Does 61.113 apply if your parents fund your flight training?

PositionAndHold said:
Are you sure about the part I bolded? If the person was a private pilot I can see it being illegal but since it's a CFI he has a commercial. You could hire him to take your airplane where ever you want. He's not holding out, you're supplying the aircraft and he's flying. Kind of like any part 91 corp job. I could be missing some thing. Never really been a reg nazi. :)
Click to expand...

No, I'd say you're correct and the "CFI" was a poor choice of example, I should have said something like "new pilot" here.
 
CFI A&P said:
You're right, the author of that letter wasn't specific enough and the FAA wouldn't nail down an answer on it because of the vagueness of the letter. However, the the last few sentences indicate the attitude they will have against the typical arrangement.
Click to expand...

I take your point, but you'd have to define what your are calling "typical arrangement". I would hope and I believe that loaning a plane to someone to take training, or a weekend trip, where the owner gets nothing out of the deal, isn't a violation of this reg. He (the borrower) is not getting the time in the plane as a form of compensation, it's incidental.

For me to believe otherwise, I would have to see an interpretation that says you may not as a private pilot borrow a plane under any circumstances as the FAA considers the incidental time you get in it as compensation.
 
PositionAndHold said:
Are you sure about the part I bolded? If the person was a private pilot I can see it being illegal but since it's a CFI he has a commercial. You could hire him to take your airplane where ever you want. He's not holding out, you're supplying the aircraft and he's flying. Kind of like any part 91 corp job. I could be missing some thing. Never really been a reg nazi. :)
Click to expand...

^ THIS
 
jafra98 said:
So lets think about this situation. I own a Cessna 150 and my son/daughter/spouse wants to take flying lessons and fly my plane. Of course I will not charge anything for them to fly. Would that be considered illegal???????????:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Not unless you also say, "but as a condition you have to take me everywhere I want to go in it."

Of course, even in that situation, while te
Ajax said:
That

;)

I tell them it was just a terrible investment
Click to expand...

Picky picky. :D
 
To the OP, I'd explain to the student that the FAA treats him/her, the parents, and any other person contributing funds to training as one entity. Also, there is a common interest/purpose between the student and the family-- to attain a certificate or rating, ideally on a wage-earning career track (although I'd argue that a PPL alone is a legitimate resume booster for any career/academic endeavor). Lastly, since there is no holding out involved, the whole thing is A-OK by the feds. Of course, if Daddy/Mommy starts handing out Benjamins for the kid to transport them from A to B for the day... big problem.

That letter of interpretation isn't worth the paper it was printed on, by the way.
 
So the FAA's position is that if someone else pays for the gas, that I as a private pilot am somehow getting "compensated" in flight time? Tell me FAA, how much flight time does a gallon of milk cost? How much flight time does it take to pay rent? What a load of crap.
 
PFGiardino said:
Of course, if Daddy/Mommy starts handing out Benjamins for the kid to transport them from A to B for the day... big problem.
Click to expand...
Still not holding out in this scenario, I don't think...I have to do some reading.

I'm still reading, but I think in this case the pilot never held out. No advertising or reaching out and asking for business in any way...

well, OK now I think it is not allowed...if you provide the plane and the piloting services it should be regulated under 135...
 
Last edited:
rocketman5150 said:
So the FAA's position is that if someone else pays for the gas, that I as a private pilot am somehow getting "compensated" in flight time?
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, technically you only have to log flight time to show you meet the requirements or that you are current. Thus one is not required to log all hours flown. So in theory if it isn't logged, no compensation is received?

Now I could be wrong

Thats my useless 2 cents worth
 
Deride them all you like, but the FAA has tasked themselves with protecting the unwashed masses, and they are trying to maintain a very strict standard here for that purpose. For that matter, the FAA is far better in that regard than many municipalities and state governments that want licensure for all sorts of ridiculous things that have no safety ramifications whatsoever.

Here's the deal:
With a private pilot certificate, you may:
- Fly yourself somewhere for fun
- Fly yourself around the patch for fun
- Fly charity events
- Fly somewhere on business
- Fly as an airplane salesman
- Fly a bunch of friends up to a cabin somewhere, and split the cost equally*
..etc.

You may not:
- Fly for any form of compensation, or anything that could be viewed as compensation. Flying for free is equivalent to being compensated for the hourly cost, in the eyes of the FAA.
- Fly 'for hire', outside of aforementioned charity flying.

As a commercial pilot, you may:
- Exercise the privileges of a private pilot, as mentioned above
- Engage in certain limited activities regulated by part 91.119 et seq, et al
- Fly as a pilot in private carriage
- Fly for a commercial operator

That's pretty much it.

-Fox
 
rocketman5150 said:
So the FAA's position is that if someone else pays for the gas, that I as a private pilot am somehow getting "compensated" in flight time? Tell me FAA, how much flight time does a gallon of milk cost? How much flight time does it take to pay rent? What a load of crap.
Click to expand...
This. While I know the FAA doesn't agree, I do. I say the same thing to potential employers who want to low ball with the "experience" you're getting.
No. Simply wrong.
I've yet to find a place that accepts flight time as legal tender.
 
it's that you are getting something of value that you would otherwise have to pay for...then you can use the dollars you didn't pay for milk, french toast...bacon! mmmm bacon.
 
I don't get how the original scenario (borrowing an airplane and filling up the tanks at the end) violates "Quid Pro Quo." If you borrow the aircraft with full fuel, and you return it with full fuel, there is no exchange of services. You are simply returning it in the same condition you received it. The owner gets nothing, and therefore the valuable "flight time" you received as compensation wasn't compensation at all - it was a gift.

What am I missing?

(Oh, and FWIW - I don't think the perceived mechanical benefit for flying what would otherwise be a hangar queen is quantifiable. Therefore I would seriously question the legal validity of that argument.)

Edit: Sorry this wasn't the original scenario. This came from CFI A&P's LOA about borrowing aircraft. As @Autothrust Blue recently threatened, "Don't make me become a lawyer!"
 
Last edited:
Just add alcohol and a bon fire, and this whole thread reminds me of a party at Riddle.
 
CFI A&P said:
This one was recently published, you can no longer borrow an airplane for fuel only.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2013/stoner - (2013) legal interpretation.pdf
Click to expand...

PFGiardino said:
That letter of interpretation isn't worth the paper it was printed on, by the way.
Click to expand...

As a number of folks have already tried to explain, that interpretation does not say you can't borrow an airplane and only pay for fuel. (I don't see the word "borrow" anywhere in the letter). And the "value" is low because the FAA Chief Counsel's office has chosen to publish its responses to questions even if the response is nothing more that, "Sorry, the answer depends on information you haven't given us":

==============================
We cannot issue an interpretation for your particular circumstances because you have not provided enough details about the exact nature of the arrangement and the purpose and intent of the flight.
==============================

The Chief Counsel is telling the pilot that it depends on the arrangement. That in order to be "compensation" it has to be in exchange for somehting.

1. "Take my brand new G36 Bonanza over to Big City to pick up an order for some some food and drinks for the reception I'm doing next week. On the way back, go wherever you want for a few days. Just bring it back to me with full tanks."

2. "Sure you can borrow my new G36 Bonanza for a few days. Just bring it back to me with full tanks."

In both cases, the pilot is receiving something of value (free use of a an aircraft that has a pretty high dry rental value). But in only one case is the pilot receiving "compensation" because the owner is also receiving something of value in exchange.

Don't see the difference? Could be you don't want to.
 
Bumblebee said:
it's that you are getting something of value that you would otherwise have to pay for...then you can use the dollars you didn't pay for milk, french toast...bacon! mmmm bacon.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know what their argument is; it's just a bull argument. "Flight Time" has no inherent value. I can't buy with it, I can't trade with it, I can't sell it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
F9DXER said:
If I remember correctly, technically you only have to log flight time to show you meet the requirements or that you are current. Thus one is not required to log all hours flown. So in theory if it isn't logged, no compensation is received?

Now I could be wrong

Thats my useless 2 cents worth
Click to expand...
I think you're right. The only place I have ever found references to logging time is under part 61, Certification of pilots.
 
So what I'm getting from it is as a CFI/Commercial pilot time builder you can use a friends airplane if you contribute to the operating cost and supply fuel to it that you have used?

So go buy your friend a new nice bright fluorescent nav light lol?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top