Hypothetical situation........

[ QUOTE ]
You should be paid for this. If you didn't go he would hire someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a minute... you're not getting paid to fly with him! Then what was the use of that thing in your wallet that says "Commercial Pilot"... ?

Get Paid! Don't do it for free!
 
It shouldn't really matter either way. 91.321 states that you may be paid to fly a candidate for a federal election or an agent of such canidate. Heavy stuff.

Ethan
 
[ QUOTE ]
It shouldn't really matter either way. 91.321 states that you may be paid to fly a candidate for a federal election or an agent of such canidate. Heavy stuff.

Ethan

[/ QUOTE ]
What if the candidate is for a state, not national, position?

Related question; if the owner/pilot is donating the flights to the political party (and the candidate), are there any circumstances when the flights would be considered anything other than Part 91? For example, if the owner/pilot is taking a tax write-off for political donation, can this be considered compensation in a manner that would take the flights out of Part 91 and into Part 135 (again assuming state official, not fed)?

[/devil's advocate]
 
You can get paid for part 91, that's not the difference. The difference is "Holding Out". If you express a willingness to carry anyone for a fee, then you are 135... If you are just flying this one guy around and getting paid for it (which I hope you will!) it's still 91.

This is a BIG gray area in the regs... takes a lawyer or 50 to figure it out I think. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
That's an easy one. You should log it all as PIC. As long as you guys aren't doing anything for compensation or for hire, then it's under part 91. If all the facts have been stated, it sounds pretty simple. 91.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so fast. The FAA views 'compensation' as building flight time EVEN IF NOT PAID. You'll be counting that time toward a future certificate (ATP) and as such you are getting compensated.

He can get paid (compensation) and the flight could still be under part 91 rules. If the guy in back is paying to be there, then that's 135 (unless it was his airplane to begin with).

From what it sounds like, this gentleman you'll be flying with is donating his time and airplane to fly the guy in back around, right?

~wheelsup
 
As long as it is company business it's not 135.

If the passenger is paying for the seat to go from point to point, then it becomes charter. If he works for the company it is commercial 91.

In any case, a required pilot (by insurance or any other regs) should be paid to sit there.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Not so fast. The FAA views 'compensation' as building flight time EVEN IF NOT PAID. You'll be counting that time toward a future certificate (ATP) and as such you are getting compensated.

[/ QUOTE ]You can get a little too crazy with the flight time as compensation analysis.

Your friend Joe calls and says, "Hey, my friend Pete and I are flying down to Bigtown for the game. Wanna come with us?" You say sure, fly part of the trip and log the time. Oops! Logging time with a passenger on board! Compensation? I doubt it.

FWIW I think that the FAA looks at the character of the flight first and then at the compensation issue. One of the famous FAA Legal opinions on this was the glider tow pilot receiving flight time as compensation. But even in that case, the glider pilot was paying =someone=, so the situation was in fact a commercial one.

I don't really have an opinion on this situation. I agree with John that assuming the company isn't charging the passenger anything, and it's all for company business, it's all under Part 91.

But I'm a little concerned that this guy [ QUOTE ]
bought a twin (through a company he owns) for various reasons. One being to transport someone around for free.

[/ QUOTE ] One of the =purposes= for buying the airplane was to provide air transportation? "Free" or not, that raises a red flag for me that there's more here than meets the eye.

There was also a logging issue brought up. lruppert, it's pretty clear that the only PIC time you can log in this situation is when you are the sole manipulator of the controls. If you're just sitting there riding along because the insurance company wants a second pilot on board, there's nothing for you to log.
 
If the insurance company requires 25 hrs of supervised operating experience for the owner, I seriously doubt that you meet their experience requirements anyway. Having two unqualified pilots at the controls defeats the whole purpose of SOE in the first place. It just means that the insurance company will have to pay out more damages if there is an accident.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If the insurance company requires 25 hrs of supervised operating experience for the owner, I seriously doubt that you meet their experience requirements anyway. Having two unqualified pilots at the controls defeats the whole purpose of SOE in the first place. It just means that the insurance company will have to pay out more damages if there is an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]
Kind of a good point. I was wondering about this myself.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the insurance company requires 25 hrs of supervised operating experience for the owner, I seriously doubt that you meet their experience requirements anyway. Having two unqualified pilots at the controls defeats the whole purpose of SOE in the first place. It just means that the insurance company will have to pay out more damages if there is an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]
Kind of a good point. I was wondering about this myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you say makes sense, but I don't know all the specifics yet.

I haven't talked to the guy yet but when I do, I'll let ya'll know.

And to add more to this convo, Don't you think two pilots would be better than one?
 
[ QUOTE ]
And to add more to this convo, Don't you think two pilots would be better than one?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read many people say that two pilots can very well be worse than one if the pilots don't have any CRM-type training and aren't really prepared to share cockpit duties.
 
Any specific fars you can point me to to try to stay in this conversation /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif?
 
I flew along with a couple of owners of a 340 who were both fairly high time pilots but who needed a CFIIMEI along to fulfill insurance requirments for a specified # of hours. I had more time than you (well over 2,000 and an ATP with 400+multi). We happened to not have any passengers on board. There was another instructor who also flew with them for some of the hours and he had a lot of 340 time. The ironic thing is that there are situations in which a properly rated CFI can fulfill insurance requirements for owner-pilots but not himself be insurable, or be insurable only at a very high premium, if he were to try to rent or simply fly (say, on a shared expenses Part 91 basis) the very same aircraft for his own personal use. Many policies also have an "open pilot" provision, and you may be surprised to find that you yourself might not qualify and would need an instructor to fly with you. However, despite all this, you STILL might qualify as a ride-along instructor. Actually, from the insurance company's point of view (and maybe the passenger's?) you probably will be the PIC, as the owner is not insurable on his own yet. In any event, double check with the insurance company, or have the owner do it, to make sure that you and the operation are covered. You have 2 or 3 potential claimants here: the owner, the passenger, and possibly even the insurance company itself. Might even want to get your own CFI policy, if you don't already have one, and see if it covers you for this operation. True that test for 135 is generally comp or hire. I haven't checked to see if there's anything special about donations to candidates/political parties. (By the way, are you being paid?) The 340 is an enjoyable airplane to fly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top