When a flight is required, the company just contacts a pilot on the list and pays a day rate. I was on a couple of these lists, flew for pay under Part 91, all perfectly legal; it would not be legal for a private pilot.

Study up - V-tail and Guppy will be holding a pop quiz on the 'morrow.

FAR Part 91 - General Operating and Flight Rules

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Other types of flight for compensation may be legal. Example, there are a couple of local companies that own airplanes but do not use them enough to warrant employing a pilot. These companies each have a list of pilots, commercial or ATP, who are qualified in the company airplanes and are approved by the insurance carriers. When a flight is required, the company just contacts a pilot on the list and pays a day rate. I was on a couple of these lists, flew for pay under Part 91, all perfectly legal; it would not be legal for a private pilot.

So long as they're not carrying a passenger for compensation or hire, or property for compensation or hire, from A to B, it's fine. If they get paid to fly a match box to landing at a point other than the point of departure, it must be under Part 135.

The exception will be if the person or property being flown has a share of the aircraft or owns the aircraft; this can be conducted under Part 91; with shares, under 14 CFR Part 91, Subpart K (fractional operations). Otherwise, it would have to be done as a corporate flight. A corporate airplane may employ pilots, but may not transport passengers for compensation or hire, under Part 91.

The issue is one of who provides the aircraft, whether the flight is "held out" publicly (advertised by word of mouth, or otherwise) and if persons or property are carried for compensation or hire. As a pilot, you can provide pilot services and get paid to fly someone from A to B, so long as you don't provide the aircraft. If the entity providing the aircraft accepts compensation or does the flight for hire, it will require an operating certificate (Part 135), regardless of pilot certification.

The issue of pro-rata applies specifically to private pilots, although you're quite correct, in private operations, a commercial or ATP-rated pilot cannot provide the aircraft and get paid or compensated, or hold out, without meeting the requirements of Part 135 (charter certification, drug testing program, maintenance program, etc). The standard for avoiding impropriety has been established as the pilot paying his or her pro-rata share.

Hot Hookers are always appreciated by Pilots.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

As a pilot, you can provide pilot services and get paid to fly someone from A to B, so long as you don't provide the aircraft. If the entity providing the aircraft accepts compensation or does the flight for hire, it will require an operating certificate (Part 135)

It was so much simpler in The Good Old Days, when a commercial pilot or ATR pilot (not a typo, it was ATR back then, not ATP) could run an air taxi or charter business with his / her own airplane.

Basic rules were airplane had to be current with maintenance, 100 hour inspection.

Based at the now-gone Colts Neck NJ airport, just southwest of the Colts Neck VOR, we flew air taxi, shuttling folks to Newark, LaGuardia, and JFK. Couple years of this, and then I took a job in Puerto Rico, and flew air taxi to St. Thomas, St. Croix, and occasionally some of the islands east of the Virgins.

Then, along came Part 135 and things got complicated.

quote:

Originally posted by nighthawk:

Hot Hookers are always appreciated by Pilots.

Carrier pilots?

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
It was so much simpler in The Good Old Days, when a commercial pilot or ATR pilot (not a typo, it was ATR back then, not ATP) could run an air taxi or charter business with his / her own airplane.

Basic rules were airplane had to be current with maintenance, 100 hour inspection.

Pilots can use their own aircraft, even single pilot, single aircraft operations, but will require an operating certificate.

It's true that there was a time when there was a lot more freedom for pilots to do charters; the mishap rate was a lot higher, with a lot more preventable mishaps, too.

The regulations, they say, are written in blood: each occurs, because of a mishap that killed someone, garnered enough attention, and the regulation was born. Lack of maintenance, lack of weather awareness and limitations, lack of fuel, lack of pilot qualification and proficiency, lack of insurance, lack of adequate equipment, etc...all have contributed to fatal mishaps which led to significant regulatory changes.

It's simply a function of advising operators that if they intend to hold out services to the public, then they need to meet a minimum ongoing standard, with oversight.

The good old days weren't quite so good.

The mishap rate for professional pilots today, operating under Parts 121 and 135, is significantly better than times past, and much, much better than the general aviation private pilot populace.

Buy em lunch. Or stash a hundy in the console of his truck when he isn't watching..... A lot of stuff has to go wrong for the FAA to get drug into a fun scenic flight with friends. Take lots of pics.




I kinda like the hooker stuff too though....

Take the owner and his S.O. to a really nice dinner in exchange....

My son was in the plane two years ago and got a pic of the tail number.

It’s a 1966 Piper PA-32-260.

Free dinner is a specific violation, and is considered compensation:

https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...20Interpretation.pdf

The pilot must have a "common purpose" with the passenger (eg, must have already been making the flight, rather than arranging specifically for the passenger. To do otherwise invokes one of the prongs of a charter:

https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...20Interpretation.pdf

The logging of flight time is considered compensation:

https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...20Interpretation.pdf

https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...20Interpretation.pdf

https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...20Interpretation.pdf

Per prior discussion, as relates to pilots who are able to receive compensation (commercial, ATP), the level of pilot certification, and type of operation that permits receiving compensation, are separate and distinct:

https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...20Interpretation.pdf

Compensation does not require profit, profit motive, or actual payment of funds (eg, may include payment in kind, such as a dinner or other compensation):

https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...20Interpretation.pdf

Meh. When people are long-standing friends, who can really say that the act of buying dinner on one day is related to a flight on a different day?

Any speculation on the part of an FAA Karen or Chad would be just that: speculation. Nothing more.

quote:

It’s a 1966 Piper PA-32-260.

260 HP Cherokee Six. Same model and same year that I flew for air taxi when I lived in Puerto Rico in the late 1960s. Many trips between San Juan & St. Thomas.

The Good Old Days!

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Free dinner is a specific violation, and is considered compensation:

https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...20Interpretation.pdf

The pilot must have a "common purpose" with the passenger (eg, must have already been making the flight, rather than arranging specifically for the passenger. To do otherwise invokes one of the prongs of a charter:

https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...20Interpretation.pdf

The logging of flight time is considered compensation:

https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...20Interpretation.pdf

https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...20Interpretation.pdf

https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...20Interpretation.pdf

Per prior discussion, as relates to pilots who are able to receive compensation (commercial, ATP), the level of pilot certification, and type of operation that permits receiving compensation, are separate and distinct:

https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...20Interpretation.pdf

Compensation does not require profit, profit motive, or actual payment of funds (eg, may include payment in kind, such as a dinner or other compensation):

https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...20Interpretation.pdf

The pilot is a friend of his and already invited him and his family. There is no exchange. Inviting him and his SO to a nice dinner is a seperate event, not compensation or a trade.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
The pilot is a friend of his and already invited him and his family. There is no exchange. Inviting him and his SO to a nice dinner is a seperate event, not compensation or a trade.

Common error. See the first legal interpretation cited, specifically identifying dinner.

Lest one think the matter is overplayed; it is not.

Susy is thrilled. Mentions to no one in particular, but one particular knows a buddy at the field whose friend flies for the charter operator. Someone calls Mary. It gets back to the pilot.

http://avoidillegalcharter.com...egal-charter-hotline

When I was a kid in high school, I had a quiet offer to other kids in school, fly them for the prom, share expenses, that sort of thing. How it got back to the airport, and how it got passed on from there was never made clear, but I was called in and read the riot act, threatened with loss of my certificate, and so on.

A friend gave a talk in his church. A private pilot, he included the example of giving a friend a ride. They had dinner after. An FAA inspector turned out to be visiting someone, and was in the congregation. He met the private pilot, and by the time the inspector was done ripping the kid apart, the kid was in tears, and the inspector was headed home with enough ammo to to torpedo the kids future career.

I was in a FSDO when a call came in, tip about a private pilot, did a flight for a friend. I sat in the opposite cubicle and listened to the inspector. "I'm going to make him wish he was never born. I don't just want to make an example of him. I'm going to rip his heart out of his chest and hold it up bleeding and beating for the world to see. By the time I'm done, he'll wish he wasn't born." Nothing more than what's being described here. Does the FAA take it seriously. Yes. Does it get back to them? You'd be surprised how often, and how easily.

Then there's the matter of something that goes wrong and draws attention. The well-publicized crash involving soccer star Sala was an illegal charter, couched as a cost-sharing flight. Anything that exceeds pro-rata for operating costs (fuel, oil, etc) is illegal when operated by a private pilot, and if landing at a point other than the point of departure, is an illegal charter (may also be if landing at the same point).

The FAA can find out by any means. Reading a statement by the person taking the flight, discussing settling up with dinner, made on a publicly-accessible web site such as this, for example.

https://jdasolutions.aero/blog...entinian-footballer/

There is a subtle nuance between friends who might happen to meet for dinner, and advising them to do it in the public record, if you catch the drift.

The first rule of private-arrangement-for-a-fun-flight-club is that one doesn't talk about...

Bottom line is the thread; etiquette. There isn't any. It's polite to offer to cover the fuel; it's not the passenger's job to know the regulation, but the pilot's. It's also his or her responsibility to do the right thing. Any further discussion is peripheral here as hangar talk, and for most here, simply nice-to-know. Rest assured, it's a much bigger deal than some make out, but so far as the etiquette, simply offer to buy fuel, and let the pilot explain that he has to pay his pro rata share, or simply dismiss the offer with a thanks, but not necessary, and go fly. Have fun. Dinner that evening has nothing to do with the flight. What flight? Huh? Flight? There was a flight? No, we planned dinner six weeks ago, fifth anniversary of my dead parrot's cousin's wedding. We do this every year. What flight?

Be safe is the main thing I can say, the airplane should be well capable.

Don’t get wrapped up with the FAA nest.