Ferrying a Plane

[drunkenbeagle]

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.

Can you cite an Advisory Circular or FAR to this effect? The only ones I know of involved passengers or cargo in one way or another. Would things be different if the plane belonged to the OP's Dad? His wife? His boss? If he was a part owner of the plane?

 

[fly6785]

I bet the guy your flying the airplane to is working as an undercover FAA inspector waiting to catch ya...:laff: I would do the flight...

 

[Nihon_Ni]

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.

Can you cite an Advisory Circular or FAR to this effect? The only ones I know of involved passengers or cargo in one way or another. Would things be different if the plane belonged to the OP's Dad? His wife? His boss? If he was a part owner of the plane?

Here's what I'm basing my statements on:

61.113(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.

This exerpt is from the now defunct FAQ. The opinion expressed below shows that the FAA views flight time as compensation.

QUESTION: Section 61.113(g) was revised in 1997 and states, “(g) A private pilot who meets the requirements of §61.69 of this part may act as pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider.” On October 30, 1990, the FAA Office of Chief Counsel rendered a legal interpretation [See FAA Legal Interpretation No. 1990‑30] in response to a request for clarification of several FAA opinions that addressed whether private pilots may act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft towing gliders. Under the 1990 interpretation, it was understood that no money was being paid to the private pilot. The glider pilot being towed was paying a tow fee to the glider club. The tow pilot was flying the tow airplane without charge. The interpretation states: “that a private pilot may not serve as a pilot in command of such an operation [towing gliders] even when he/she elects to forego actual monetary compensation for service as pilot in command, since, as stated, the private pilot is rendering his/her services to build (flight) time. This act, within itself, constitutes an operation for gain or advantage, other than for transportation alone. As such, it would be considered an operation for compensation or hire . . .
Does the promulgation of § 61.113(g) void Legal Interpretation No. 1990‑30 for a person who holds a private pilot certificate and who meets the qualification requirements of § 61.69 to act as pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider and to be able log that time as ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1:stocktickeruk>PIC flight time? Otherwise, can a private pilot act and log pilot in command flight time when towing a glider even when the tow pilot (i.e., the private pilot) is not paying for use of the tow airplane and is accumulating flight time and not paying for it?

<O</OANSWER: Ref. § 61.113(g); Yes, a person who holds a private pilot certificate and meets the requirements of § 61.69 may act as pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider. And yes, a private pilot who meets the requirements of §61.69 may log pilot in command flight time while towing a glider.

<O</OReferring to the preamble of the notice of proposed rulemaking for amendments to Part 61 (which included the addition of § 61.113(g) (60 Fed Reg 41181, 41207; August 11, 1995), it states:

<O</O“Finally, a new provision would be added to clarify that a private pilot who meets the requirements of § 61.69 may act as <st1:stocktickeruk w:st="on">PIC</st1:stocktickeruk> of an aircraft towing a glider and log that flight time. This is consistent with current and proposed § 61.69.”

<O</OThis was reiterated in the disposition of comments under the final rule (62 Fed Reg 16266, 16267; April 4, 1997):

<O</O“Proposed paragraph (f) permitted a private pilot who met the requirements of proposed § 61.69 to act as pilot in command when towing gliders.”

<O</O“SSA approves of proposed § 61.113(f) permitting private pilots who meet the requirements of § 61.69 to act as pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider. SSA points out that the explanation on page 41207 of the Notice No. 95‑11 indicates that the pilot will be able to log this time. SSA suggests that § 61.113(f) be modified to this effect.”

<O</OAlthough the October 30, 1990, legal interpretation referenced in the question arose in the context of glider towing, it was really about the proposition that the logging of flight time where one is not paying for the cost of the operation constitutes a form of compensation. Furthermore, the interpretation was drafted prior to the amendments to Part 61 and the promulgation of § 61.113(g). Pursuant to § 61.113 (g), a private pilot may log <st1:stocktickeruk w:st="on">PIC</st1:stocktickeruk> flight time while towing a glider. The FAA typically does not "withdraw" opinions where a change in statute or regulation alters the validity or scope of application of the opinion. In the case of the 1990 opinion arising in the context of glider towing, the opinion still has vitality for the proposition that the logging of flight time can be a form of compensation impermissible under § 61.113 even though the regulations now permit such logging in the context of glider towing by virtue of the 1998 rule change.{Q&A‑619}<O</O

Flying for compensation or hire is a commercial pilot privilege with the exception of a few exceptions stated in 61.113. Ferrying an airplane for someone else isn't one of those exceptions.

 

[germb747]

Would anyone care to enlighten me as to why logging flight time is considered 'compensation' in certain instances, but not others?

In other words, if logging flight time is, in itself, compensation, then why is it permissible for a PPL to EVER log flight time, even when pro rata expenses are paid.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Flying for compensation or hire is a commercial pilot privilege with the exception of a few exceptions stated in 61.113. Ferrying an airplane for someone else isn't one of those exceptions.

By that logic, it would follow that ANY operation of an aircraft that you do not own, other than glider towing and the other exceptions in 61.113, would be prohibited. The glider example doesn't really apply here, because in that case, the towplane is operated for hire, presumably with the glider operation having a commercial operators certificate.

For instance, say I take a friend in my plane, to act as a safety pilot. He doesn't pay me anything. He logs PIC or total time. Isn't he now being compensated with the flight time? How is that any different?

This appears to be two separate questions: 1) Is moving an airplane inherently for compensation or hire? 2) Is flying a friends airlpane inherently compensation?

And finally, does ferrying a towplane require a commercial certificate? (There is no longer a glider in tow, so 61.113 would seem not to apply)

 

[drunkenbeagle]

In other words, if logging flight time is, in itself, compensation, then why is it permissible for a PPL to EVER log flight time, even when pro rata expenses are paid.

Actually, I've seen legal interpretations saying that you can't carry passengers who pay a pro-rata share of the flight because "hour-building" is compensation. So, I guess you really need ATP minimums before it is safe to carry any passengers at all.

I've been looking for an enforcement action for a PPL flying a friends plane without paying him, as of yet, I haven't found one.

 

[rd757]

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.

We ferry our planes to our House Mx all the time. PPL do it from time to time.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

We ferry our planes to our House Mx all the time. PPL do it from time to time.

The issue I have heard of is a PPL flying a mechanic around, not the plane itself.

 

[rd757]

The issue I have heard of is a PPL flying a mechanic around, not the plane itself.

Yeah, out A&P's drive up if the Mx has to be done where the school is.

 

[Divine Wind]

Would anyone care to enlighten me as to why logging flight time is considered 'compensation' in certain instances, but not others?

I think a better understanding of how the FAA views "for compensation or for hire" is in order.

This linked .pdf primarily covers commercial pilots, but it does give insight to what PPL's can do or not do: http://www.whitfieldlaw.com/documents/resources/Part_91_v_1172184043843.pdf

Page 3:

Fifth, the terms “for compensation or hire” are construed by the FAA very broadly. For
example, even if no charge is made for pilot service, but the cost of renting the aircraft is passed
onto the customer, that constitutes “for compensation or hire.” Also, even if no money or
remuneration changes hands, say, as for example, a pilot provides an aircraft and pilot for a
customer simply so the pilot “can get more flying experience,” that will be considered by the
FAA as flying “for compensation or hire” and will be deemed a Part 135 operation.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

This linked .pdf primarily covers commercial pilots, but it does give insight to what PPL's can do or not do: http://www.whitfieldlaw.com/documents/resources/Part_91_v_1172184043843.pdf

The link covers the difference between private and commercial operations, not pilots. I think we can all agree the OP's flight in question was clearly a private part 91 operation not involving passengers or goods.

I'm breaking out my typewriter and sending a letter to the FSDO for clarification on this one.

 

[Divine Wind]

The link covers the difference between private and commercial operations, not pilots.

How do you define a "private operation"?

I thought this part pointed out that the pilot actually doing the flying would, indeed, be flying for compensation. Maybe I'm wrong. :

"Also, even if no money or remuneration changes hands, say, as for example, a pilot provides an aircraft and pilot for a customer simply so the pilot “can get more flying experience,” that will be considered by the FAA as flying “for compensation or hire” and will be deemed a Part 135 operation.

Consulting the FSDO is always a good idea. Same goes for contacting any ASC's. They know who to ask if they don't know the answer themselves.

 

[germb747]

I think a better understanding of how the FAA views "for compensation or for hire" is in order.

This linked .pdf primarily covers commercial pilots, but it does give insight to what PPL's can do or not do: http://www.whitfieldlaw.com/documents/resources/Part_91_v_1172184043843.pdf

Page 3:

In general, this document is consistent with my understanding of flying for compensation or hire. After all, any newly-certificated commercial pilot knows (or ought to know) that the mere possession of a CPL and 2nd class medical does not constitute an operating certificate, but that they may be employed by a certificate holder (provided applicable requirements under Part 135, etc, are met).

Here's the part that throws me a curveball:
=============================================

A little-known fact is this: a pilot with a commercial certificate, and/or Class II medical, who does not have a flight operation licensed with a Part 135 certificate, is, at all times, exercising the rights and privileges of a private pilot under Part 91. (emphasis added)
=============================================

In fact, it is very possible for a commercial pilot to fly for compensation or hire without a operating certificate. Take a look at PART 119—CERTIFICATION: AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS, which spells out who must hold air carrier certificates and commercial operator certificates, and who must not. Specifically excluded are, among other types of operations, student instruction, nonstop commercial air tours (subject to a LOA), Ferry or training flights, Crop dusting, seeding, spraying, bird chasing, banner towing, aerial photography or survey, fire fighting, and powerline or pipeline patrol.​

Quoting again from the document:
=============================================

Also, even if no money or remuneration changes hands, say, as for example, a pilot provides an aircraft and pilot for a customer simply so the pilot “can get more flying experience,” that will be considered by the FAA as flying “for compensation or hire” and will be deemed a Part 135 operation.
=============================================

This is the only part of the document that addresses the issue of compensation and logging flight time. In the example of acting as an air taxi (even for free), then I can see how the rule would apply. However, I already proved (above) that Part 91 ferry flights (the subject of the thread) is not a Part 135 operation, in any way, shape or form. Therefore, the issue becomes--is the mere act of logging flight time in a Part 91 operation considered "compensation" by the FAA? If yes, then it'd be illegal for private pilots to log flight time, period, as it would be 'compensation', even if they were beating up the pattern solo. My take on it is that you have to look at the overall purpose of the flight. The purpose of this flight is to move an airplane from one place to another, as a favor to a friend, not to make profit or simply gain free flight experience for the sake of logging hours.

Doug, it's great that we have an in-house aviation medical examiner. Could get maybe solicit an in-house lawyer too? ​

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Also, even if no money or remuneration changes hands, say, as for example, a pilot provides an aircraft and pilot for a customer simply so the pilot “can get more flying experience,” that will be considered by the FAA as flying “for compensation or hire”and will be deemed a Part 135 operation.

"For a customer" is the key phrase here. Once you take the customer part out, we aren't talking about part 135 any more. What this is saying is that I can't have a private pilot flying my customers around. I can fly them around myself if it is incidental to my business (we are going to the same meeting in the same city).

The part 91 vs part 135 is a totally separate thing from PPL vs. Commercial. Netjets and other fractional schemes are almost all part 91 with commercial pilots doing the flying. They are "private" operations because the "customer" is a part "owner."

 

[Nihon_Ni]

Yes, but in this case the OP is not a part owner, and the trip is not incidental; and those two facts change the nature of this deal. If it weren't for the owner needing his plane moved, the OP wouldn't be going.

It's an interesting discussion, but the only opinion that counts here is the FAA's. Personally, I wouldn't be willing to bet my ticket that the FAA would not view the owner as a customer and the flight as compensation.