Does 61.113 apply if your parents fund your flight training?

of the flight but not for the time of the pilot...sorry I wasn't clear.
MidlifeFlyer said:
But you specifically said "they pay for the entire cost." Payment is enough; profit is not a requirement (or there's a whole bunch of airlines that could drop their 121 certificates),

Dead link: They changed the mappings; I'm still catching up. Here's a working link; http://goo.gl/dZmwO3
Click to expand...

my point was, if an ATP who doesn't need flight time (because he's already marketable and has a job), has friends that want to be dropped off somewhere, where is the compensation if he flies them for the cost of the rental? I'm really not trying to argue here merely to clarify. I don't think we are at a meeting of the minds yet.


thank you for the working link :)
 
Crop Duster said:
OK, I"m gonna say this one more time... When you don't know the answer to a question, DON'T go writing to the FAA for the answer.....
The great thing about aviation is that, largely, it's rules are enforced after something bad has happened. That gives us all a lot more leeway and freedom than most other parts of society enjoy. It also places the responsibility not to be stupid squarely where it should be... on us, as pilots.
If you enjoy this freedom, stop giving the FAA easy pre-emptive targets by inquiring about specifics. !
Click to expand...
MidlifeFlyer said:
we're talking about understanding the rules. After all, since ignorance is not a defense anyway, it's probably best to try to understand a rule before deciding it's ok to break it.
Click to expand...
asked and answered...
as well as my question about personally not needing time...
interesting and thanks.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...009/bobertz - (2009) legal interpretation.pdf
 
Last edited:
Edit: didn't see your follow-up before I posted this.

Bumblebee said:
of the flight but not for the time of the pilot...sorry I wasn't clear.

my point was, if an ATP who doesn't need flight time (because he's already marketable and has a job), has friends that want to be dropped off somewhere, where is the compensation if he flies them for the cost of the rental? I'm really not trying to argue here merely to clarify. I don't think we are at a meeting of the minds yet.


thank you for the working link :)
Click to expand...

He's renting an airplane and then carrying passengers in exchange for the cost of goods he would otherwise be paying himself He's being compensated for the cost of goods. That's not even really arguable as not being compensation, even without the FAA's skewed views. Repayment for costs of goods is as much "income" (although offset by deductive expenses) as payment for costs of services. The home improvement contractor is as much in business when he charges for materials as when he charges for services.

And it's very clearly compensation in the FAA's eyes. What sometimes gets missed is that 61.113 does not say that shared expense is not compensation; it says shared expense is permissible compensation.

If we're not meeting minds, it might be because there's a universally used definition of compensation you don't agree with. If we're not working with the same basic definitions, we can't meet minds.
 
yeah, I was thinking that if I don't eat cat food or have need for it, and you give me cat food for a flight, it's not compensation...but the FAA sees cat food as having intrinsic value, even if I have no personal need.

I think we're eye to I now ;)
 
Bumblebee said:
yeah, I was thinking that if I don't eat cat food or have need for it, and you give me cat food for a flight, it's not compensation...but the FAA sees cat food as having intrinsic value, even if I have no personal need.

I think we're eye to I now ;)
Click to expand...

I think so. Of course, if you don't have any personal need for the money and it has no value to you, don't take it and fly them at your own expense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top