Ferrying a Plane

[Ramsey]

You can.

The cost of the flight is $0.00 because it's owned and operated privately. IF you had to rent the a/c from a FBO or aero club where a 3rd party charges for the flight and the new owner wanted to pay for it then you'd have a problem. You are also not charging for the flight because you can't legally.

You can also log it. Or have you kept every rental receipt for every flight you have been PIC on to prove you were not compensated for the flight as a PPL?

If you want to be abso sure, you could pay for the gas you use.

 

[PA44-LUV]

Or have you kept every rental receipt for every flight you have been PIC on to prove you were not compensated for the flight as a PPL?

Hold on, I have to keep my rental receipts? Oops...

Oh wait, they can pull that up at the flight school if they really wanted to.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

If you want to be abso sure, you could pay for the gas you use.

The pro-rata share stuff only comes into play if you are carrying passengers. Rent the plane from him for $10/hour. Nothing says it can't be money-losing for him (no pax involved). Owners have been known to lose money renting planes before (to offset costs they would pay anyway).

If your buddy is your employer, you are also okay (assuming he is not in the aviation business). The flight would be incidental to your employment (assuming he generally pays you to do something else). Assuming you had a meeting with him out of town he would be paying you for anyway, then he could even pay you for the time.

Or, find a commercial pilot to go with you, then log PIC as sole manipulator (the regs say you can't "act," not "log."

The whole "flight time is compensation" argument sounds weak to me anyway, I've only heard of this happening with pax involved. If it really were "compensation," shouldn't airline captains be declaring the cost of their 737 PIC time on their taxes??? Why would the IRS ignore all this "compensation?" Give me a break. I'm not a lawyer though, so obviously, this ain't legal advice.

The bigger question is how your buddy's insurance company sees it. With no pax involved, and no money coming your way, I doubt the FAA would go after you. The insurance company would be the bigger challenge if there were a loss and they thought it was for hire. As long as the insurance company is cool, I would say go for it.


61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.
(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and
(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

 

[falconvalley]

When ever you log flight time you are being compensated. I think the FAA uses the flight time as compensation when they believe the pilot in question is specifically looking for the flight time and someone should actually be getting paid. If a friend said "here go fly my 172 for 2 hours", does that mean I'm being compensated with flight time illegally? Does that mean I can't do it? No.

What the FAA wants to know is this the kind of flight that would normally result in someone getting paid. Not necessarily, so you should be good as long as everybody agrees you're just flying the airplane from point A to point B and you're not doing it to complete the sale.

 

[Slot Pilot]

just fly the friggin flight and enjoy. Jesus H >>>>>>>>

 

[drunkenbeagle]

When ever you log flight time you are being compensated.

????

 

[falconvalley]

????

I guess my point is how do you know that you are or are not being compensated with flight time.

3 scenarios:

1. You have a flying lesson. You receive flight time as part of your compensation. Some might say "well, that isn't compensation because you're paying for it". I ask well, what is it, then?

2. You fly a friend's airplane. You receive flight time as part of your compensation. Was anything not legal here? Of course not, as stated, you just simply flew an airplane.

3. You fly some passengers from point A to point B. They have a need to be there. What kinds of things could make this illegal? There's a whole list of things that could. In the case of the FAA not being able to find anything, but in their opinion it should have been a charter, they cite flight time as illegal compensation. I think it's a stretch if you look at it from a legal definition stand point. But that's their opinion. So, the FAA has a policy that all costs need to be shared, pro rata. This is the burden of proving your own innocence.

 

[nosehair]

This bullcrap about flight time being deemed "compensation" is exactly why I don't want the government in charge of my healthcare (not trying to turn this into a political thread hijack).

..oooh, I love this one..couldn't pass it up.

Your immediate emotional response (Death Panels!!) to an on-line bit of info, which is incorrect, is exactly and precisely what I see as the Republican Response which is just to blow up and vent.

OK, so that.

The idea that flight time is compensation has (I think) ben done by the FAA in a case where (I think) the individual(s) were, in fact, skirting the real compensation rules. And then only when the flight time was used to apply for a certificate or rating. It was mostly a case of like getting the Mafia on tax-evasion. A technical violation.

 

[Douglas]

Well I must be a hard nose sob.

----
and logging or not logging, it makes no difference.

 

[germb747]

..oooh, I love this one..couldn't pass it up.

Your immediate emotional response (Death Panels!!) to an on-line bit of info, which is incorrect, is exactly and precisely what I see as the Republican Response which is just to blow up and vent.

OK, so that.

The idea that flight time is compensation has (I think) ben done by the FAA in a case where (I think) the individual(s) were, in fact, skirting the real compensation rules. And then only when the flight time was used to apply for a certificate or rating. It was mostly a case of like getting the Mafia on tax-evasion. A technical violation.

That was only one example; I could have used many. Unless I'm harming someone else, I'd like the government to stay out of my life unless absolutely necessary. Does that make me the Republican spokesperson? Otherwise, it sounded like you agreed with me that the idea of flight time being compensation is BS.

 

[nosehair]

Otherwise, it sounded like you agreed with me that the idea of flight time being compensation is BS.

Right. Right on topic. Disregard the other.

 

[trafficinsight]

The idea of flight time being compensation is not BS, the FAA does consider flight time to be compensation, but it's like that because someone once used the "Well I'm not getting paid" excuse for not being properly qualified to receive compensation for a flight.

The good news is, for the most part, they apply common sense to that definition... the bad news is that it might not always be that way.

 

[tlewis95]

I'll do it. =]

 

[germb747]

I found a link to some "common traps" in this area.

http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/traps.html

The example used to determine whether or not a PPL flying to gain experience is in violation of 61.113 is when a pilot volunteers to fly cargo on behalf of a third-party shipper. While the PPL is not being compensated, per se, the aircraft is still being operated for compensation or hire (because the shipping company is still getting paid). The shipping company is also avoiding operating under the rules of Part 135 for using a "volunteer" pilot. In this case, I see no difference between the PPL who logs the time versus the PPL who doesn't log the time. He's still acting as PIC of an aircraft being operated for compensation or hire--illegal regardless.

As for a Part 91 ferry flight, even commercial pilots aren't subjected to Part 135 rules, so there's no effort being made to circumvent those requirements. Thus, how is "logging flight time" considered compensation any more than "gaining experience" or "enjoying oneself". And like someone else brought up earlier, if it were compensation, the IRS would tax it.

Regardless, to stay out a pain-in-the-arse FAA investigation and trial, best take your friend with you and share the operating expenses with him. Or, get your CPL ASAP. (But, that's a whole other bucket of worms. You'll learn more about "holding out", "operating certificates", "common carriage", and "ops specs" than you ever wanted to).

 

[Hooha]

..oooh, I love this one..couldn't pass it up.

Your immediate emotional response (Death Panels!!) to an on-line bit of info, which is incorrect, is exactly and precisely what I see as the Republican Response which is just to blow up and vent.

OK, so that.

The idea that flight time is compensation has (I think) ben done by the FAA in a case where (I think) the individual(s) were, in fact, skirting the real compensation rules. And then only when the flight time was used to apply for a certificate or rating. It was mostly a case of like getting the Mafia on tax-evasion. A technical violation.

It's because of the government that those people sat in an airplane overnight in Rochester. Everyone was scared to do what they knew was right because they feared what the government (TSA) would do to the m for just letting their passengers off of an airplane.

Are Republicans acting right? I don't know. But the less government we have over us then the better off we will be. Think about that when your dropping $150 bucks or whatever on your new TSA badge just so you can walk to your 172 at the FBO that you have been working at for years.

mtu

 

[stesta5074]

It's because of the government that those people sat in an airplane overnight in Rochester. Everyone was scared to do what they knew was right because they feared what the government (TSA) would do to the m for just letting their passengers off of an airplane.

Are Republicans acting right? I don't know. But the less government we have over us then the better off we will be. Think about that when your dropping $150 bucks or whatever on your new TSA badge just so you can walk to your 172 at the FBO that you have been working at for years.

mtu

Well said. I wish liberals were the only ones subjected to their great ideas.

 

[texas_pilot]

I turned this opportunity down, but I figured I would ask here anyway.

I have a friend who just a sold a Cessna 150 to a guy Alabama. I was wondering would it be legal to fly the plane down to Alabama for my friend? The buyer would buy me a plane ticket back to TOL. No compensation, and I wouldn't be logging the time.

I have a Private w/ Instrument. I'm leaning heavily towards no, but I want to be sure.

Let him go it himself, or else Test pilots are paid how much per flight to risk landing in the trees?

 

[drunkenbeagle]

And like someone else brought up earlier, if it were compensation, the IRS would tax it.

It was me that brought that up.

The issue is really "Would the FAA consider the operation to be done for hire?" The litmus test for this would most likely be - "Would someone normally get paid for this?"

In the case of your buddy moving a plane, no - no one would get paid. He would fly it himself (and obviously not pay himself). You doing him a favor would be fine.

FBOs have planes that get stuck places all them time (WX, maintenance, TFRs, etc). I've never heard of an FBO getting busted for having a PPL ferry it back. I have heard of FBOs getting in trouble with PPLs flying A&Ps around - so be careful on that one.

 

[Ramsey]

I ("or a friend of mine") ferried some aircraft parts on a long x-try in a 172. I was a student and had a CFI with me. I paid the CFI for his time and the lesson. The rest was free because the FBO needed the part and was going to fly down to pick up the part anyway.

To log or not to log?

 

[Nihon_Ni]

I agree with everyone who said logging time shouldn't be considered compensation.

The problem is, the FAA does consider flight time as compensation and they don't take JC opinion polls.

It's not legal for a private pilot to work as a pilot (except for a few cases stated in the FARs). Even if that pilot thinks his time is worthless, the FAA still thinks it's worth something. The act of logging or not logging he time has had nothing to do with it.

The OP's question was, "would it be legal..." It most definitely would not be legal in the FAA's eyes. A review of previous enforcements proves that, no matter how much we disagree with it.